Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[Edan]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
As if the Israeli army didn't deliberately or accidentally, or most likely both, killed 1000's of other kids since this event happened? Or at least 100's.

Certainly not thousands. And, IIRC, the last time I saw a listing of the death tolls (by AP, I think), the number of deaths of Palestinians under 14 was in the double digits. And that includes cases like the above where the Palestinians were the ones doing the killing.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Jaakko


a) Infantry support weapons might well be of a different calibre.

b) I seem to distinctly recall Israel arming the Palestinian security forces at some point, with US-made weapons.

I'm just interested in getting the facts straight.

Jaako, the facts are that the Israelis would have had to shoot through the barrel to hit the boy. The barrel was not shot through. Therefore, the Israelis did not hit the boy.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GP
Well what about the Liberty? I could see Israeli's lying. They are a besieged country and will do what they need to do...

Sigh...

Unfriendly Fire
A Review by Michael Oren

In 1967, at the height of the Six Day War, Israeli jets strafed and firebombed a seemingly hostile ship near the Sinai coast. Israeli torpedo boats quickly converged to finish the job, then abruptly ceased fire and offered assistance to the battered crew. Israel had attacked the USS Liberty. In all, 34 Americans died, and 171 were injured. Israeli leaders apologized promptly and profusely, explaining that they had mistaken the Liberty for an enemy vessel — an explanation that subsequent investigations in both the United States and Israel upheld. Israel compensated the injured sailors and the families of those killed. And that's where the story should have ended. After all, accidental attacks, though tragic, are common in war. In 1967 alone, "friendly fire" killed 5,373 Americans fighting in Vietnam.

But the controversy over the Liberty attack has endured, generating conspiracy theories, ethnic defamation, and charges of mass homicide. And, although a series of recently declassified documents seem to exonerate the Israelis once and for all, a new book, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, has resurrected the canard by setting forth what is arguably the most audacious theory of all: that the Israelis deliberately attacked the Liberty to cover up a massacre of Egyptian prisoners of war. Written by James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, and published by Doubleday, the book has enjoyed a largely respectful, and frequently credulous, reception in the American press. Yet Body of Secrets has no more basis in fact than its predecessors. Indeed, it may be the shoddiest screed of all.

The Liberty's fateful voyage began on June 2, 1967, when it set sail from Spain for the Middle East. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had just ousted U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai, blockaded Israeli shipping through the Tiran Straits, and prepared the Arab world for a war of Israel's destruction. A wary White House instructed the Sixth Fleet to stay "outside an arc whose radius is 240 miles from [the Egyptian city of] Port Said." But, according to communications recently released by the National Archives, the Liberty's handlers in the National Security Agency ignored the order and directed the ship to a point just outside Egypt's territorial waters, a mere 12.5 miles, where it could eavesdrop on Egyptian officers and their Soviet advisers. Five subsequent cables from the Navy's European headquarters warned the Liberty to pull back to at least 100 miles, but the Navy's overly sophisticated radio system diverted them to the Philippines, and none reached the ship in time.

Approaching the battle area at dawn, the Liberty's skipper, Commander William L. McGonagle, requested a destroyer escort, only to be reminded by the commander of the Sixth Fleet that the "Liberty is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters ... and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation." Israel, meanwhile, requested that the United States provide a naval liaison to facilitate its communication with the Navy. Israeli Ambassador Avraham Harman had warned the White House that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet." The United States never approved the liaison, nor did it inform Israel of the Liberty's arrival in the area.


Although it arrived too late to fulfill its original mission — most of Sinai had already fallen to Israel, so there were no Egyptian troops there to spy on — the Liberty nevertheless began patrolling between Port Said and Gaza, in a lane rarely used by commercial freighters and declared by Egypt as off-limits to neutral shipping. On June 8, just before six o'clock in the morning, an Israeli pilot reported finding a naval craft ("gray, bulky, with its bridge amidships") 70 miles west of Gaza. Though he did not report seeing a flag, he made out the hull marking "GTR-5," which was enough for Israeli commanders to identify the ship as the USS Liberty and to mark it as a neutral vessel on their control board. But at eleven o'clock in the morning, the watch at Israeli naval headquarters changed. The new officers, following procedures for removing old information and assuming the Liberty had sailed away, cleaned the board. For Israeli forces, the Liberty had ceased to exist.

It would prove a key error. Less than a half-hour later, Israeli soldiers in the Sinai coastal town of El Arish heard a violent explosion. The cause was probably a detonation in an ammunition dump, but when the Israelis saw a ship off the coast, they assumed it was bombarding them, prompting the Israeli navy to dispatch three torpedo boats. The boats' commanders had standing orders to fire on any vessel going faster than 20 knots — a speed then attainable only by warships — and, miscalculating their target's speed as 30 knots, they prepared to attack.

At that point, the Liberty turned toward Egypt. Worried they would lose their prey, Israeli naval commanders called in the air force. Two Mirages quickly swooped in. Returning from a bombing run, they were armed only with 30millimeter cannons and air-to-air missiles — hardly ideal for attacking a boat. But, failing to see either flags or markings on the ship, they strafed it. Minutes later came a second group of planes, equally ill-suited for a naval engagement: They carried napalm, a weapon used against land targets. But they dropped their canisters anyway, and one set fire to the deck, enshrouding the ship in smoke.

It was at this junction that one Israeli pilot finally recognized Latin, not Arabic, letters on the hull, prompting Israeli air controllers to call off the action immediately. But, thanks to a breakdown in communications — again, a common occurrence in the heat of battle — the order never reached the navy. Israeli torpedo boats caught up with the Liberty just as one of the American sailors on board, heedless of McGonagle's order not to fire on the approaching craft, opened up with a deck gun. The Israeli captain consulted his intelligence manual, concluded that the ship shooting at him was the Egyptian naval freighter El Quseir, and fired back torpedoes. Just one hit, but it killed 25 men. The torpedo boats then closed in and circled the ship, strafing it with machine-gun fire, until the captain of one boat saw "GTR-5" on the hull. He immediately halted fire, extended help to the Liberty, and called for rescue helicopters.




For many years following the attack, these details remained unknown — hidden in classified U.S. documents. And, in their absence, conspiracy theories flourished. The most damning made its debut in 1979, when Jim Ennes Jr., a former officer from the Liberty, published a book, Assault on the Liberty, arguing that the Israelis knew precisely who and what they were attacking. The Liberty's hull was distinctly marked, Ennes wrote, and a large American flag flew from its mast; yet Israeli ships and planes fired anyway. The motive? Israel, Ennes said, wanted to hide its impending conquest of Syria's Golan Heights, an invasion Washington opposed. The fact that the Israelis offered to assist the ship when they could easily have sunk it, or were unlikely to risk conflict with their most important ally, did not daunt Ennes. Ennes's theory found its way into Donald Neff's Warriors for Jerusalem (a pseudo-history of the Six Day War) and Stephen Green's sensationalist Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak took up the charge in their syndicated political column, as did a 1987 special on ABC's "20/20." Joining the cavalcade was Bamford, whose 1982 book The Puzzle Palace denounced Israel for masking its Golan aggression with "a violent act of terrorism" against the Liberty. Former American officials, such as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Thomas Moorer and U.N. Ambassador George Ball, have endorsed Ennes's theory. By 1995 an article in The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence could claim that "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately." (Ironically, only Arab authors believed the attack was accidental, insisting that the Liberty had actually been spying for Israel.)

Then, in 1997, American and Israeli archives, observing the 30-year declassification rule, began releasing top-secret documents relevant to the case. On the U.S. side, these included the minutes of the Naval Board of Inquiry; communications between the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House, and the Sixth Fleet; and internal CIA and National Security Agency (NSA) memoranda. Jerusalem made available the findings of three military investigations and a wealth of relevant diplomatic correspondence. Together, the new sources enabled researchers to reconstruct the precise sequence of events as described above. They also provided one other crucial piece of evidence: Diplomatic cables showed that Israel had informed Washington of its intention to attack Syria and that Washington had not objected — which eliminated Israel's supposed motive for the crime.


So why are we still talking about the Liberty? Because Bamford, in his book, has discovered a new motive for Israel's alleged conspiracy. The day of the attack, he says, Israeli soldiers slaughtered 1,000 Egyptian civilians and prisoners of war near El Arish because they had become "nuisances" to their captors. The Liberty, Bamford goes on to explain, intercepted messages about the murders — and the Israelis feared word of their deeds might leak out. And so, Bamford concludes, they dispatched their armed forces with orders to kill. "[T]he Israelis had massacred civilians and prisoners in the desert," he writes, "and now they were prepared to ensure that no American survived the sinking of the Liberty."

There are a lot of reasons to question Bamford's credibility, starting with his rather curious reading of Middle Eastern history. For example, Bamford says Israel initiated hostilities against Syria and Jordan, when it happened the other way around. There's also the fact that he cites not one shred of evidence to prove that the Liberty ever intercepted a message about the alleged massacre. And then there's the question of whether such a massacre occurred at all. Israel captured more than 10,000 Egyptians in the Six Day War, but there are no known records — Israeli, American, Egyptian, or U.N. — of the Israelis mistreating them, let alone shooting them. Egypt has ruled the Sinai for over 20 years, yet it has never uncovered any mass grave. While there were certainly isolated incidents of Israeli abuses, there's simply no reason to believe the massacre of 1,000 Egyptians ever took place. Indeed, Bamford's evidence on this point, which consists of a few testimonials, falls apart under even light scrutiny.

Consider, first, the statement of Gabi Bron, who today covers the Knesset for Yediot Aharonot, Israel's largest daily. In the book, Bamford says Bron witnessed a massacre of 150 Egyptian prisoners at El Arish, citing a press clipping in which Bron is quoted as follows: "The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered to dig pits and then army police shot them to death." But the Bron statement refers not to a mass killing of Egyptians but to an isolated incident: the execution of five Palestinian guerrillas who had posed as Egyptian soldiers after killing Israelis. Bamford would have learned this if, instead of relying on a clip, he had actually spoken to Bron, who is easily reachable. "The one hundred and fifty POWs were not shot, and there were no mass murders," Bron told me when I called. "In fact, we helped prisoners, gave them water, and in most cases just sent them in the direction of the [Suez] Canal."

As further corroborating evidence, Bamford cites a statement by Aryeh Yitzhaki, a former historian of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In the statement — which Bamford also clipped from the press — Yitzhaki talks of compiling a report, which the army later suppressed, on mass killings. "Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff [Yitzhak] Rabin and the generals knew about these things," Yitzhaki is quoted as saying. "No one bothered to denounce them." But, once again, the source himself contradicts Bamford's interpretation. "In no case did Israel initiate massacres," Yitzhaki wrote me. "On the contrary, it did everything it could to prevent them." Yitzhaki admits that hundreds of Palestinian commandos were killed around El Arish. But that was in combat, he says, after they ambushed the IDF supply columns. Moreover, that battle took place on the night of June 9, more than a day after the attack on the Liberty.

Bamford does cite an anonymous Egyptian who confirms the massacre. But, being anonymous, the source is impossible to verify. In addition, Bamford tries to prove guilt by association — or, at least, proximity — by noting that Israeli troops near El Arish were commanded by Ariel Sharon, the man "indirectly responsible" for the 1982 massacres in Lebanon. But Sharon's divisions were in Nakhle, more than 40 miles from El Arish; the coastal area was under the command of Israel Tal, a man not known for right-wing views.

Finally, Bamford relies on the recollections of Marvin E. Nowicki. Today, Nowicki is a retired political scientist from Southern Illinois University. In 1967 he was a chief petty officer aboard an NSA aircraft spying on Israel. Fluent in Hebrew and Russian, Nowicki was listening to Israeli transmissions on the afternoon of June 8 when another translator mentioned hearing something about an "American flag." The voice emanated from a surface vessel, which Nowicki later deduced was one of the torpedo boats.

Bamford seizes on that as grounds for indictment: "If the Israelis did see a flag, then the attack was cold-blooded murder — like the hundreds of earlier murders committed that day at El Arish." Cunningly, he inserts Nowicki's recollections immediately before his description of the torpedo attack, creating the impression that the Israelis first saw the flag, then fired. Further spliced into Nowicki's account are bloodthirsty quotes from Israeli pilots, as if Bamford were in possession of the spy plane's tapes. But the quotes were snipped, out of context, from a transcript of IDF communications made available to a 1987 Thames Television special on the Liberty. That very same transcript proved that the pilots went to great lengths to identify the ship and took considerable risks to rescue its survivors, whom they assumed were Egyptian.

Nowicki had given Bamford his written testimony in the misguided belief that the author planned to extol the NSA's legacy. That document, provided to me by Judge A. Jay Cristol, a former naval aviator and author of a forthcoming book on the Liberty, unequivocally states: "Our intercepts showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." Nowicki explains that the torpedo boats reported sighting the flag after the action had begun and stopped firing immediately. He later reiterated this conviction in a letter to The Wall Street Journal, affirming that "the aircraft and MTBs [Motor Torpedo Boats] prosecuted the Liberty until their operators had an opportunity to get close-in and see the flag, hence the references to the flag."

Having laid out his theory of the attack, Bamford moves on to the alleged cover-up. Following the assault on the Liberty, he writes, American Jewish organizations conspired with the Johnson administration to quash any investigation of Israel. "With an election coming up, no one in the weak-kneed House and Senate wanted to offend powerful pro-Israel groups and lose their fat campaign contributions." No evidence whatsoever is presented to support this slur, which belies Bamford's contention that "critics [of Israel] are regularly silenced by outrageous charges of anti-Semitism."

One would hardly expect such shoddy work to garner serious attention. But it has. Writing in The New York Times on April 23 ("BOOK SAYS ISRAEL INTENDED 1967 ATTACK ON U.S. SHIP"), James Risen relayed Bamford's claims intact, without any attempt to solicit a countervailing view. In The Wall Street Journal, Timothy Naftali lauded Body of Secrets as an "authoritative and engaging book." National Public Radio invited Bamford on the syndicated talk show "Fresh Air," where he accused Israel of committing "massive war crimes" against Egyptian soldiers and civilians. The interviewer, Neal Conan, never challenged him. Indeed, only one critique to date — Joseph Finder's in The New York Times Book Review — dared to question Bamford's sources or the logic of Israel "perpetrating one massacre in order to cover up another."

In his book, Bamford accuses Israel of fomenting "lies about who started the [1967] war, lies to the American President, lies to the U.N. Security Council, lies to the press, lies to the public." But Bamford is the one peddling untruths. And it's time the American press called him on it.

[Ned]

Eli and Azazel, I don't get it. Are you saying the US government is not grateful or that the Israeli government really doesn't care to support US efforts? It just wants the money?

[Firelad]

And as a response to whose bullet got the boy I ask: Does it really matter? I doubt not that nobody aimed at him (unlike a few other incidents in which children were killed). But he was caught in a crossfire. Why? That is a much more important question.

[Firelad]

Oh, and on the matter of Olaf's friend - I was in the past guilty of Holocaust references when people chanted Death to the Arabs at me... But what he did was a Bad Thing. I would not like such a thing to be done to myself, having a stem of my family destroyed by the fine lads who went over the Ukraine. In any case, provocation is okay under certain circumstances, but this is a rather cruel thing to do. It saddens me that people with whom I basically agree on many related issues resort to such (and worse!) deeds, bordering on, and sometimes well over the borders of, hate crimes.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned


There are some of us still, Azazel, who get mad at America actions that treat Israel unfairly. But it is clear that at some point in time, perhaps after the Liberty incident, America has come to aid of Israel both diplomatically and militarily.

As to the Gulf War I, it was our thinking at the time that should Israel intervene it would blow of the Coalition. What would have happened, for example, if Saudi Arabia asked us to leave?

Assuming American concerns to be valid, and I think they were, how did it the United States treat Israel unfairly?

hi ,

there are allready base closings in SA , ....

but there is one thing we have always tried to do , thats being neutral , ..... seeing usaf planes on a base in Israel , who knows but its not likely , .....


have a nice day

[Panag]

French media complicit in perpetuating 'myth' of Mohammed al-Dura

"Contre-expertise d’une mise en scène" of HUBER published by Éditions Raphaël, and translated into English for Whistleblower by Nidra Poller

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=1363

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Report: 12-year-old Palestinian boy's martyrdom 'staged'
French media complicit in perpetuating 'myth' of Mohammed al-Dura

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 5, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The "martyrdom" death of 12-year-old Palestinian Mohammed al-Dura at the hands of Israeli soldiers – which received widespread international news coverage and spurred on the current intifada, inspiring countless "suicide bombers" to attack Israel – was actually a "staged" piece of street theater, according to an in-depth report in the current issue of WND's monthly magazine, Whistleblower.

The entire world was transfixed as news broadcasts played the sensational video footage of the 12-year-old Palestinian boy and his father, pinned down in crossfire between Arab snipers and Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza's remote Netzarim junction on Sept. 30, 2000. The image of the boy crouching in terror behind his father, both of them struggling in vain to protect themselves from Israeli gunfire, only to be shot – the boy apparently dying in his father's arms – became immortalized in posters that were later plastered up and down the streets of the West Bank and Gaza.

Although the Israeli military initially assumed responsibility for the incident, it soon became apparent that the IDF could not have shot the boy, due to a large barrier between the Israeli military outpost across the remote junction and the location of the boy and his father.

Now, a just-completed, long-term journalistic investigation conducted in France concludes that the Mohammed al-Dura affair was actually a piece of Palestinian theater – similar to the dramatic Palestinian funeral processions last April after the Israeli incursion into the Jenin refugee camp. During that public spectacle, a martyred "corpse" twice fell off the stretcher, only to hop back up and retake his place in the procession. The Palestinians had claimed 3,000 deaths in Jenin – the actual toll was 52.

The groundbreaking investigation and its conclusions are spelled out in "Contre-expertise d’une mise en scène" published by Éditions Raphaël, and translated into English for Whistleblower by Nidra Poller. In the book, Gérard Huber, a psychoanalyst and permanent Paris correspondent of the Israel-based Metula News Agency, reports on the investigation conducted by a team of journalists, including Huber and Stéphane Juffa, Metula's editor in chief.

"What really happened at Netzarim junction?" asks Huber. "One thing is certain: Given the position of the protagonists during the firefight it is impossible that the child was hit by Israeli bullets. Mohammed al-Dura was not killed by Israelis. And the bigger question remains: Was Mohammed really killed?"

Street theater

Whistleblower cites stunning reports of Palestinians playing to the camera, including Israeli commentator Amnon Lord's account of the larger scene at Netzarim Junction when al-Dura was supposedly shot to death. He describes "incongruous battle scenes complete with wounded combatants and screeching ambulances played out in front of an audience of laughing onlookers, while makeshift movie directors do retakes of botched scenes."

Palestinian journalist Sami El Soudi echoes Lord's observation, who discloses that "Almost all Palestinian directors take part more or less voluntarily in these war commissions, under the official pretext that we should use all possible means, including trickery and fabulation, to fight against the tanks and airplanes the enemy has and we don’t. … Our official press reported 300 wounded and dead at Netzarim junction the day when Mohammed was supposedly killed. Most of the cameramen there were Palestinians. … They willingly took part in the masquerade, filming fictional scenes, believing they were doing it out of patriotism. When a scene was well done the onlookers laughed and applauded."

"It is incredible," says Huber, "how many people were calmly filming the battle of Netzarim on September 30th, 2000. Not only professionals – some of them standing no more than ten meters away from the al-Dura incident – but amateurs as well.

"The rushes [video clips] are full of surprising incongruities: Children smile as ambulances go by. A 'wounded' Palestinian collapses and two seconds later an ambulance pulls up to take him to the hospital. It looks as if the driver had been cued in, knew in advance where the Palestinian was going to fall, or was waiting in the upper right hand corner just out of the photographic field ready to zoom in on signal (there is a scene like this in the France 2 report.)

"In another rush we are startled to hear a Palestinian shouting: 'It's a flop! We have to do the whole thing over again!'"

The French close ranks

Even more disconcerting, says the Whistleblower report, is the fact that France 2, the news organization that broke the story of Mohammed al-Dura's supposed "martyrdom" at the hands of Israeli soldiers, adamantly refuses to release all the raw footage taken by its Palestinian cameraman. For instance, journalist Charles Enderlin, who narrated the original story of the shooting, claims his employer, France 2, holds onto images of the child’s death throes – which he says he took out of his report for ethical reasons – because they were just too terrible to view.

To this day, says Huber, it remains unproven whether Mohammed al-Dura is dead or alive.

Meanwhile, every French television station to this day refuses to broadcast a film by German director Esther Schapira, titled "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Mohammed al-Dura?" Nominated for best TV documentary in Germany, it also concludes Israelis did not kill the boy. Although she understands why the Palestinians are not interested in further investigation, Schapira, a staff filmmaker for German public television, wonders why the West should be so resistant to a solid, impartial investigation.

And French author and Whistleblower translator Nidra Poller asks some probing questions about the French media's behavior:

"Of course the Palestinians won't allow any investigation on the evidence they hold," Poller tells Whistleblower. "However, France 2 is not the Palestinians. It is a public service TV station in a democratic country. And Huber makes a convincing case for the collusion of France 2 in this stunt.

"How is it possible that France 2 refuses to cooperate with the investigation? If they have nothing to hide, wouldn't it be to their interest to come forth, even partially? Would the American media sit back and allow this kind of enormous question to remain in the box? If CNN cheats, does Fox News back them up? Well, that's what happens in France."

"The truth," says Huber in the Whistleblower report, "is, first of all, that the child shown on the screen is not dead. He plays dead."

But what about Mohammed al-Dura's funeral?

"The badly wounded corpse of a child was shown by doctors at the Shifa hospital in Gaza," says Huber. "[That] child was dead, but he is not the child seen in the famous TV newscast."

The sensational 5,000-word report by WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, titled "Mohammed al-Dura martyrdom a media myth?" is published in the March edition of Whistleblower.

[Az]

Eli and Azazel, I don't get it. Are you saying the US government is not grateful or that the Israeli government really doesn't care to support US efforts? It just wants the money?

I am saying that as any other relationship in Geopolitics, it's a marriage of convenience.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel

Eli and Azazel, I don't get it. Are you saying the US government is not grateful or that the Israeli government really doesn't care to support US efforts? It just wants the money?

I am saying that as any other relationship in Geopolitics, it's a marriage of convenience.

No, it is not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

there are allready base closings in SA , ....

but there is one thing we have always tried to do , thats being neutral , ..... seeing usaf planes on a base in Israel , who knows but its not likely , .....


have a nice day

We do not base planes in Israel in order to not piss off the Arabs. However, if we ever asked, I am sure that Israel would say yes. Israel is no Turkey.

I believe, Israel is no more neutral vis-a-vis the United States than the United States is neutral vis-a-vis Israel.

[Ned]

panag, Thanks for the report that the French are still covering up their role in the staged event. I wonder whether Spiffor and the other Frenchmen we have here on this forum would care to comment.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned
panag, Thanks for the report that the French are still covering up their role in the staged event. I wonder whether Spiffor and the other Frenchmen we have here on this forum would care to comment.

hi ,

since it remains unclear who cut the tape and put some edit in it both the french and Israeli gov are now looking into the fact if they can press charges , .....

the repoter who made the docu about the false tape and all , has recieved death notices , .... , the idf report confirms largely what the truth is , yet the whole world is not intrested in it , ......

an other Q , why did the PA wanted to break down the wall the next day when Israeli border guard had been asking to do so for a long time , .... why did the IDF had to intervene to prevent the destruction of evidence , .... one can only wonder why , ......

but take a look at the tape they showed on the TV , take a good look , ..... the stone above the barrel next to the "boy" changes size and shape , first it gets smaller and higher , then wider , then smaller , .... very intresting , .....

have a nice day

[Ned]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

since it remains unclear who cut the tape and put some edit in it both the french and Israeli gov are now looking into the fact if they can press charges , .....

the repoter who made the docu about the false tape and all , has recieved death notices , .... , the idf report confirms largely what the truth is , yet the whole world is not intrested in it , ......

an other Q , why did the PA wanted to break down the wall the next day when Israeli border guard had been asking to do so for a long time , .... why did the IDF had to intervene to prevent the destruction of evidence , .... one can only wonder why , ......

but take a look at the tape they showed on the TV , take a good look , ..... the stone above the barrel next to the "boy" changes size and shape , first it gets smaller and higher , then wider , then smaller , .... very intresting , .....

have a nice day

panag, I do not have a tape of the event, so I cannot check out the stone. But if the stone is changing size and shape, it looks like the event was filmed over several locations.

Still, not a single peep from any of our French comrads here on Apolyton. This speaks volumes, does it not, concerning their true love of a free press, even while daily hammering the US press and in partiuclar FOX news about anti-French bias.

But, if what you say, the French government is pursuing criminal charges against France2 for participating in a staged event intended to incite a war, then at least the French government remains dedicated to honesty and to peace, even while its citizens remain rooted in anti-Semitism.

As to the death threats against the reporter making a documntary about this, what did you expect? This is war. And the truth and its manipulation by the Pals and their European allies is a critical weapon in the waging of that war.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned



Still, not a single peep from any of our French comrads here on Apolyton. This speaks volumes, does it not, concerning their true love of a free press, even while daily hammering the US press and in partiuclar FOX news about anti-French bias.

But, if what you say, the French government is pursuing criminal charges against France2 for participating in a staged event intended to incite a war, then at least the French government remains dedicated to honesty and to peace, even while its citizens remain rooted in anti-Semitism.

This is a bit too much. I accept to be held responsible for what I say, but I feel free to stay silence when I have nothing relevant to say, and my silence cannot speak anything else. May I add also that I do not read all threads (I suppose I am not committed to do so), or not immediately, and this particular thread did not call my interest at first, simply because I did not remind the name of the children. After reading it, all my knowledge of the case results from this reading, so I have nothing of interest to comment.

Now, after interpreting the silence of your French comrades, you write that the French citizens remains rooted in anti-Semitism, which I can only understand as a personal insulting accusation.

I am not really harmed by such unsupported accusation, too well acquainted with the overall quality of your thinking, but I would regret that your consistent tendency to interpret any possible fact as explaining and justifying your so clear prejudices, depreciate the level of most of the debates held on this forum.