The Red Cross Ambulance Incident

logical fallacies like facts? this "Event" never happened, it was a broadcasters lie.

It's called poisoning the well, the photo appears to be of an unrelated ambulance so everything else must be a hoax. It's like saying an Israeli ship wasn't hit because the picture an Iranian news site posted was of an unrelated ship. That because shelling a beach is off, it wasn't an Israeli shell, it was mines planted by Hamas, when it's common for shells to be unexploded. That because an aid worker holds up a dead child that somehow the building wasn't bombed.

Logic is not equivalent to facts, facts are premises considered to be true. If you're having a problem understanding Andy, then I can look up some definitions of what facts and logic are, two things that you must find new territory.

First of all, my name is not and never has been Andy. But this incident showed a ambulance they said was hit by Israeli shelling, when in fact the vehicles top was rusted out, had that hole in it long before this conflict, and people who used it have actually said their used to be a ventilation cover over that hole, conveniently taken off when they wanted to badmouth Israel.

I understand ajzzz to be saying that the news stories are "false but accurate," as in the Dan Rather affair. (The police are often alleged to plant false evidence because they knew a crime had really been committed). I thought zombietime's painstaking analysis overwrought, overdone, boring and not quite convincing. And yet ... something lethal happened in the war, and the Israelis haven't uttered a peep to counter the propaganda. Not that I've heard. Go figure.

Settle down Benton, I don't doubt that the photos show an unrelated vehicle, but that does not mean that two ambulances weren't targeted, and I cited previous incidents where unrelated photos or misinformation was given, but the event actually happened. If I'm going to fast just say.

Israel apologized, and unlike the article suggests, Israel was responsible for the other incidents it apologized for, the evidence points straight to the IDF. In the end the IDF can have as many investigations as it wants, and they can all find the IDF innocent, unless there is an independent investigation that collaborates the IDF's line, they cannot be taken seriously.

The conclusion to the article isn't consistent with its content, it relies on people not actually reading its contents, or having decided who's innocent before reading. It would have to rely on the photographers, the red cross, the news correspondents (some Western), and the hospital who treated the red cross workers to be in a conspiracy together. It relies on the belief that the photos were the sole evidence that the news media had, and that they did not rely on accounts of the people actually in Lebanon.

wikinews.org

An Israeli army spokesman said, "The incident in which vehicles were hit last night occurred in an area known to be one of the main sources of the launching of hundreds of missiles."