[Janet Kenny]

Sorry to bring this horror back. I didn't see how I could ignore this report.

mysterious wounds point to new weapon used

[Quincy Lehr]

Janet--

It is chilling, but perhaps a new thread would have been apropos.

Quincy

(Down, Halberstein! Keep back, Granier! And if you come within ten feet of this thread, Kevin Andrew Murphy... well, let's just say that they had a sale on cans of whup-ass at the off-licence, and I bought a five-year supply. They're sitting in my flat, doing nothing, almost begging to be opened.)

[This message has been edited by Quincy Lehr (edited October 18, 2006).]

[Janet Kenny]

Quincy,
I thought of starting a new thread but that seemed just as bad. Anyway, I know Dan would dislike those weapons as much as I do.
Janet

[Seree Zohar]

But I can see how how this report could be ignored :
1. There is no provision of links offering clear medical, scientific or technical reports from a range of reliable additional sources outside of Gaza, corroborating the claims made. This report is highly reminiscent of the Jenin "massacre" which eventually turned out to be an absolute lie.
2. The claims made derive from one source only and the language of the report clearly indicates a hypothesizing on similarities.
3. In light of the huge number of bluffed photomontages and disturbingly lying 'journalistic reporting' from similar such sources during the war in Lebanon, and so many other Israel-Arab interactions, conflicts, engagements (or whatever word one might choose) it could possibly be advisable to take this report not with one or two grains of salt, but a whole bathload.



[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited October 19, 2006).]

[Robert J. Clawson]

[quote]Originally posted by Seree Zohar:
But I can see how how this report could be ignored :
1. There is no provision of links offering clear medical, scientific or technical reports from a range of reliable additional sources outside of Gaza, corroborating the claims made. This report is highly reminiscent of the Jenin "massacre" which eventually turned out to be an absolute lie.

This could be so. It's certainly worth investigating further to establish reliable sources if they exist. Sounds like a job for Seymour Hersh.

To change the subject slightly, how are we to rely on our presidential source, Mr. Bush, who finds the Johns Hopkins survey published in The Lancet "discredited"? The survey, conducted by medical personnel, who collected death certificates, determined that over 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the American Invasion of Iraq.

Besides Mr. Bush, who's discredited it? Anyone with credentials barely approximating those of the institutions behind the survey? Why would The Lancet risk its reputation by publishing a report so remarkably different than those of the Pentagon or the U.S. media?

Today's Washington Post mentioned the survey and noted, "it has been challenged." The reporters apparently didn't ask, "By whom?"

Curious Bob

[Dick Morgan]

Would you (insert self identificaion here) be happier if the IDF just used ball bearings? Then we could say the bad guys (oh excuse me--Freedom Fighter's) bomb vest prematurely blew up when put on in the presence of an Orthodox Jew's disguise.

Dick

[Quincy Lehr]

Look folks, space in inner-city flats here is quite limited, and I've really got a glut of canned whup-ass. I'm quite willing to open some up if anyone's game.

Any takers?

Quincy

[Lo]

Originally posted by Quincy Lehr:
Look folks, space in inner-city flats here is quite limited, and I've really got a glut of canned whup-ass. I'm quite willing to open some up if anyone's game.

Any takers?

Quincy

Depends, Quincy...what side of what debate do you want to be on? I'm always up for playing Devil's Advocate if the argument's interesting enough....just don't ask me to do the Republicans in different voices, ok?

Janet's story just didn't do it for me, though....I need to find out what "Guardian" that story was lifted from before I get too properly indignant about it.....there are two "Guardian" newspapers in the UK...one is a Communist inspired rag and the other appears to be a fairly pro-Hezbollah paper from what I've managed to read in spite of my hang-over today. Either way, I'd take it with Seree's requested salty bathwater.

Lo

[Quincy Lehr]

Lo--

The "Guardian" I'd almost swear it comes from is almost doubtlessly the ever-so-slightly-left-of-center newspaper available on every news stand in these here parts.

It simply strikes me that it might be less cumbersome to start new threads as new stories pop up. This thread began as a discussion of what was happening in Lebanon.

Quincy

[Michael Cantor]

I'm skeptical as well. There's so much rumor and horseshit floating around on every side of every Middle East question that I think you really have to look at (a) the source, and (b) who else has picked this up.

Concerning the source, I know nothing at all about The Sydney Morning Herald, but when a newpaper's World Coverage heads include "Suicide Note Leads to Lover's Head in a Pot" I get twitchy. And I haven't seen the story appear elsewhere. I'll wait for Sidney Hersh on this one as well, or at least another independent source.

I find Bob's comment about the Lancet report more intriguing. Not surprising that Bush regards it as "discredited", but I share Bob's unhappiness about how readily so many reporters - even today - accept this government spin and reprint it without challenge. Who "discredited" the report? How? What are the other sources?

[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited October 19, 2006).]