Politics and Religion
ear God! You are now referencing
no harry, you're right. i was actually responding (or ranting) to Jeremy's comment. sorry for the misunderstanding
However CNN was **not** the only news organization to point out Hizbollah's masterful use of propaganda. I heard about that-- on NPR.
The ambulence story was obviously fraudalent. I thought looking at the "damage" it was far too light for missile hit. I thought that before the comparisons. Too many journalists are stenographers these days. I don't know if some of the reports about ambulences being completely burned were referring to those ambulences, however. I have to conclude the journalist wasn't totally lying: he wasn't. The stories have been mixed and matched.
As for "murdering" 6 Israeli soldiers-- that was propaganda. They were soldiers, in uniform, KIA. The UN letters on that vehicle looked like they had been spray-painted on.
It's instructive how the theme of the beginning of the clip is: Israelis are justified for bombing ambulences, but at the end it's: we didn't bomb ambulences. Putting that all together: "We didn't do it, but if we did sometime it's justified and the evidence is faked anyway." It's clever propoganda in itself as it actually covers three ass-cheeks.
I would say, yes, it's immoral and a war crime to use ambulences as war-transport vehicles. Still, to say that you could bomb from the air in a country friendly to the enemy and miss ambulences that are clearly being used as emergency vehicles is unrealistic.
However, trying to make war on a faction within a country and not on a country is unrealistic. A limited, undeclared war is always going to look bad for the instigator. It has humane and moral claims that can never be met.
As for not targeting civilians: a satellite comparison of Beruit before and after the bombing is instructive. No civilians killed there: 