Rick's referencing a particularly iffy article in Haaretz. I have a problem with the many contradictions and sloppy statements in the article. I wrote to the three reporters to request clarifications on the following:
1. "...the military had no information on rockets launched from the site of the building, or the presence of Hezbollah men at the time."
Does that mean there WERE NONE, or that they just didn't have the info to give to you?
2. "However, it [IAF] changed its version on Monday."
How so? No one disputes that over 150 rockets have been launched from Qana in the preceding 20 days.
3. "However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike."
The strike occured between midnight and 1:00 a.m. Are you trying to say that there were no rocket launches from Qana on the previous day, or as you wrote, the actual "day of the strike" - ie: after midnight? It is quite possible that there were no rocket launches between midnight and the time of the Israeli strike - a matter of minutes. So, technically, your statement is correct, but disingenuous. Either you are being deliberately misleading, or none of you are very precise and accurate writers.
4. Your report is contradictory. First you say "The survivors say rescue teams arrived only in the morning, as night conditions made the rescue mission difficult." but then you say "...the electricity and phones in the village of Qana were almost entirely cut-off by IAF attacks." Is that so? Apparently NOT, since they were able to make the call anyways. So which is it? Did the rescue teams get a call at night, but they couldn't make it because of the dark, or did they get the call in the morning??? You can't have it both ways. In either case, you are wrong, the phones were working. It only matters when the calls were made.
5. "The IDF provided no explanation for the second explosion..."
What second explosion? Either the building collapsed at midnight due to an IAF strike, and the rescue teams couldn't make it because it was tragically so dark; OR, the building collapsed in the morning, having nothing to do with the IAF strike.
6. "The IAF admits the village was struck three times between Saturday night and Sunday morning."
I take issue with your loaded use of the negative word "admits". A more accurate word would have been "confirms".
I find this particular article to be a sloppy bit of reporting. One would hope that between the three of you, you could apply a little more logic. You're not asking the right questions, you're citing questionable and unnamed sources, and your semantics seem deliberately chosen to paint a highly negative picture of the IDF and IAF.
By the way, did you know that the anti-Israeli left is now using this exact article as their "proof" of evil Israeli intent and a cover-up? Not well played, Yoav, Yuval, and Amos - not well played, at all.
Comments accept simple HTML for formatting and linking.
Comments are moderated and may not appear on the site immediately. Comments in
violation of our
comment policy will never appear on the site.
