Faking a Killing

Some of you will remember the controversy involved in the alleged killing of a young "Palestinian" boy by the Israeli's. I stated then that the incident was highly questionable after reviewing the position of the Israeli's and the location of Muhammad al-Dura and his father.
Strange things do happen in fire fights and this no doubt was a strange event to casual viewers. I am no firearms forensic expert, however, based upon the position of the IDF and the young boy, the rounds that allegedly killed him, if fired by Israeli soldiers, would have had to make a sharp 90 degree right hand turn in mid flight to strike him in the abdomen. Both he and his father were behind cover protecting them from Israeli bullets.The original video footage was also highly suspect and appeared a staged incident to me as were many other alleged incidents involving the "Palestinians" and Israel.

Oh but not to the "Jew haters". To them this was just one more incident in the long list of alleged atrocities committed by Israel and a reason for more violence.

Read for yourself....

An updated timeline for review can be found here.

Mohammed al-Dura was not killed

Melanie Phillips explores a modern-day blood libel that has caused innumerable actual deaths. “Faking a Killing,” in Standpoint, July 2008

On September 30 2000, two days after Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel’s opposition Likud Party, went for a walk on Temple Mount, Palestinians mounted a demonstration at Gaza’s Netzarim Junction. A 55-second piece of video footage of that demonstration, transmitted that day by the French TV station France 2, was to cause unprecedented violence in the Middle East and throughout the world.

The footage, with a voice-over by France 2’s Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, showed what was said to be the killing of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura by Israeli marksmen. Viewers saw the child crouching in terror behind his father, Jamal, as they sheltered next to a barrel under what Enderlin said was Israeli gunfire, and then slumping to the ground as Enderlin pronounced that he was dead.

That image of the boy screaming in terror before being killed was uniquely incendiary. It portrayed the Israelis as diabolically gunning down a child in cold blood, even as he cowered for his life. It ignited the Arab and Muslim world with apparent proof that the Israelis were deliberately killing their children, inciting a murderous frenzy.

Al-Dura became a poster boy for the Palestinian and Islamist war against Israel and the West. The day after the France 2 broadcast, the second intifada erupted in its full fury; according to the 2001 Mitchell report, the two events were directly connected. Twelve days later, a mob of Palestinians shouting, “Revenge for the blood of Mohammed al-Dura” lynched two Israeli army reservists and dragged their mutilated bodies through the streets of Ramallah.

When al-Qaeda decapitated the journalist Daniel Pearl, the video of this atrocity was punctuated with references to al-Dura. After -September 11 2001, Osama bin Laden said: “Bush must not forget the -image of Mohammed al-Dura.” Several Arab countries issued postage stamps with his picture. On Palestinian Authority TV and in its school books, al-Dura’s example is used to encourage other children to emulate his spirit of “sacrifice”.

But we now know that this whole fiesta of violence and incitement was based on a lie. For whatever people think they saw in those 55 -seconds, it was not the death of that boy. He was not killed by Israeli bullets; he was not killed at all. At the end of France 2’s famous footage, he was still alive and unharmed. The whole thing was staged, a fantastic piece of play-acting, an elaborate fabrication designed to blacken Israel’s name, and incite the Arab and Muslim mobs to mass murder.

It was, in short, a modern-day blood libel, an updated version of the medieval calumny that the Jews target gentile children for murder — which itself caused the murder of thousands of Jews over the centuries.

How do we know the footage was a lie? Because many of us have seen the evidence for ourselves in a French courtroom. Ironically, this blood libel was only exposed to public view because France 2 and its correspondent Enderlin brought a libel suit against a French media watchdog, Philippe Karsenty, for saying that the “killing” was “pure fiction” and that al-Dura wasn’t dead at all.

To begin with, a Paris court ruled in favour of the TV station. But in May this year, the appeal court ruled that Karsenty had every right to say what he said in the light of the evidence. This included the “inexplicable incoherence” of footage, whose images did not correspond to Enderlin’s commentary; the “inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions” in Enderlin’s explanation; and the lack of credibility of France 2’s Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, upon whose -account of the events at Netzarim Enderlin — who was in Jerusalem at the time — had depended.

Read the entire story here.
More perspective on this issue here and here.

Supporting links:

Myth, Fact, and the al-Dura Affair

Pajama's Media

Mohammad Al-Dura "murder" a HOAX! Karsenty wins case!

News Busters

Sphere: Related Content

The Fire in Fred's Belly

For a long time, a whole lot of us have liked the cut of Fred Thompson as a presidential candidate. So much so we BEGGED the man to jump into the race. Finally, FINALLY, he threw his hat in the ring and now, many of us (I'm admittedly an attention challenged, Type A personality who can't sit still for very long) question when we're going to "see" the fire of Fred "catch on".

While discussing Fred with my mentor during a break in study group one night, she asked me flat out why I liked Fred. At the time, I really couldn't answer with more than a gut feeling. She was correct in calling me out. That is one of the reason's I consider her my main mentor--she makes me stop and think. Then, she makes me go do my research and study. She may not like this comparison too much, but it's not meant to be offensive--in that regard, she is very similar to both my parents who insisted--prior to discussing ANYTHING--I and my siblings educate ourselves on any and all topics. Both my parents came from modest means to be significant forces in their respective fields, ultimately competing with each other for degrees (daddy won, but not by much); to them, education was the ONLY ticket to true freedom, independence and prosperity for without an education you could go nowhere. So, my mentor falls into the same category with my parents in this regard.

So, with my mentor's challenge spurring me on, I began to look into WHY I thought Fred would be the best candidate. I found a man surprisingly honest. A man who thought out his plans and outlined them in a coherent fashion. A man who offers no apologies for his past, yet who is unflinchingly honest about it. He says what he means. He doesn't beat around the bramble bush trying to be all things to all people.

For example, on the illegal immigration issue (since I live in a border state, this is something important to me), Fred has laid out a comprehensive, common sense plan for implementation.

From his site:

Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law

A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to secure the nation's borders and enforce the law. The following policies and initiatives will put the nation on a path to success:

1. No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.
   
   
2. Attrition through Enforcement . Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:

Read more here.

But wait! There's more!

Fred also has comprehensive ideas laid out for:

National Security; the Federal Budget and Spending/Budgetary Reform; Tax Reform; Healthcare; Government Effectiveness; Building Strong Families; Education; Appointing Judges Faithful to Our Constitution; Energy Security and the Second Amendment. He also offers a downloadable, side-by-side comparison of where the GOP candidates stand on Family Values Issues; 2nd Amendment Rights and Crimes; Securing America's Borders and Fiscal Responsibility.

The entry page for all of these issues can be found here.

Overall, while there are a few things I disagree with, I like Fred as a candidate. I like how he is clear and concise on the issues. I like how he appears to think carefully before opening his mouth. I think he has a personally pleasing appearance, which, through his acting skills and his past political background, he is able to use to advantage when negotiating across a table, either with a recalcitrant SoH or another country's leader. He doesn't come off as a wimp and image is important when dealing with extremist loons.

I don't like how he seems to be moseying along, strolling through this campaign. But then, as I mentioned above, I'm an attention challenged, can't sit still for a second, Type A personality. If I'm not juggling a kazillion things at once, I feel as if I'm missing out on something.

I also keep forgetting Fred is, at heart, a born Southerner and Southerner's do things their own way and in their own time.

That being said, because the MSM doesn't understand this basic truth about Southerner's, they have labeled Fred as lazy. Then, as per their usual sloppy reporting, they set up imaginary strawmen to knock down and only provide half quotes, purposely designed to make Fred look as bad as possible.

Such is the case here. From The Campaign Spot we see the headline: "Fred Thompson, Knifed by Half-Quotes Again". From this article we learn the following:

This time their grumbling is directed at this account in USA Today:

BURLINGTON, Iowa — Fred Thompson said Saturday he does not much like the modern form of presidential campaigning and that he "will not be devastated" if he doesn't win the election.

"I'm not particularly interested in running for president," Thompson said, but rather he feels called to serve his country.

Now, that sounds pretty damning, particularly with Iowa and New Hampshire looming. However, the rest of the quote is here:

"I am not consumed by personal ambition," Thompson responded. "I'm offering myself up."

Given the volatile state of the world, the actor and former Tennessee senator said he was not "sure it is a good thing if a president has too much fire in his belly."

"I'm only consumed by a few things and politics is not one of them," he said.

Now, there's an old saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's also an old saying about being wary of those who desperately want to hold positions of power (HRC come to mind anyone?). Read the rest of the article here; it's an eye opener of egos in the MSM.

From what I'm seeing from Fred, he has stated he will run his campaign his way. He has also shown he is not absolutely desperate to hold the position of POTUS, but having been chosen by the people, implored by the people to run, he will do the very best job he can, if he is elected. He has sat down, thought out the most important issues facing this country, and established his platform in a well thought out manner. He has plodded along at his own pace, and answered questions posed to him. He has refused to play the schoolyard games engaged in during the so-called debates. He doesn't hesitate to call people on the carpet when he thinks they're being asinine and when someone steps over the line with a question too personal, he lets them know it. He doesn't flip flop around. He doesn't screech--but he does calmly state where he thinks this country needs improvement. Then he offers the means for that improvement.

Remember the story of the Tortoise and the Hare? Well, Fred just may be that tortoise--slow and steady and eventually, win the race.

That is if he can get past the idiotic MSM determined to derail him.

But then, what else would one expect from ego driven, pampered, whiny, treasonous liberals who want nothing more than to see the demise of this country? What else could you possibly expect from a "profession" that can't follow it's own standards of conduct, rules and ethics (these people need a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word ethics), a "profession" increasingly showing it can't--or won't--report the full story because it can't be bothered to do the legwork necessary. A "profession" riddled with the likes of TNR (Scott Thomas Beauchamp), TIME Magazine reporters who criminalize our Marines on the unsubstantiated word of an al-Quaida operative (Haditha), reporters who report "roadside graves full of decapitated bodies" (bodies and graves that never existed) and on and on.

Do we really expect honest, unbiased reporting? Oh--wait--silly me! That would require integrity--something we KNOW the MSM lacks. And they certainly do NOT want to give any kind of fair coverage to a man with integrity--he might force them to do the jobs they don't want to do--or prosecute them for their treason and sedition (NYT anyone?).

The MSM has a lot to lose if Fred wins. Perhaps THAT should be the real story--the MSM's motive in falsely reporting and cherry picking on ANY of the conservative campaigns.

Catch the Wave!

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell here.

Sphere: Related Content