I was working my way forward from my last post when replying to Mountainhare. I did wonder why the voice was in English when watching the video (assumed it was translation of the original)* - you are surely correct. The US, not Israel, is responsible for this cold blooded murder. I apologize for blaming Israel for this particular incident, but am sure that in the 1200 Israel killed in 5 weeks of strikes in Lebanon, and the 200+ in Gaza in same time period that Israel has done the same. -The first day of Israel's strikes, they killed a Brazilian family of four in their beds. I started a thread about it ("Israel killed 55 today" I think I called it.) ----------------------------------------- *I was miss lead by the title of his thread - I only watched the video, did not read any text with it. PS, later by edit: To SamCDkey- Thanks, but decide128 also notice my mistake, on this particular event, but read all above, as there is fault for both US and Israel in the way they follow the "Arab advice for making war" -( Kill them all. - Let Allah sort them out.)
Hi MadG have i been reported yet?? please do tell me so i can gte my other ID ready for the inevitable!!!
I've seen that vid before, yes. And footage from other helo attacks. Hezbollah probably do drive white trucks. I'd say there's a 99.9% they drive white trucks now and then. If you see a Hezbollah guy drinking a pepsi, then by your logic anyone drinking a pepsi is ripe for a shooting. I mean, like Hezbollah never drink pepsi! (It's an example. Bad or not, you get it, right?) I don't know first hand what it's like to be in a helicopter, in a combat zone, using night vision, etc, so all I have is my opinion. You have yours too. Maybe starting the thread with "Is there any excuse?" sounded anti-Israel, but it wasn't intended that way. All I see is a sophisticated, educated army using the best equipment available and they manage to kill some civvies in a truck plastered in stickers. Fair enough it was dark and fair enough maybe it couldn't have been avoided, but next time I hope they do a double take before firing missiles at things that look a little dodgy. Does anyone know if the Israelis were under fire at the time? Was there any cause for them to be concerned? I'm not arguing they weren't, just wondering if anyone knows what was going on at that time?
this wasn't intended to be racist....the problem i have is with the intolerance that pervades much of islam...never mentioned race
The Arabic word used in verse 4:34 above is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba" which means "beat". The thing with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" is that they don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English. The word "daraba" in verse 14:24 "Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? -- A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens". "daraba" here meant "give an example". If I say in Arabic "daraba laka mathal", it means "give you an example". The word "darabtum", which is derived from the word "daraba" in verse 4:94, which mean to "go abroad" : "O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully... Hence it need not mean "beat" as in hit, but beat as in beat it for some time. (they are all in the same chapter). The more accurate translation would be: (4:34) [...]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them. This is how this verse is interpreted by Islamic scholars. This is corroborated by verses that forbid harsh treatment of wives: "...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(2:231)" "If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (4:128)"
Hi Mahaintex Here is what Quran 4:34 says "Men traditionally take care of women, since God has endowed each of them with certain qualities and men spend from their financial resources. The righteous women are obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband) they honor them according to God's commandment. As for those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty from, you shall first advice them, then (if they continue) you may desert them in bed, then you may strike them out. If they obey you then don't transgress against them. God is Most High, Supreme." (4:34). Where does it say in the above you should beat your wife??
Reuters, is trying to pull a fast one, the truck pictured wasn't hit by any rocket, there would be a whole lot of shrapnel holes and there would be far more scorching damage if a warhead had exploded in contact with the vehicle, The smallest FFAR 70mm, uses a 3.95kg.,10lb. warhead, the Zuni is 12.7mm and uses a 20kg., 45lb. warhead that is the equivalent of a 155mm artillery round, the AGM-114 HellfireAGM-114 Hellfire, Diameter 17.8 cm (7 in) Wing span 33 cm (13 in) Length 163 cm (64 in) Weight 45 kg (99 lb) Propulsion Solid fuel rocket Steering Guidance laser beam riding Speed 1530 km/h (950 mph) Range 500–8,000 m (550 yd–5 mi) Ceiling Payload Warhead 8 kg (18 lb) HEAT Trigger Impact http://www.geocities.com/talesofseasia/madbomber.html We were short of Zuni five-inch rockets and made up for the lack with Aero 7D rocket packs, many of which lacked effective speed brake, an advanta-e that a fully loaded A-4E does not really require. Additionally, the 2.75-inch FFAR was not noted in the fleet for its accuracy or reliability--I was to pay a price for this as well. http://www.vectorsite.net/twbomb6.html * The unguided rocket is a cheap, effective, and still popular weapon. Although not highly accurate, particularly because a folding-fin rocket tends to "jink" after launch until the fins deploy and the rocket stabilizes, it is generally fired in salvos and can saturate a dispersed target with shattering effect. However, the unguided rocket has a number of limitations. It is a short-range weapon, really not much more than an extension of an attack aircraft's guns with more punch. In fact, in some cases strike aircraft may use their guns to "walk in" on a target before cutting loose a salvo of unguided rockets. Bigger unguided weapons with longer range to give an attack aircraft more stand-off distance would be futile, as such a weapon would be unlikely to hit anything. The short range of the unguided rocket means that it is now largely relegated to combat where adversaries do not possess effective air defenses, or where combat is necessarily short-range even if they do. It is useful for counter-insurgency warfare and front-line battlefield operations, for example. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/hydra-70.htm The HYDRA 70 (70mm) Rocket System is a family of 2.75" unguided rockets.The 2.75 inch Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (FFAR) was originally developed by the US Navy for use as a free-flight aerial rocket in the late 1940s. Used during both the Korean and Vietnam wars, their role has expanded to include air-to-ground, ground-to-air, and ground-to-ground. The 2.75 inch rocket system has a rich history of providing close air support to ground forces from about 20 different firing platforms, both fixed-wing and armed helicopters, by all US armed services. When the requirements of this system were changed to a new air-to-ground role for fixed and rotary wing aircraft, new fuzing and warhead performance characteristics, as well as a modified motor for low speed aircraft became necessary. The HYDRA 70 family of rockets was designed to fill this role. The Hydra 70 rocket system is used by US Army Special Operations Forces, the US Marine Corps, the US Navy, and the US Air Force. The Hydra-70 rocket is fired from all armed Army Helicopters and the armed helicopters of most sister services. The rocket is also fired from many U.S. fixed wing platforms and is a major export munition to many allied nations. MK 16 Zuni FFAR (Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket) In the early 1950s, the NOTS (Naval Ordnance Test Station) China Lake began to develop a new 5-inch rocket to replace the Holy Moses HVAR. The new rocket used folding fins to allow efficient carriage in streamlined multi-tube launch pods. The rocket, known as Zuni 5-inch FFAR (Folding-Fin Aircraft Rocket), was designed as a modular system, and allowed the use of different types of warhead and fuze. Options included general-purpose and shaped-charged warheads, point-detonation, delayed-action and proximity fuzes. The latter option was intended for air-to-air application, but Zuni was almost exclusively used as an air-to-ground weapon. For a list of current warheads, see section on the MK 71 motor below. The Zuni FFAR was approved for production in 1957 and quickly replaced the earlier HVARs. Although a number of different launchers were tested with Zuni, the rocket was eventually deployed primarily in four-tube pods of the LAU-10/A series. The exact length and weight of the Zuni depends on the warhead, but typical values are 2.79 m (110 in) and 48.5 kg (107 lb), respectively. Designation Note: No formal designations are allocated to all-up 5-inch Zuni rockets. Instead, the rocket type is generally identified by the designation of the motor assembly, which is the main body of the rocket and includes nozzle and fins. The original production Zuni motor is designated MK 16, and the ultimate variant is the MK 16 MOD 3. The various warheads are typically usable with all available motors, and are presumably often fitted to the rockets in the field only briefly before actual use. Therefore it was apparently deemed unnecessary to assign MK/MOD designations to every specific combination of rocket and payload. In fact, the original edition of the current designation system for rockets and missiles explicitly excluded unguided line-of-sight rockets from the system.
Zak, I wrote such a loonnnggg explanation. Didn't you see it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi Sam. i hope all is good with you. Sorry about that i did not acutally see it... The prolem was that i knew that 4:34 had been mis-translated, so i was looking it up and in the mean time you must have posted the more comprehensive explanation. You see i did not want Maintex to get back to me saying i dont answer his questions so i was straight onto it, but as i have got loads of other things to do i did not initally read what had been posted in between. You get what i mean!??!! Sorry Sam... At least the point is now covered
interior pic. its wasnt a hellfire or a 70mm thats for sure and thats a weird trajectory like a mortar probably something small like a 60mm although not much shrapnel inside. Well i suppose ill jump on the this story is BS bandwagon. http://editorial.gettyimages.com/so...|0|0|0|0|||2233391784121335|0|0|0|0&p=7&tag=1
Reuters has been caught doctoring pictures and stories already, their stringers put out a lot of propaganda for the Palestinians and Hezbullah, so it would be logical to assume that they are embellishing to story, ie: lying.
I think it was shrapnel that hit the car. Five Palestinians including a Reuters Television cameraman and another photographer for Dubai Television were wounded before dawn Sunday by rocket fire from Israeli aircraft, witnesses and medics said. Shrapnel from two missiles struck two cars including a Reuters' vehicle. http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Israeli_missile_strike_wounds_two_c_08262006.html
Hey BR: You beat me to it, i was about to give these people a lecture in Military Weapons 101! No scorching, No peppering (shrapnel), Alot of rust (what the?), Windows intact... its a fake, another one from Reuters. As that blog said, I challenge anyone here to show me a comparison of the mentioned photo's, with a photo of a vehicle that was truly hit by a rocket and you'll see the difference. Also the stats don't add up. If a rocket like this could hit an Australian M113 APC, and kill all occupants inside (which DSTO, ADF and ADI tests have proven), then it is highly unlikely that the occupants of this vehicle would have all survived. On the topic of Night Vision equipment. All countries apart from those of the ABCA treaty, and that can afford to create/use such equipment, use Gen3 Night fighting Equipment (NFE). ABCA (America, Britain, Canada and Australia) use Gen3+. Now this NFE although damn good, cannot distinguish writing, it is near impossible to do so unless said writing is highlighted by IR lights. On the topic of IR.... as above, except minus highlighting the writing because it is impossible to do so. Even if the unlikely story that this was true, and indeed during darkness, to a pilot this armoured vehicle (which it is), could be anything. It could be a buch of journalists, it could be a bunch of terrorists heading to the border or whatever. It could be many things. Just a bit of insight from a military man.
Truth is always the first casualty of war, so I expect both Israel and its Islamic enemies to lie. You {spacemansteve} are correct in you observations that passive IR systems probably cannot see the high optical contrast of letters painted on a truck. Even an active system with an illuminating beam may not as the reflectivity in the IR of the white and black paint may not differ much. Certainly, a direct rocket hit on the truck would take out the windows, but fact that they are intact does not prove Reuters lied. I did not hear or read the Reuter’s report, so I do not know what it claimed, but it seems that the rocket did not make a direct hit on the truck. In this case if it explode fore (or probably even aft) of the truck and not too far away, I would also expect the blast wave to break out the window, but if it hit to side of the truck, both sides of the glass would be subjected to essentially the same compressive impulse and glass is very strong in compression. - I.e. not much reason to think even a near miss quite lateral to the window would break it. I can understand why combatants in war lie about many things, but why would a respected news organization do so? For example, both sides differ in their report as to where the two Israeli soldiers, whose capture served as excuse for Israel reoccupying southern Lebanon, were when captured (or “kidnapped” if you prefer the Israeli term - in addition to lying, both side in this TV age are “spin experts.” Israel never “kidnaps” seldom “captures“ but has “arrested” approximately 10,000, many from their beds.) I think if Reuters were as biased and dishonest as you imply they would have reported in agreement with Hezbolla, but they did not. Such a report would have been much safer for them to lie about as there is no physical evidence (about where the two Israeli soldiers actually were) to expose such a report as false. I think efforts by experts to examine the physical evidence in cases of dispute are very worth while. For example, a few months back, when Palestinian family was killed on the beach, several independent exams* of the site concluded it was a shell and Israel reasonably quickly withdrew from its original, obviously silly,** claim that the Palestinians had mined the beach, telling they would “investigate” but I have not heard any final Israel conclusions. (In this case, the IDF dug themselves a deep hole to try to climb out of - the day after the family was killed, I watched on CNN an IDF press conference spokesman show a map giving the “hit location” of 5 shells that were fired near that beach at approximately the time in question, and then incredibly a few sentences later admit that 6 were fired! - I commented in some thread at the time that surely he must have gone down a few pay grades if not been fired for this stupid lapse into honesty.) Just a bit of insight from a former weapons developer, tester, and physicist. ------------------------------------ *One by former employee of US military with years of experience in battle field “accident” investigations. **Israel invading Gaza from the sea is about as improbable (and all assults for m the sea are risk prone) as one can imagine, when Israel's trucks, tanks, armoured bulldozers etc routinely and safely go anywhere they like in Gaza.
BillyT: I understand what you say here, but when an independant newspaper organisation comes out and claims its vehicles were HIT by Israeli rockets, which indeed is incorrect, then you have to question the authenticity of their reports. For example the photoshop pictures of Beirut, The photo of the Muslim lady who's home had been bombed, all four of them... (Photo was taken from different angles to show four different houses and was proclaimed as four different people). The most recent example of the trucks being bombed is quite damaging considering the exaggerations. There is no doubt in my mind that the truck was in the vicinity of a blast of some sorts, But the report was definately exagerated to a great deal. That, i guess, is the theme here, Exagerating alot of things. I Just can't believe an organisation such as Reuters, especially because of its history, would print material which is not only false, but defamatory to Israel. I have always taken them as a trustworthy non-biased organisation. That has forever been changed.
I would not go that far. - IMHO, you are cutting yourself off for a good information source. Certainly Reuters is usually one of the more reliable news sources, but certainly they can be exploited, will let doctored photos (That dam Photoshop etc software is good) get thru, distribute false / fabricted "eye witness" reports, etc. However, compared to the other sources, like CNN, who I still, perhaps foolishly, tend to trust, Reuters, BBC, AP are about as good (reliable) as it gets. Recall about a year ago, NYT fired a staffer who had fabricated for several months articles - no source is perfect. In some ways, I think I am fortunate to be able to read both of Sao Paulo's two major newspapers. - They both do have their own correspondents in global hot spots, etc, but mainly skim the internet and steal from the best print sources of the entire would, including Japan and rest of Asia. (Sao Paulo is city with the second largest population of Japanese, behind only Tokyo, with dozens of small Japanese language papers.) Thus, my printed news is usually a day late, but more accurate. I watch BBC, Bloomberg, even CNN, etc. or skim the internet (especially for financial "hot news")* myself. - I have twenty 3 or 4 letter long name links constantly displayed on my browser's tool bar line! - More than half are to English language newspapers** not in US & England. ------------------------------------------------------ *Sunrises for me a couple of hours before in US and I have done my "work" for the day well before the NYSX opens. Then I often come here to teach, which I still love, and have fun. **Mocow Times has a strange policy. (They don't quite understand capitalism yet.) -Today's articles are free, but old news you must pay for! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS - After posting, I noticed your all caps "HIT" - Perhaps they do not mean "direct hit" just hit? As in: "The suicide bomber killed five and hit 20 other shoppers when the bomb exploded inside the store." Don't cut yourself off from a good source over a missunderstanding or poorly expressed phrase, if tht is waht it was.
