Zombie responds to
Human Rights Watch report on ambulance hoax
Allahpundit
Good reading, especially on a slow news day. The crux of HRW’s argument is that certain types of low-yield missiles could have caused the damage seen in photos of the ambulances; the crux of the rebuttal is that no, in fact, they couldn’t. A non-explosive projectile could have, perhaps, but if that’s what happened here then what caused the smaller, shrapnel-esque holes in the ambulances’ roofs?
Lots more at the link, including analysis of the blast damage to the pavement and injuries to the workers. Plus this point towards the end:
One thing everyone can agree on: Human Rights Watch is to be commended for revisting the scene and attempting to verify some of the evidence, however successful they were in doing so. Their resulting report has had an interesting if unintended side effect: it contradicts many of the details reported by the world’s leading media outlets. If one is to accept the HRW report at face value, then one is forced to concede how egregiously erroneous, incomplete and deceptive most previous media reports were. Refer to the summary of media reports at the beginning of my original ambulance essay to see how the Associated Press, Time Magazine, the Guardian, the Boston Globe, ITV News and many others got the facts of the case wrong.
This incident was a preview of Jamilgate, wasn’t it? The media asserted that an atrocity occurred; bloggers demanded better evidence; new evidence was offered (HRW’s report, the AP’s second story on the burning six); bloggers found logical inconsistencies in the new evidence. ...
