Israel Issues False Propaganda to Cover Up War Crimes

[ibuyukuran]

today we have learned that hitler was a jew from dna test of him. i think ahmedinejat can be right maybe holocast doesnt exist and lied to built israel on holy lands.

as a turk i dont hate any people because of their race but rich zionist company owners are the dirtiest people on the world. they are so strong i think they can do everything which they want.

[saadasim]

Israel's Hypocrisy

Israel crossed a WORDWIDE blockade on APARTHEID South Africa to give it WEAPONS/TORTURE Equipment but complains when the WORLD wants to give FOOD/MEDICAL aid to impoverished Gazans?

Israel caused murder, destruction of property, kidnapping and destruction and with-holding of evidence.

And Israel is saying it was an act of self-defense?

Am I missing something here?

And US gives NA tionalistic ZI onists money why?

[MaxZagar]

Is IDF, using people with Aussi accent, totally sick people.

[ybeast80]

war is chaos.. since the 2nd missle can hardly be seen, the intelligence officer seen there what thay expected to see. this is clearly an over attempted to prove IDF assumptions that thay acted upon but later proved wrong. however, the question if this is intended false propaganda still remain.

i do agree that someone shold be hald accountable for this

[MrGhostXMASpast]

Isreal is the new nazi

lol, they are the original nazis

[lordofdarkdudes]

why are they getting away whit this?

cus they are allies whit usa and there for can do what they want

[ahm333]

P1B1U1H1, eat some carrots to strengthen your see sight.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

I fail to see how videos of other bombings prove anything with regard to this bombing. You don't even have a straw to grasp at. Two bombs clearly hit this mosque, the one in question.

[P1B1U1H1]

Here is a US video.

v=Nd3JN97uqxw&NR=1 Note the secondary explosion from the terrorists' weapons.

Your theory of two bombs hitting the mosque is simply no longer credible. You over called an artifact. Everyone can see that.

Here's another strike on enemy that use civilian buildings for military purposes.

v=ldNaElMMwrY&feature=related

Al Queda apologists in the comments like being shown to be wrong just as much as you do.

[P1B1U1H1]

This video shows weapons in a Mosque.

v=2Zd55Zhj5gQ&feature=PlayList­&p=54D9FD4646FEEF3A&playnext=1­&playnext_from=PL&index=1

You can claim the IDF put them there, but there is no end to what one can claim.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Yes, like claiming there were weapons in THIS mosque, without evidence.

[P1B1U1H1]

The film is evidence. The black ovoid simply cannot occur without a blast separate from the initial huge hole of bomb1 and the hot spot you mistook for a second bomb hole. What you posit requires 1) a 90 degree change in direction from any movement from the hotspot and 2) radial specificity from both locations. Neither is physically possible.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Look, it's real simple. Two bombs hit the building, and it blasted out the side of the building. Heat escaped out the side of the building, appearing to the imaging sensor as a black hotspot. End of story.

[P1B1U1H1]

The big black spot is an explosion, a separate explosion; the explosion occurs after bomb 1's explosion.. There is simply no doubt about that. Your theory requires either that "bomb2" made a 90 degree turn or, worse, that the explosion from "bomb2" made a right angle turn. The IDF is pretty smart, but they cannot train explosions to make right angle turns. Neither can they train bombs to make right angle turns after tunneling through roofs.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

The big black spot is heat escaping the building. You've already acknowledged that, and there simply is not doubt about that.

My "theory" requires no such nonsense as that either of the bombs that hit the building made a 90 degree turn. You're not even grasping at straws any more, you're grasping at thin air.

[P1B1U1H1]

Your "theory" requires the elimination of the laws of physics. What you do when confronted by arguments from images is simply to put the words "not so" in a sentence lacking any logical point. Look at the video of the flatulence posted earlier and all puffs apart from the second explosion to see polarization; portions near the source are thinner than those away from it. The second blast is not so polarized because the explosion is different, emanating from just behind the wall.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Nonsense.

[P1B1U1H1]

Here's a video without a secondary explosion. v=I4yP4lUCISs&feature=related

When the criminal scum's building gets hit here, note the absence of the second ovoid. You cannot create that by external explosions.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Well, P1B1U1H1, I'll leave it up to viewers to watch and decide for themselves. I put my faith in their intelligence to discern the truth. And I'll leave it there.

[P1B1U1H1]

They will indeed. Also, they will look at the comments and see your have not answered the arguments. Take a careful look at where the large ovoid from explosion2, at 1:38 begins. Explosions extend to all directions with rough equivalence. That ovoid does not come from the "hole" of "bomb2", but more from the direction of the hole of bomb1, specifically from near the wall on the left side of the building towards the front. That's likely where Hamas placed the explosives.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

There's no argument that needs answering. You've already admitted there's no evidence of weapons in the building. The "ovoid" is heat escaping the building, heat from both bombs' explosions.

[P1B1U1H1]

I never said there was no evidence of weapons in the building. There are photographs of such weapons. The film is also great evidence for the presence of weapons. No bomb makes 90 degree turns after hitting a target.

Your intelligent readers will discern the point about the ovoid., a separate heat emanation, occurring after the first explosion completes. At 0:34 in the original, the damage does not afflict windows nearest the hot spot, by then burnt through the roof, mushrooming.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

There is no evidence that any weapons were in this mosque.

You're right, no bomb makes a 90 degree turn after hitting a target. And nobody ever suggested otherwise.

As for heat emanating from the building, well, what else would you expect after it has just been struck with two bombs?

[P1B1U1H1]

The video evidences the presence of weapons. Heat emanates in all directions from the site of an explosion in a building; from bomb1 emerges a circle of heat puffs. The huge ovoid is directionally inconsistent with the hot spot's being the center of a second bomb.

A video of other strikes. v=WEzu8tvunfE The secondary explosion in the last video is the black ovoid of hot air emerging through the smoke. Had "Bomb2" been real, the same ovoid would have blown through smoke about the hot spot.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Of course heat emanates from the building. It was just struck by two bombs. You're still grasping at straws.

[P1B1U1H1]

Why are you failing to admit the obvious? The hot ovoid came from a particular direction inconsistent with your theory, which has many more holes in it than the building.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

No, it didn't come from "a particular direction" inconsistent with anything I've said. This argument of yours is nonsense.

[P1B1U1H1]

Of course it did. The ovoid comes from the big black windows you see at the end of the original video, corresponding to the forward left (from our perspective) part of the building in the current video. You can see the directionality at 1:40 on the current video; the heat has a much, much wider horizontal than vertical dimension because the blast exerts its force horizontally (from our perspective). This is the largest single black ovoid.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

I know where the heat is coming from. This heat escaping the building isn't inconsistent with anything I've said.

[P1B1U1H1]

But it wasn't. The second "bomb" is a hotspot for reasons discussed earlier. Look at this video of the US destroying criminals in Iraq.

v=beuTCOWzhaw&feature=related

Note that when the explosive is hit a large blast emanates. That's exactly what you have here, a huge blast, larger in actue force (check that ovoid out) than the original bomb.

[P1B1U1H1]

Also, you can see the hotspot again at 0:34 of the original video, now broken through the roof. Note that its size is similar to the original hotspot, but that it now has a black mushroom above it. You can see bomb1s hole from about 0:20 or so on the original video. It is still showing an upward spread of the hot air and is still much larger than the hot spot.

[P1B1U1H1]

Oswald acted alone; the first bomb acted alone. Zapruder proved nothing, except to conspiracy whackeroos. Not only do you have to explain the lack of a mushroom and the small size of the perforation for "bomb2", you also have to explain another very, very odd point. How is it possible, were a second bomb to exist, for the huge black ovoid, larger than any other in the video, seen at 1:40, to occur? The two bombs would, as stated, be the same. Also, the positioning of the ovoid does not fit..

[P1B1U1H1]

Thermal imaging is not a "real" picture, but an image of different temperatures, specifically heat. See You Tube video ending with v=IxZkpG1naIw&feature=related . t.

The black in the center of what you call a depression is heat. If all that were was a depression, you would not see black in it. What you are seeing is the heated air over the hot spot in the roof. No smoke can possibly stop the mushrooming hot air.

[P1B1U1H1]

Your analysis reminds me of that Zapruder film, "proving" the second bullet. There was no second bullet then. There is no second projectile now.

Also, consider this. A quick google search will show you radical Islamists using mosques as weapons depots in far flung countries, including Saudi Arabia. Do you think the radical Islamists in the present case are avoiding that tactic out of respect for the Jewish religion?

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

There WAS a second bullet. In fact, there were three. Nobody disputes that. The Zapruder film has nothing to do with that, though, anyway. The controversy over the Zapruder film is that it appears to show JFK was shot from the front, not the rear.

Back to weapons in the mosque. You might prove that occurs in other cases. But we're discussing this case. It requires evidence. And there's no evidence of any weapons in the mosque in this case. Two bombs hit the building.

[P1B1U1H1]

Let's just say that a religious group that does something all over the planet would not generally avoid doing it in Palestine just to keep Jews happy. Look up the Finsbury Mosque in London and tell us what you think. The JFK conspiracy theorists are bizarre. So is the notion of a second bomb here.

One bomb hit the building. You have not refuted the notion that a hole created in the roof by a bomb will emit a very large burst of hot air from the explosion of the missile beneath it.

[P1B1U1H1]

Bomb1, bomb1s hole, and alleged hole of alleged bomb2 were circled; were bomb 2 identifiable, it would have been circled. Bombs falling on the same roof yield similar holes, the blackest circles on thermal videos because air leaving them is the hottest; they are visualized through any form of smoke. Bomb 1s hole (0:51) is more than twice as big as alleged hole of alleged bomb2 (1:12). The IDF cannot violate physics laws.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

What kind of logic is that? Bomb 2 is identifiable. You can see it. I showed the line of its trajectory so viewers know where to watch. You can also see where it creates a depression in the cloud as it penetrates the smoke from the first bomb. Nobody is suggesting any violations of the laws of physics.

[P1B1U1H1]

Bomb2 is not identifiable. You can see bomb 1. You cannot see bomb 2.

Black on a thermal video is heat, not a depression in a cloud. At 1:11. The alleged depression is a center of blackness with an indistinct edge. Compare that edge with the sharp edge of the hot black air packages in the same image. Now go to 0:50 to see bomb1's hole. Again note the sharp edge. "Bomb2's" "hole"'s dull edge stems from declining heat as the roof cools away from the hot spot.

[P1B1U1H1]

The IDF video does not record light conventionally; it yields abundant abnormal lines, e.g., buildings' edges, the square in the center. Technical assessment for dishonesty in such videos is something done in court, even then, oft with duplicity. The author of this article, perhaps even Foreign Policy Journal, might be being paid by the heinous State religion of Qatar to publish this bilge, covering its behind with a slew of legitimate sounding articles.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Paid by the "State religion of Qatar", huh? That's a new one.

The facts speak for themselves, ad hominems aside.

[P1B1U1H1]

The facts speak against your argument, ad hominems aside. No one can know what financial motivations you or your journal possess.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Suggesting I simply fabricated this evidence (or whatever) because someone paid me to when you cannot, by your own admission, back that claim up with anything, is an ad homimen.

Viewers may judge the evidence for themselves. I trust most of them are intelligent enough to see what the truth is.

[P1B1U1H1]

You did not fabricate, you misinterpreted. Bombs produce similarly sized holes when landing on the same roof. The black hole is escaping hot air, which ascends and spreads outward on a thermal video. 0:51 0:54 shows the black of bomb1s hole mushroom. 1:09 1:14 and 1:25 1:30, of alleged hole of alleged bomb2, show less sharply delimited blackness that shrinks, consistent with a heat spot from inside the building disappearing.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

I don't know what you're trying to suggest.

[P1B1U1H1]

The suggestion is that the laws of physics are not suspended for political discourse. At 1:03 you say the "bomb2" trajectory is visible; if the reader looks, he or she will see this line is due to differences in definition of the image that extend way beyond what a falling object would produce. At 0:44 -0:46, the same trajectory is not seen for bomb1. Instead, note the line to the right of where the trajectory would be, corresponding to the edge of the central focusing rectangle.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

This is all nonsense.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Suggesting I had a financial motivation to make this, even though you admit you have no way to back up that claim, IS an ad hominem. So your "aside" is perfectly Orwellian.

Full disclosure: I've made precisely $0.00 by making this video. Now, you can continue to employ ad hominem arguments, or we can discuss the facts.

[P1B1U1H1]

No proof of the money you did or did not make. In fact, the lack of direct finances might indicate donations from the unsavory to the cruel.

Continueing to repeat ad hominem attacks in the face of challenges to the evidence evinces reason for belief in suggestions of impropriety.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Kindly quote me where I engaged in ad hominem. Thanks.

Creating strawmen and falsely attributing remarks to people evinces reason for belief that they aren't interested engaging in a real discussion about the actual facts.

[P1B1U1H1]

An ad hominem attack is one that does not address the evidence or the logic of the argument, but instead attacks the credibility of the speaker. Stating that persons who put information on the web are not necessarily free of nefarious financial incentive is an ad hominem attack. Arguing that the logic of the argument in favor of a second bomb is flawed is not an ad hominem attack.

Repeating that an ad hominem attack has been made in reply to assaults on the argument ignores the assaults.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

That fact that you find it necessary to engage in an ad hominem argument pretty much sums up the credibility of your case, I think.

[P1B1U1H1]

You are now engaging in ad hominem attack.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

No. I'm merely observing that generally people who find it necessary to make personal attacks don't really have a case, which is why they find it necessary to resort to personal attacks. That is an observation of fact, not an ad hominem. I'm just saying that likely applies to you and your ad hominem arguments also.

[P1B1U1H1]

Your post lacks a response to the points made. You lose. There was no second projectile.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

There was a second bomb, and the fact that you feel it necessary to resort to an ad hominem is demonstrative of the credibility (or lack thereof) of your case.

[P1B1U1H1]

But you make personal attacks all the time on this blog, including against me. Not that I care, for you are quite fun to talk with.

[P1B1U1H1]

The most damning point is that the black indicates not smoke (id'd as such by me for simplicity), but heat. The so-called hole from supposed bomb 2 is simply an area of increased heat! That may have been due to 1) there being flammable material apposed to the cieling at that point or 2) an explosion of munitions within the building generating heat at that point in the roof. The latter seems especially likely, making there exist at least three explosions.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

I made the same point about the black area being heat in the video. Which goes against, no for, the claim that there was a third "explosion".

[P1B1U1H1]

You predicate the presence of a projectile the human eye cannot see upon a linear difference in clarity that might be an artifact.

Bomb 1 hits the Mosque, generating much heat and fire. This generates explosions in the building, undetectable in the video, contained within the building itself. So much heat is generated a spot of appears in the roof. This precedes a massive explosion that consumes all the munitions

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

But you can see it.

So now the explosions from these alleged munitions are "undetectable in the video", huh? Yes, I surely must agree with that.

They surely are undetectable. Perhaps that's because these "munitions" simply never existed?

Yes, I think that's it.

[P1B1U1H1]

Explosions that produce insufficient heat sufficient on the roof will not be detected by the video; that does not mean they do not exist.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Yes, yes, the absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense. We all know.

Still, I must emphasize that you have no evidence to support your argument.

[P1B1U1H1]

The evidence is the film, not your or my presentation. You argue that visible features of the film prove the existence of a second bomb. You have not addressed tassaults on your explanation. You accept the holes on the same roof should be similar; not explained is why the "bomb2" "hole" is less than half the size of the "bomb1 hole. You accept that air escaping from a hole mushrooms; not explained is why air from the hole of bomb1, but not "bomb2", mushrooms.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

But you can't see the hole on the roof created by the second bomb due to the explosion from the first bomb.

You really are grasping at straws here, dude.

[P1B1U1H1]

Thermal visualization documents bomb explosions. The bomb breaks through the roof and explodes, causing a circular, or near circular defect. A black circle (the hot air filling the circular defect) rapidly moves up and mushrooms out. Watch the first hole to see how it disappears and becomes a mushroom.

A hot spot does not mushroom up because it is not a puff of hot air. Instead, it appears and disappears without moving. to see a hot spot, go to what you think is the second bomb.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Viewers can see for themselves that two bombs were dropped on the building. I don't know why you're trying to argue against what is right in front of everyone to see with their own eyes.

[P1B1U1H1]

At 1:12 "hole 2" is demarcated by a red circle. A white cross just superior to "hole 2" maintains its position relative to building's edge 'til about 1:23. Explosion 2 shows black smoke emanating right and superior to the cross; smoke does not emerge from hole 2, as it did for hole 1 at 0:56. The argument that the smoke emanated from hole 2 goes against what you see. Hole 2, if real, occurred due to the explosion withins sucking air so hard that it punctured the cieling.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

But you can also see the second bomb falling. It clearly is the cause of the depression in the smoke.

[P1B1U1H1]

You cannot see the second bomb falling. That is a deduction from a line that is almost certainly an artifact. Why is bomb 2 not as visible as bomb 1 if it exists?

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Yes, you can. Perhaps you need glasses.

[P1B1U1H1]

I am wearing my glasses and used my finger to roll the video on the touch pad back and forth very, very slowly over the red line and the surrounding two seconds. There is no bomb. Being unable to answer the arguments posed to you, you assert that the logical deductions presented are an ad hominem attack. These assertions are not against you personally: 1) hot air emanating from a hole mushrooms and 2) bombs falling on the same roof generate similarly sized holes.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

I didn't "assert" that you employed an ad hominem argument. I merely observed the fact that you did.

As for assertions 1 and 2. Yes? So? What are you trying to imply?

[P1B1U1H1]

Writer Z who posts "Yes? So?" with respect to X and Y permits the reader to infer that the questioner agrees with X and Y and is arguing that X and Y are moot.

You have now accepted that 1) bombs that fall on the same roof generate similarly sized holes and that 2) hot air emanating from a hole mushrooms. The reader who sees the video will find your argument disproven, based upon those two points, which you have just accepted.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

1) You can't see the damage to the roof from the second bomb, because of the explosion and smoke from the first bomb.

2) The bombs fall in rapid succession. You can clearly see the explosion from the second bomb, and the "mushrooms" of smoke from both bombs growing.

[P1B1U1H1]

The first assertion is refuted above. There is no mushroom from "bomb2". At 1:19 the hotspot you call a defect appears.  At 1:20 the hot spot is gone and two black puffs appear, one to the superior side of the building, the other to the left side of the buiding. These puffs from a right angle with the hot spot. because the hot spot was where the massive explosion started. Had a bomb dropped, the hole in the roof would have seen an emanation of hot air.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

At 1:19 you can see where a second bomb has penetrated the smoke emanating from the building. Just prior to that, you can see the bomb as a blur in a few frames, falling in a trajectory straight to where this hole forms in the smoke as a result of the displace air from the high-speed projectile. At 1:20, you see the beginnings of the explosion, the heat and the smoke, from the second bomb.

[P1B1U1H1]

If that were where a bomb penetrated it, then 1) the black circle would assuredly be about the same size as the black circle for the first bomb, and 2) a mushroom of hot air would be seen as the circle disappears. That just does not happen.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

There is a bomb. Look. It's right there.

[P1B1U1H1]

You would have circled the bomb if it were there. No one can see the bomb because it is not there. You can see what a bomb looks like at 0:44.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Maybe I would have put little smiley faces on it if it were there, too. What kind of logic is that? I show the trajectory so people can see where to look. You see the bomb as a blur in several of the frames. It's moving at a high rate of speed. One wouldn't expect it to appear clearly. The first bomb also appears as a blur in most frames, it just so happens there's a single frame where it was captured particularly clearly.

[P1B1U1H1]

The "trajectory" is an artifact. You can see that. The line separates two parts of the visual field that have different degrees of clarity. This is not due to something falling. You cannot see the first bomb except where you have circled it.

[P1B1U1H1]

At 1:02, a red line appears that is asserted to demarcate a line of travel of a bomb. Look at that line at 1:03 and then before and afterwards; the line is a linear difference in definition of two parts of the image. Were this line specific proof of a bomb that just dropped, similar lines demonstrable before and after disprove the argument. At 0:55, 1:10 appear similar linear differences. You guys are dead wrong.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

You can see the bomb fall. The line just shows you where to look.

[P1B1U1H1]

I looked very carefully. No bomb anywhere. There is no second bomb except in your imagination.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Yes, there is. Perhaps you need glasses.

[saadasim]

Great catch.

Also:

Israel is deeply sorry

watch?v=TMo3DKlw-cI

[tronfox]

I have the video about the mosque!..

u are lying!..it could be IAF attacked the mosque twice!.....the first explosion happened twice! (as the missiles hit the target!!)

but the secondary explosion happened in 0:11!!!..

why u make this lies!!!...who pay u??

u want to make a fake propaganda!!!

you try to make an issue??..LOL

you cant trick again man!!

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

There are two explosions, both caused by Israeli bombs. There is no third explosion (see comments below).

[tronfox]

NOPE!!!!.. i can see clearly..every body can see it!!!

first it at 3:00..second is 4:00..

and the THIRD!!!..is at 11:00...the biggest one because the explosive inside the mosque!!!..

.YOU CANT LIE!!!!!....everybody can LAUGH!!!!!

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

That's not an explosion. The gunner has his thermal imaging monitor set to "black hot", so hot areas appear as black. You can see this black area growing slowly (relatively -- compare to the speed of the explosions) as the heat and smoke from the bombing escapes the building out the side. The screen flashes momentarily as the gunner adjusts the settings to better see the damage (notice he zooms in after adjusting the settings).

[tronfox]

its EXPLOSION!!!...look!!.. if in 0:11 is just thermal imaging monitor set??...so dont you see any flying object(rubble)in per/second after 0:11 explosion at down side of screen!!!..( there is another flying object near it too!)...and i see no zoom here!!!.

be real man!!..you cant trick like this!!..everybody who read this will be realize of ur lies!!

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Yes, I do see debris falling -- from the first two explosions caused by Israeli bombs. Watch the video in slow motion reverse and you can follow the piece of debris in the foreground to BEFORE what you ridiculously call an "explosion" and trace its path from the Israel bombing.

[tronfox]

sorry..its clearly debris from THIRD EXPLOSION!!!..i have watch this video again and again!.

its impossible..if the debris came from first two explosions!..

because there is distance time about 7-8 SECONDS!!!. from the first two explosion!!!.

and any else debris has land (it must be from the roof top)..but the third exposion debris from inside the mosque!!..look the roof top has gone and full by smoke and fire!..so u think the smoke and fire just from missiles??????..LOL

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

No. Anyone who wants to see for themself can watch the video in reverse in slow motion and see that the debris is from the bomb explosions.

Yes. The smoke and fire is from the Israeli bombs. You're implication that bombs wouldn't cause smoke and fire is rather idiotic.

[tronfox]

yes..i know if the bomb can make fire and smoke..but look this video!

the smoke and fire which came from missiles will not as big as u seen!..it must be from bomb/weapon on cache inside the mosque!!!.

the mosque it self is not a small building!!..LOL

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Why is the smoke and fire not from the bombing?

Have fun explaining that one.

[tronfox]

what u mean..u cant explain it??.

its look like u said all smoke and fire "only" came from the missiles???...LOL..

its funny...

u want to make a distortion of a bombing!..

dont u know what happened if empty building with no weapon/bomb cache inside get bombed???...any big fire or big smoke just like in this mosque??... you have fun now!!

why u cut the video..its 0:38 second!!..not like yours!! ( just 0:16)..its proven that u wanna make a distortion!!!.. one more thing for you to have fun!!..

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

I'm asking YOU to explain why two bombs wouldn't be sufficient to cause the smoke and fire.

Yes, I know what would happen if a building with no weapons/bomb cache inside got bombed. It would explode -- just like you see in this video.

Actually, the whole video is included. I show the rest later. But let's say I only showed the first 16 seconds. What, pray tell, is in the other 22 seconds you think "proves" I'm "distorting" anything?

Please enlighten us.

[tronfox]

the main problem is..u CUT the video!!..so no one here can see clearly in the mosque..

Its clearly, that the fire and smoke is not only from the missiles!!

look again..that the smoke and fire is not only at "direct hits" areas...

mosque is not a building with many rooms..no wood chairs/tables just like church!..so the burning will not as big as in the church or other buildings!.

if missiles hit (large empty room??)..so how can the fire and smoke reach to the other side????..

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Dude, I'm trying to humor you, but this is an idiotic argument. You can watch the bomb blasts exploding out the side of the building, followed by escaping heat and smoke. I fail to see how this presents a problem. Your argument comes down to "bombs wouldn't do that", but you can just watch the video and see the bombs doing that.

You can keep arguing that 2+2=3, or whatever, but I'm not feeling inclined to humor this nonsense or waste my time with you any longer.

[fontevraud]

great video. keep up the good work!

[rmankhey]

Another HAMAS funded, false, spun who dun it. If HAMAS chucked rockets indiscriminately at CIVILIANS in any other Western country on the planet I'm sorry to say that the response would be much worse.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Another lying apologist for Israel waging indiscriminate war on civilians.

[rmankhey]

The War you speak of was already started by Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel will finish it and protect it's people from this illegal terrorist government.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

1) Hamas strictly observed the cease-fire while Israel perpetually violated it.

2) Hezbollah???

3) Who will protect the Palestinian people from Israel's state terrorism?

[rmankhey]

Hamas is a terrorist government, you probably get paid by the Iranians to spread this bullshit on the internet. The palestinians must stand up against terrorism to get support from the rest of the world. Otherwise Israel will protect themselves against illegal terrorist actions.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Israel is responsible for incomparably greater terrorism than Hamas.

You didn't address my three points/questions.

[rmankhey]

Israel is finishing what Hamas started by launching rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Israel has the right to protect it self against an illegal terrorist government and army bent on it's destruction. If a terrorist government launched rockets into any other western country the resulting actions would be quite different. Gaza would be bombed into a potato field a there would be no phone calls to the nearby residence around active launch tubes to evacuate. Baseless, non factual bullshit.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Hamas strictly observed the cease-fire until it was ended by Israel in November.

It wasn't the Palestinians that engaged in a policy of ethnic cleansing in 1948. It isn't the Palestinians who have illegally occupied territory since 1967 and stolen land.

Israel has the right to defend itself. It does not have the right to terrorize Palestinians, engage in collective punishment, and wage indiscriminate warfare.

[123Ivansharpe]

When bombs went off in england killing children you didnt see the british carpet bombing schools and hospitals and refugee centres like these cowardly israeli dogs.

[yairbe5]

england fleten berlin in the end of ww2

[shlomof]

And killed 100.000 in Dresden in one night of intense bombardments.

And was part of NATO that bombarded for 72 days Serbia, killing 3000 civilians, and Serbia never attacked british towns as Hamas does...

[sal64lon]

Great vid

[NeilSagan]

On US foreign policy.

"There needs to be a new approach by the US that is more balanced... that holds both sides accountable for their actions." - Queen Noor of Jordan.

See video in video replies.

[AnteojosdeFanny]

I'll say it again: if you watch closely when the second bomb is dropped (both bombs have the tag 'first explosion') a little explosion is produced. Only a while after a third explosion appears, hence the third explosion does not belong to the second bomb.

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

There is no third explosion. The screen flashes white for a brief moment, but there is no explosion. This appears to be the gunner switching his thermal imaging sensor momentarily off of "black-hot" and then back again. It is NOT an explosion.

[AnteojosdeFanny]

the thing tagged as the third explosion is the fire that goes up all of a sudden, way after the second bomb is dropped, not the flash of light, which comes after. If the explosion is the consequence of the second bomb why do you see an explosion (the little white light) just before the black smoke goes up all of a sudden, way after the second bomb is dropped?

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

There is no third explosion. There are two explosions, both from Israeli bombs. You are apparently talking about the dark area that expands after the bombing. The thermal sensor shows hot areas as black. This is heat coming from the two bomb blasts and the expansion of the cloud of smoke. This is probably why the gunner momentarily switches adjusts the imaging sensor to be able to see through what was showing up on the monitor as a big hot area. This hot area expands slowly -- not an explosion.

[AnteojosdeFanny]

Gosh, there were two bombs with their explosions each one. Yet there was a third explosion and only then the thing with the 'explosion' appears. Where does that third explosion come from if each bomb already has its explosion?

[hologram48]

Great vid ! I have noticed quite a lot of vids posted by the IDF and mainly jewish/Israeli Youtube users which are questionable too ! Thanks for posting !

[ListenEar]

The Video is slowed down so it looks like a secondary explosion. If it was sped up, the 2nd bomb blast would be almost as one.

IDF Making excuses..

The only thing the Pilots can do to avoid war crimes is point their F16 out to sea, shut the engine down and eject.

It would be better than dropping Bombs on Little Babies, Boys & Girls, Mums and Dads.

IDF... The Palestinians are not fighting.. You are the only ones killing..

Wait till the war crimes trials!

[Joe99889]

Jewish crimes are not limited to Israel.

[geo1671]

Joe99889---:^)

You'd be more correct if you said,"Jewish crimes are not limited to Israel but apply to United Tits for Israel (NATO)".

FYI: WWI WWII were all about--creation of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.Millions died. Hitler was America's stoog,he relocated 600,000 Jews into Palestine. Answer this: why did Zionist Nazi Germany invade Russia,Poland twice and on who's orders? Ashkenazism! Same vermin are wrecking NATO,be prepared WWIII is about to happen--attacking Russia 3rd time.

[Monkor001]

Google "Talmut Holocaust" the holocoust, which means "burnt offering" look it up. Called for the holocaust (burnt offering) of 6 million jews to create the state of Israel.

That state was formed with the blood and suffering of it's own people, the palisitinians are nothing to them, palistinians used to be the Canninites from the old testement, the area was renamed palistine by the romans, it was Canninite before that time

[Monkor001]

Briefly Canninite was called Israel, but it was called that by the Romans, they gave it to the jews then took it away and gave it beck to the people they took it from in the first place, those people being the Palistinians (as they are called today)

[bardbollocks]

A great example of a PREMEDITATED warcrime.

That the IDF attempted to create apparent 'secondaries' to justify the attack shows that this was not only a false claim but it was PLANNED.

[mailer666]

When has the Israeli govt ever spoken the truth about anything?

[geo1671]

Get this fatheads--The land of Palestine is a very important USA military base with two large prison compounds. What do you expect if prisoners riot-give them comfort? Those greedy Eygptians.all they have to do is open their borders and allow the total escape. No more Arabs for Israel to deal with in Goolag Prison Gaza :^( Don't ever trust any Jew. Swindlers list !

[ForeignPolicyJournal]

Yes, the Arab nations have a lot to answer for, too. Egypt has been near complicit in this atrocity.

[bnwbaly]

If it had no weapons in storage, that would be a first.

[vegannut]

All zionist do is LIE

Saddams WMD LIE

We thought the USS Liberty was a horse carrier LIE

Lavon Affair... BUSTED

you can just keep adding and adding