The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

<<
 a
 >
>>
Who Is Israel's Real Enemy?

Is it Hamas? Is it the PLO? Is it the United States of America? Is it Russia as some Christian Bible prophecy believers believe it to be?

Or, is it the world's media? The world's media that leans liberal? Could it really be that Israel's greatest enemy over the last few decades is the world's mainstream media?

Take a look at this link that avid SnappedShot fan, BusyWolf, tipped us off to. The link has text and a video that was shown on international outlets. Let's start off with a look at the name of the link? Does that give you any clues as to the direction the story is going to go? gaza-israel-assault-medics-violence Now let's take a look at the text introducing the video from France television 24:

The conflict between Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian group that is in charge of the Gaza Strip, and Israel has provoked reaction worldwide.


Right there, from the very first sentence of the story, we can see the direction this story is going to go. France's 24 will start with the premise that Hamas, being basically just another Islamic group, is an official group that was duly and rightfully elected to be in charge of Gaza. And no one in the world should be challenging Hamas' authority to govern Gaza Strip. See anything wrong here?

France 24, it appears, is a state-run media outlet that is operated in partnership with France 2. As you may recall, it was France 2 that villified Israel in the made-up al-Dura affair. A Palestinian-media driven affair that tried to paint Israel as child killers, but was shown in court to be wholly faked by the Palestinian and their France 2 compatriots.

France 24, just over 2 years old now, provides Arabic, French and English programming, focusing on the French perspective, over the airwaves and on the internet across much of Europe and the mid-East. And we all know how much love France gives to Western-type democracies. Has France ever made statements in support of Israel or its actions? I know Sarkozy did during and following his campaign. I know there is also a strong pro-Israel contingent in France. But, as a whole, France's media and political machine despise Israel.

Let's analyze the France 24 text further (long post):
But the world has by and large watched the events unfold from a distance. Israel has stopped foreign correspondents from entering the Gaza Strip, as the conflict by air and on the ground has intensified.

Our report brings you a view from the heart of the crisis, from the streets of Gaza, as our reporter witnesses the horrific effects of war on ordinary people.


"from a distance"? Really? Is France 24 living in a vacuum? This war has been plastered all over the media of the world. Not one hour goes by that we don't hear how someone comes out against Israel's "massive" "offensive" "assault". They state that Israel has not allowed foreign media inside of Gaza, but then admit to sneaking one of their streakers stringers in. And, they have to throw in those buzzwords, "crisis", "horrific" and... did I read that right, "ordinary people"? How can you claim that Gazans are ordinary citizens after they chose to have a murdering terrorist organization as their leaders and representatives? An organization recognized by the world's countries AS terrorists. But for some strange reason, they seem to be the only terrorist organization that receives aid money from those same countries.

This is not a geopolitical analysis of the Hamas-Israel War. It is a look from the inside at how, when movements, governments and ideologies do battle, it is mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children who are affected.

The eyewitness video made by a Palestinian journalist, Radjaa Abou Dagga, France 24's correspondent in Gaza, shows a slice of life in a war zone, how people desperately scramble to stay alive amid artillery shells, air raids and ground combat.


This is not a "geopolitical analysis" but they then proceed to present one side in this conflict. A side that supports a murdering terrorist organization whole-heartedly. Is this really a battle of ideologies? Is this really a battle of two conflicting and valid viewpoints? Or is this a struggle for survival and find peace on one side, and a life-long compulsion to eradicate the other side no matter the cost?

Can you really get an unbiased report from a Palestinian stringer reporting against Israel? Think of this, would we have ever seen a report like this during WW2 from a German stringer on the life of Germans under the British air raids? A report from a Japanese stringer on Japan citizens during our bombardments of Japan? Why is this acceptable now? Could it be that being anti-semitic is fashionable? Or is there another driving force? A darker more sinister force pushing the world to fight against little old Israel?

Taking a look at the France 24's front page we see several telling things . Two video exclusives. One being this report titled "Embedded with Gaza medics." The other exclusive is "With the Palestinians of Rafah." Is that a double entendre? (which oddly enough is a French saying)

Ok, now to the video.

The announcer starts off by highligting the point of the France 24 show: To showcase the best reports from their own correspondents from around the world. This episode focuses upon Gaza from the inside. The announcer states that this is a conflict between "Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian group, that runs the Gaza Strip and Israel, which has provoked worldwide reaction."

So, from the very start of the video, we hear that this will be one of their best reports from one of their best reporters across the globe. And, we hear that it will focus on the life of Gazans who are under Israel's gun. An action that has provoked worldwide reaction. But, Hamas is just an Islamic group. Bias anyone?

And, when the announcer states that the world has watched these events from a distance, aren't they saying that the world is just sitting by doing nothing against Israel while Israel continues its assult on innocent Gazans? One wonders if they would have made such similar statements against the actions in Darfur or Yugoslavia?

The France 24 report then shows a global map that zooms in on the mid-East area. The world is grey with the waterbodies blue. As we zoom in to Israel-Egypt-Jordan area, we see that the area is still a grey color, but only two areas are highlighted: West Bank and the Gaza STrip. What does the West Bank have to do with this? And, why isn't Israel highlighted in this map as they are the other side of this story?

The announcer states that this is a slice of life on the streets of Gaza City at the heart of the crisis showcasing how the horrific Israel onslaught is affecting innocent Gazans, especially the children. May I note right here that the world's alternative media has shown time and time again that the treatment of Gazan's civilians, especially its children, is a direct result and the responsibility of the Hamas murdering terrorist organization and its verified crimes against humanity.

The announcer then warns its viewers that many may find images in this report are graphic and some may find them.... (with an emphasis on) disturbing. Again, pointing to the treatment of Gazans citizens as being out of bounds, egregious or beyond the norms of war. Hey!! How about a report of the disturbing effect of Hamas' rockets and mortars and homicide bombs upon Israel's children? Eh?

The video then starts right off with a supposed Israel attack and then images of dead and bloody bodies. The reporter calls them "mutilated bodies". The reporter has a distinctive British accent for some reason. At least it sounds like it to me. The reporter follows an ambulance as it races through the streets. Then for some reason he stops following it. He then makes allusions that the ambulance came under Israeli gunfire.

We are then treated to another al-Dura moment. The reporter focuses in on several people laying behind a large concrete block. The reporter says that one is the doctor, dressed in a white shirt and black jeans, from the ambulance they were chasing. The reporter states that he chose to stay behind to ask about other possible wounded people. We hear gunfire. The reporter says that this is crossfire between Hamas and Israel. In the background we see a small tent set up on the sidewalk. Odd. We see another ambulance down the road on the other side of this scene with people dressed in orange standing around just outside the ambulance. The camera then pans to someone a few feet (meters?) closer to the camera crouching behind a fence out in the open. The doctor then makes crazy-8 moves to get to this person who is not injured. The person that the doctor just left then makes a bee-line to the side of the street away from the doctor. The doctor then stands up and makes a marathon-like run towards the vehicle that the reporter is riding in. A vehicle that turns out to be an ambulance. The reporter then gets his interview of the doctor.

The ambulance then takes off, stating that a report of an injured person was reported to be just a few blocks away. The ambulance the doctor is riding in then drives up the road that the reporter just ran down ostensibly trying to avoid the crossfire. If there was gunfire along that road, why then drive your ambulance down that road? We then see the ambulance that was on the far seen now coming toward and passing our ambulance approaching the reporter. We also see quite a number of people standing around the scene. One of which, is the supposed doctor who got out of the ambulance before it left. So much for a dangerous place.

The reporter then interviews some "civilians" who announce that there was a "sniper" around and a dead man nearby. Take note of the number of "children" standing around where the gunfire is happening. What other point is there for these "children" to be here than to take part in the action against Israel? This interview seems to be taking place at the location of where the second ambulance was originally parked down the road. The obvious implication is that it was an Israeli sniper taking people out. The reporter asks if this place is a cemetery. It is obvious that this is not a cemetery with all of the buildings around the street. One person states that there is a cemetery and a grove that grew citrus. On the other side of the grove is where the Jews used to live. The guy then states that if you go inside (???) you will get shot by snipers. Now, the implication is complete as we also hear gunshots coming from around the corner.

The reporter says that the residents take cover behind the walls as we hear even more gunshots. But yet, we see people walking around without fear or concerns for their safety. No one is hiding. In fact, across the street we see people standing in the street. And, someone near the reporter walked in front of the so called wall of hiding just as the reporter talked of taking cover.

The reporter says that it is impossible to approach the body as he seemingly hides from gunfire behind the corner of the wall. But, he captures someone running diagonally across the road across the street from him. So much for impossible. We have yet to see the body. As we peak around the corner of our Wall of Solitude, we see that there are a number of people standing in the street just down from our intrepid reporter. Again, we see more buildings lining the street. No cemetery in sight.

What we do see are a few little pathetic trees planted in the sidewalk and barricaded by 10-foot high protective fence. Its pretty sad when you have to protect your vegetation with massive structures from your own citizens.

Back to the action, as the camera zooms down the street, we see some peope hiding behind another corner down the street while others are in the street. No body is evident anywhere. The reporter then cuts to the ambulance driver who states that he wants to go get the "martyr" (the interpreter's words) but says that the army shoots at him. He then points to the gunfire stating that he can't go till the shooting stops. Hmm, that didn't stop him earlier in the story. Again, the implication is that the Israeli army shoots indiscriminantly at anything that moves, including ambulances and their doctors. I guess we are to assume that all gunfire is Israeli gunfire? Are we to assume that Hamas would never harm their own in order to blame Israel?

The reporter, still riding in the ambulance, states that the ambulance driver has to give up and abandon the body because it is not safe. "We simply can not work. It is extremely dangerous." Well, I did hear that it is a warzone full of warguns, warplanes, warbombs and warbullets. If only they were peacebullets so that he could get his job done. He is just a simple ordinary person trying to just do his job. But Israel's evil machinations are preventing him from doing his job saving his people. The reporter then emphatically states that ambulance drivers have paid a huge price in this war. Again, an allusion to Israel taking direct shots at ambulances and their workers. This Palestinian reporter wouldn't be trying to make a case for war crimes against Israel, would he?


"No time to chat. There are injured people everywhere." is what we hear as a dozens of people stand around while a single man is loaded into an ambulance. He states that the man's hand was injured, though to me, there wasn't any injury at all with VERY LITTLE blood present on the palm. The man states that all he was doing was praying at his uncle's grave. Of course, it doesn't matter that he looks like a Hamas fighter. The reporter asks if anyone else was injured and the man says, "Look, just tell them what we are going through." Of course, no questions about why he was praying at a cemetery. No questions about why he was praying at a cemetery while Israeli snipers were about. No questions about why he was out in the open at a cemetery while the Israeli army moved in supposedly killing everything that moved.

The ambulance driver then tries to disperse the large crowd that has now gathered around the camera crew and reporter. He says it is very dangerous for them should Israel land a shell near them.

We are then treated to another scene. Now back inside the ambulance we are racing down a street with people standing in the midst of. No sense that he is worried about running over his own people. And again, we see people out in the open where there is supposedly a war going on.

The ambulance stops at a scene we are told is a car in the middle of the road with two BADLY injured people onboard. There is another ambulance already on the scene. As we pan to the car, we see one of these BADLY injured people walking toward the ambulance, past the camera crew and walk in to the ambulance. He has a minor head wound and is limping a bit. He has on a bomber jacket. The reporter says that the other man's leg "has been ripped off". Meanwhile, we see no blood on or around the man. We see no damage to the car. There is no damage to the area around the car.

Back in the ambulance for the supposed ride to the hospital with the man with the injured head. He prays, "May god help us." As I have stated before, I find it interesting that these people say "god" and not allah. The person in the back of the ambulance treating this man with the head wound, says that he sees this kind of thing all the time. He then exclaims that he has to treat these people while in the ambulance. As if this is something that is out of the ordinary and should be newsworthy. Damned Israel. Making these ambulance workers treat the injured in an ambulance while on the way to the hospital. How horrible!!

At the hospital, the driver then talks about how his ambulance has been shot at pointing to bullet holes. Bullet holes that look an awful lot like they were shot from inside the ambulance. Meanwhile, we see a gaggle of cameras and even more "citizens" standing around the entrance of this hospital. The driver and the reporter then complain that the hospital is in a very dangerous location being so near to the "closing in" Israeli army making allusions that the Israeli army directly targets hospitals. We are then presented with images of Israeli tanks rumbling over the landscape as the driver talks. The driver states that the hospital is a target for Israel.

The driver states that he and his ilk are unable to assist wounded unless he has clearance from the Jerusalem head office first. But, we are then treated to an anonymous explosion. The reporter and the driver are then rushing off again this time supposedly to the location of the explosion as alluded to by the reporter. But, I thought they had to get clearance first before they could go in for wounded? Guess it is up to the driver and if they have reporters on board?


HA. At the scene of the supposed explosion, we see literally hundreds of people standing around and a number of ambulances on the scene as well. The reporter describes the scene as chaotic while we see people standing around. He states that there are "twisted bodies lining the streets everywhere." But yet, we are not shown bodies. We see what might look like two bodies, but only because people are on the ground looking at something. He cuts to a tall building and states that they are near a school run by the UNROA. (eh??) And again, we see hundreds of people standing around in the streets and no damage to the road or buildings. We then cut to the camera guy rushing to a crowd of people. We then cut to a scene in an alley with a man yelling for a car. We then cut to a scene of a dead elderly man under a blanket covered by a brown blanket. No sign of blood, damage, or debris. CUT.

We are now at the hospital with people hanging out of a white passenger car with the reporter saying that "injured are arriving from all directions." If the incident at the school was so massive and with bodies everywhere, then why not show them? Why not follow those bodies to the hospital since the crew is riding in an ambulance, right? Why not talk to the martyred's family? If this is a story about the impact war has on the ordinary person, then why not talk to the man-on-the-street after this attack?

At the hospital, we are treated to people being DRAGGED out of the car with slight wounds on their legs. But the people appear unconscious, or dead. But, there appear to be no other wounds except for the minor wounds on their legs. And then another ambulance (nearly brand new) with a passenger sitting up front holding a child. The child is pulled out upside down. Not really healthy for a child. There appears to be 4 children and one adult pulled out of the ambulance. Very little sign of blood or trauma. The only one I could make out is the lower left leg injury of the adult patient that is carried out of the ambulance.

We then see more people brought in with real injuries. One has his face nearly gone from his injury. It becomes rather chaotic there at the entrance to the hospital with ambulances trying to come in with injured, ambulances trying to leave, and hundreds of people and cameras standing around for the show.

And then to top this show off, we follow person carrying an injured person in to the hospital. As we enter the hospital's hallway, we have someone cut in front of us. It is that bomber jacket dude that was supposedly previously injured? If so, it is an amazing recovery. We then see people walking the other way carrying injured kids out of the hospital.

Inside the hospital, the reporter tells us that the staff are overwhelmed. I should say, there are hundreds of people just standing around for the show inside as well. We are now blessed with the dozens of images of injured people laying on the floor. We are told it is because there are no more beds. In the US, the injured are brought in to the Emergency Room (ER) where they are treated and then moved to another part of the hospital for further long-term treatment. If there is a large number of people coming in, like during bombings or such, there are things set up called "triages". These are areas where large number of injured are brought in, either laid out on tables or the floor, and are quickly diagnosed based on their injuries. They are then treated based on their injuries. Some have to wait long periods for care because their injury is deemed non-critical. It is the way things have been since WW1, or earlier.

We are then treated to an open wound on the neck of one person. The attendant then quickly puts the gauze back on the wound now that the shot is over. For such a large neck wound, you think there would be more gauze and blood than what was used. I've used more gauze for a tooth-extraction.

People with head wounds are being carried by one or more people while walking all over the people laying on the floor. The people sitting with the injured on the floor are yelling at those walking on the injured. The people in the white jackets very quickly move from one person to another. Not even touching or seeming to diagnose the injured. They too seem to be part of this roaming mob of people just going around and around. We are then treated to a green-shirt person cutting in to an injured person on the floor.

Then, more and more injured are DRAGGED into the hospital. We even see bodies in various stages of undress. We even see a bright blue thong on what appears to be a dead guy. Ignoring the bright blue thong, isn't viewing dead bodies in humiliating situations against Islam? We then see normally dressed civilians appearing to direct traffic and giving orders inside the hospital triage area.

And then we have a fleeting moment of the ambulance driver shedding some tears while being forced to head out to the war zone to rescue more injured civilians. At least, that is what the reporter says.

We are then given a first-person view of this Palestinian reporter. The voice we are hearing is that of the interpreter of the video, not the journalist. So, who is this reporter making this video for? If it was for France, wouldn't he speak English or French? The reporter states with emptathy that the hospital being so full of injured is forced to close its doors. Who would think that a hospital on the front lines of the war would get so many injured?

We are then told that a few hours later the Israeli military gave ITS version of what happened at the school. Once again, the voice over interprets what is said, this time by the Israeli spokesperson. The voice over for the Israeli spokesperson is dry, mechanical with slight sarcastic undertones. When the interpretor speaks for Hamas, they are in compassionate normal voice tones.

We are told, that during Israel's 3-hour truce, we are taken back to the scene of the school attack. We are given a guided tour by a concerned citizen of the area. The man says that one of "two missiles" landed in the middle of an intersection. He then points to the supposed area where the missiles hit. All is seen in the video is an area of disturbed brick like someone pulled some bricks out of the road a few years ago. Note, the road is a red-brick road with sand underneath. If an Israeli shell, or missile struck that kind of road, there would be a MUCH bigger hole in the ground. Let alone two missiles!!

Our diligent tour guide then points to where the bodies were found around the blast area. Recall, this school was supposedly being used as a refuge for people seeking protection from the war. Would they be mealing about an open intersection about a hundred yards away from the school?

Meanwhile, where he points to where the bodies were, there is no sign of blood or debris. Would Hamas' social service arm be that fast to come in and clean the area up of blood and all form of debris?

They are then showed an area where the wounded were "gathered" after moving a very large tarp. The ever diligent tour guide then tells us of one young man who just happened to be looking out of one of the school windows at the time of the "attack" and was injured by shrapnel. "How could he have known?" we are questioned. He was the only one looking out of the dozens of windows on that side of the school? And it sure looks like many of the windows are still intact.

We are then treated to the scene we have seen so many times where a few of the people injured from the Israeli response were. The area looks like a side entrance with a few chairs, rubber garden hose, white plastic chair (dang, they sure are everywhere) and lots of debris. Except the voice over tells us that this was someone's home. Yet, the media wanted us to believe it was part of the school that was hit. Again, now we are seeing the proper signs of an area being hit by an aerial bombardment. We are seeing a lot of debris, a lot of broken items, and blood stains. We even see the ever-present loose sandal laying all by itself having lost its owner. Interesting enough, there is alot of damage to this house that looks old. We are told that 10 people died there. Wasn't that from an attack on a known Hamas leader's house?

The reporter is then taken to the house of an "alleged Hamas terrorist" leader. We are treated to cries of disproportionate response. We are told that Israel attacked the wrong people which caused the death of an innocent 13 year old boy. Amazingly enough, we are then shown a cell phone image of the dead boy!! I'm sorry, but isn't that a sacrilege in almost every religion especially Islam?

We are told by this "alleged" Hamas terrorist leader that the person Israel tried to kill does not exist in either Hamas or among the "martyrs" that were killed. We are then treated to listening to the account of how this brave fighter was made legless by an Apache helicopter in 2004. The camera then pans around him sitting on the very nice sofa to show how his legs are gone. The Palestinian reporter then asked this "alleged" terrorist if he was injured in that attack. He states that he lost his legs. OH!! That is what is different about him. Wouldn't have noticed. He then thanks god. And that is the end of the report. Cut back to France 24 studio.

We are then treated with a personal report from the Palestinian stringer about how harrrrd it is to be a Palestinian and a "journalist" with the war in his backyard. He laments about how he hasn't been able to hold his mother in such a long time because she lives near the southern border of Gaza. Ummmm. Seems to me that would be the first thing one would do, wouldn't it? Wouldn't you try to get your mom out and away from the war? No, this intrepid reporter felt it was his duty to provide unbiased reporting from the front line about the lives of ordinary citizens affected by this war. Just not how his mother was impacted. He left her to fend for herself saying that she had to pack up and leave due to the air raid sirens and bombardments. Oh, no. She is also a diabetic. How tragic. I must feel for her plight. Too bad that her son couldn't be there for her. CUT to images of Israel warbombings and warplanes making their attacking runs.

Isn't this like Obama leaving his mother-in-law to live illegally in state housing? Or his uncle to live in a hubble in Africa on only $12 a year? I thought Islam was all about family and love?

This intrepid dedicated reporter then laments how he just has to say no to injured people who ask for his help because he has to stay focused and get the story. How brave of him. The filming must go on. He must film the dying because if he didn't, they wouldn't die and he wouldn't have a story to tell. "If you lose the message - you lose your status as a witness if you try and save them."

I think that pretty much sums up the whole point of this story. This reporter would rather see his people die than to lose the chance for a story.

I think it is clear, it is this kind of media reporting that is put out by the mainstream media that is corrupting the minds of freedom-loving people of the world.


You know, I think knowing what we know about the world's media, I think it is high time to quit calling them the MSM, or the MAINSTREAM media. As they have such a huge liberal agenda, why should they even be given the nickname of "mainstream"? I think they need a new moniker. World's Main LIBERAL Media? World's Liberal-Stream Media?

 Tags: hamas media bias #Misinformation


Comments:

#1 busywolf 21-Jan-2009
Brilliant, captain, absolutely brilliant!
Powered by Snarf ยท Contact Us