Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Irrefutable Evidence?

"There is irrefutable evidence of European complicity in the unlawful practice of renditions," Amnesty said in the letter.

Amnesty's report draws largely the same conclusions as those issued by EU lawmakers on Monday, and last week by the Council of Europe, a European human rights watchdog. None produced hard evidence

"The whole evidence question is overrated, it's a bit cynical," said Dick Oosting, director of Amnesty's EU office

Amazing. It is now OK to draw conclusions while having no facts to support them, because "Evidence is overrrated"? I wonder how Oosting would feel were he charged with some henious crime, sans hard evidence, because to provide it would be "overrated", or "cynical"?

Can I put that quote over Amnesty's doorway, please?
"Evidence is overrated"!

Now the quote I want to put over Kofi Annan's doorway, well, that's not printable in a family blog. Israel, usually the first nation to find fault with itself, declares they did not shell a Gaza beach. The AP, though, begs to differ:

Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Tuesday that Israel was not responsible for a blast that killed eight Gaza beachgoers, rebuffing Palestinian accusations that blamed an Israeli artillery round

An Israeli inquiry concluded the blast was caused by an explosive buried in the sand, not from Israeli shelling on the afternoon of the Palestinian family's beach picnic.

It was not clear how the explosive got there, or whether it might have been an unexploded Israeli shell from an earlier military barrage.

And what evidence do you have to support that bit of speculation? Wishful thinking, or is it simply that again "evidence is overrated"? Wait, here is some "evidence":

Human Rights Watch battle damage assessment expert Marc Garlasco said he examined the shrapnel on the beach, saw the civilians' injuries and concluded the blast was caused by an Israeli shell.
"Our information certainly supports, I believe, an Israeli shell did come in," Garlasco said, ruling out a land mine...

Showing aerial photographs and film, the head of the Israeli inquiry, Maj. Gen. Meir Klifi, declared: "There is no chance that a shell hit this area. Absolutely no chance."

So who do you believe? The congential liars in the Palestinian camps (Jenin! Jenin!), a left-wing "battle assessmen expert," or an Israeli Major-General? Certainly Kofi Annan knows who he believes - via Little Green Footballs:

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described as “odd” the suggestion by the Israeli investigation.
“To find a mine on the beach is rather odd,” he told reporters at the UN headquarters

Odd? Hey, genius - ever hear of Omaha Beach? It's been done for, oh, sixty-odd years now, and Kofi knows that. He also cannot have the Palestinians lose their victim status, so he simply disposes of an inconvienent truth, just like Amnesty disposes of the need for evidence when they need to maintain a storyline.

The left is living in denial, and the Islamists are gleefully exploiting it. The left will lie, directly to a willing world's face, in order to maintain the shattered illusions of their world view; and the jihadis are more than pleased to provide them with material.
And what does that say about a world anxious to accept these types of hateful claims and lies at face value?

It does not bode well....

1 comment:

theBhc said...

Apparently, you missed this admission by the Israelis:

The Israeli military is now admitted that, indeed, they were launching shells onto the beach and that they cannot account for one of the rounds: The military now says that it fired six shells on to and around the beach where Huda Ghalia's family died, with one of them falling about 100 yards away...

The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that the army concedes that five shells landed along a 250-metre stretch of beach and that a sixth shell is unaccounted for.

Of course, this comes out of the Guardian, so your outlook will probably be able to ignore it.