The Qana Conspiracy Theory
Depressingly, I hadn't realized that Israeli and American hawks had decided to take psychological shelter from the fiasco at Qana by convincing themselves the whole thing was faked. By all evidence, though, it was quite real. Of course, with a really good conspiracy theory you can always explain the evidence away because, after all, what's the conspiracy there for if not to fake the evidence?
Link courtesy of Jim Henley who has more on this.
Advertisement
I've noticed a trend beginning where the RW wants to blame the victims who die because of their (the RW's) screw-ups. First there was Hurricane Katrina where the cry was heard "they died because they decided to stay" and now we hear the same. It reminds me of a small child who gets caught doing something wrong and their only defense is "It wasn't my fault"...
August 3, 2006 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this "conspiracy theory" is really just rather poor propaganda by some crazy wingers. I doubt whether most of the spreaders are really so stupid as to believe it themselves; I think they just want to get a counternarrative out there.
The clear evidence that it's bunk is that it doesn't even come close to comporting with what the Israeli military itself says, and it certainly has the incentive to find out and get it out if there was anything to it.
It's embarrassing, really. Then again, believing what is said in the talk radio/freeper/Fox universe as a whole requires massive suspension of disbelief, so it's not surprising they can spread this disinformation.
August 3, 2006 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it a good role for the media to debunk things like this? It's something where they have people on the ground, and if it's just treated dismissively as a 'conspiracy theory', it'll never go away.
August 3, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of my frustrations is that Israeli censorship prevents any real information coming out, and the US has a general policy that US photographic satellite companies are forbidden from selling high-resolution photographs of the Middle East.
My ideal solution, which has happened before on US initiative but is unlikely here, is to have the US present at least high-resolution imagery to the UNSC, perhaps evaluated by international experts, or, if he will take the time from his retirement, someone with the professional stature of Dino Brugioni. Brugioni was the #2 man in building up US imagery intelligence, but since his retirement, he has turned his attention to make imagery a tool for historians. He's also a decent regular photographer; I once got him as judge for our photo club and had a fascinating dinner conversation about the role of photointerpretation in history. He's published a fair bit on when the hard photographs of Auschwitz (taken by mistake) became available to the Western Allies.
I'd also very much like to know if something as small as a Katyusha or GRAD shows up on the US DSP missile launch detector satellites, and if the event logs (times and coordinates) might be made available. These don't take pictures in the conventional sense. Other US platforms, such as the high-flying Global Hawk UAV, certainly could image rockets, and quite probably gunfire.
Failing the quality of the US intelligence satellites, which could well be degraded so as not to reveal full capabiity, I'd like to see French or Japanese and Russian imagery go to news media, with the analysis of what both sides are using. Ideally, someone may be doing thermal imaging, which would identify positions from which rockets recently have been launched.
The Israeli censorship certainly isn't keeping Hezbollah from knowing it's being attacked, and by what. I do understand that if Hezbollah is using a small number of larger rockets or missiles, Israel can legitimately not give the impact points, since that can be use to improve aiming. In WWII, agents doubled by Britain against Germany deliberately fed offsets on the V2 impact sites, leading many to land in fields rather than city. Many cows were disconcerted at best.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, there exist photographs and other intelligence that could likely confirm or deny.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I wouldn't be convinced by "photgraphic evidence" if those photos were from satellite observations. I can distinctly remember Colin Powell going before the UN with irrefutible proof of Saddam's active WoMD program based on satellite photos...and we all know how that story came unraveled.
August 3, 2006 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing in intelligence is ever certain, and you will note that I recommended interpretation by international experts, or possibly using imagery from other nations' satellites. I would note that AFAIK, there was no after-the-fact analysis of the images presented by Powell.
Are there things that would convince you, or are you operating under the assumption everyone always lies and nothing can be trusted until after the fact? Nay, forget convinced. Is it worth having more information of possible validity, or just to talk about motives?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only way the conspiracy theorists can convince people is through "proof", whether that proof comes in the form of human intelligence or photographic. But since 9/11 the more "proof" we see the more we realize to only believe half of what we see and nothing we hear. I don't believe there is a conspiracy so maybe I am just talking about the motives...because if there is a conspiracy it is up to the people who believe there is a conspiracy to provide the "proof" and not the ones who remain unconvinced to provide the "proof" that it is nothing more then a theory.
August 3, 2006 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little confused, not especially dealing with conspiracy or other theories of what might or might not have happened. From the standpoint of having some experience of intelligence analysis, the sequence I have more in mind is:
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go and get appropriate raw data. If this is press rather than governmental, that probably will be a combination of satellite photographs and assorted human reports.
In theory I don't have a problem with what you say Howard. It makes logical sense if that process was followed and you received all the unbiased "raw data". The problem I have is (in reference to the quote above) how do you know you will be getting all the raw data and it will be unbiased? Will certain facts be "cherrypicked" while some is left out? We have been down this path with the RW over the past few years repeatedly in terms of "raw intelligence".
August 3, 2006 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me try to clarify. When I say "raw data", I'm using it as a term of art. For example, if I were getting satellite photographs, I'd want not just the photo of the area, but the sequence of photographs approaching and leaving the area, along with a precise time stamp and details of the satellite's orbit and inclination, as well as of the imaging system. If it's a daytime shot:
Again, my preference would be to have strips of photographs from several dates, before and after the event in question.
Would you agree this is much harder to cherry pick? At the same time, it's going to be too complex for someone to put up on a screen or easel at the UNSC.
To the extent that I have other information, such as human reports, I can start correlating which are consistent with the photographs, and consistent with one another.
To the extent I have data from other sources, which unfortunately often are highly classified (legitimately), again I can correlate. The term of art is "all-source analysis."
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides anything else, ME is a subject of intence information warfare and lies are manufactures by both sides (let's simplify the situation to two sides).
That said, Israeli ministers were promising to flatten Lebanon, punish all Shia (a.k.a. Hezbollah, or Hezbollah infrastructure), etc. so it is hard to see that IDF had any motivation to be careful what the do bomb. Mass bombing is a political decision, not a military one. Once it is decided, thousands of targets have to be extablished and the criteria have to be lax. An upright structure not far from the border becomes a sure bet for the target list. You think that they deliberate, pore over photographs to decide if Hezbollah were indeed using the area or then again, may be not etc.? That they have hundreds of teams to do so? This is not how one unleashes the dogs of war.
August 3, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
May we distinguish between "counterbattery" and other actions? By counterbattery, I use a military term of art that means the process of destroying artillery, mortars, or rocket launchers that actively are firing at you.
In a battlefield environment (i.e., where civilians are not especially a concern), the US Army approach to counterbattery is largely automated. "Firefinder" radar (AN/TPQ-36 or -37) detects the enemy round while it's in the air, computes its launching point, and electronically sends the coordinates of that point to waiting M109A6 howitzers or M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems. In practice, a human double-checks the coordinates to be sure the enemy isn't trying to bring down fire on friendly or neutral targets -- consider the possibility someone managed to smuggle a rocket into your biggest base, and fire it from there.
I'm not sure I'd use the term "mass bombing" here. Mass bombing implies area-effect bombing, which, in turn, requires a heavy bomber such as a B-52 or B-1. Israel doesn't have any.
Israel does its bombing from fighter-bombers, principally F-16's. They can drop "dumb" bombs with the sights and bombing computer built in, but Israel also has the US Joint Direct Action Munition (JDAM) precision guidance kit that attaches to Mark 80 series dumb bombs. JDAM uses inertial guidance, possibly with GPS updates, but the point is that it has to be given specific coordinates either before the flight, by a ground controller, or possibly an airborne forward air controller.
At least in the US Air Force, teams do, in fact, go over the photographs and check targets. It's not trivial in effort, but it's sufficiently computer assisted that it doesn't take hundreds of teams. For example, in a training exercise involving hundreds of aircraft, “We simulate with three people what six to 12 people do in an air operations center." I'd be surprised if Israeli operations are significantly different; the Israelis are well known for very fast turnaround of missions.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Zionists are not saying that the killings were fake. They are saying that they were pumped up by reporting falsely high numbers and by strange men walking around for hours with the bodies of dead children in their arms to be photographed.
See this Eureferendum site for pictures.
The timestamps on the pictures indicate impossible sequences and the building fell down 8 hours after the missile hit nearby (not on top of) the building. So why where people still inside? These are fair questions. 28 dead should be enough for Hezbollah to get all the propaganda they want, no need to pump up the figures.
August 4, 2006 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there a non-IDF source for 8 hour lag? I do not have high confidence in IDF, that always allege that their strikes were actually explosions made by Palestinians etc.
Another propaganda trick is to latch to any discrepancy they can and dwell endlessly on that topic, ignoring all the barbarity that is inflicted.
Reminds me the story that Tony Blair was asked if he can sleep at night knowing that 100,000 Iraqis have died in the war that he helped to start. He replied -- it is more like 50,000. Ahhhh, in that case good night sleep is only to be expected!
August 4, 2006 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be able to discuss this much more intelligently if I knew more than "the missile", but AGM-65E vs. AGM-65F makes a difference, much less if it was a JDAM -- and then what bomb size?
Are the time-stamped picture at a location other than a link? I didn't see them -- do I need to click on each image to delay them?
Not saying this was or was not reason people were still inside the building, but, in ordinary civilian disasters, there can be concealed structural damage, or, perhaps more common, gas leaks.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 4, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink