Screen Captures of Qana “Camera Run”
Here are a series of screen captures from the “White Tee-Shirt” guy “camera run” in chronological order.
Screen captures taken from this video starting at the 1:04 mark.
More Inconsistencies in the Qana Footage?
EU Referendum has been doing a commendable job drawing world wide attention to the inconsistencies between the raw footage and the propagandistic narrative the MSM is propagating about the Qana incident. In this post, EU Referendum points out another apparent inconsistency:
OK… let’s put is altogether. “White Tee-shirt” is part of the rescue party – frantically digging for survivors (they hope) and recovering the bodies. There is a frenetic air about the operation – eye witnesses say there was chaos and there is the ever-present fear that the building will collapse further.
But, after the Red Cross worker takes the body of the child, with “White Tee-shirt” present, and before it is given to “White Tee-shirt” to take it out of the building, it seems that our iconic figure may have changed into another tee-shirt. Has he changed into fresh attire, ready to make his “camera run”, whence he is photographed “screaming for help“?
Here is one of the iconic images of the “White Tee-Shirt” guy (linked from Editorial Getty Images):
Take a close look at the logo. It looks like a borderless (perhaps even counterfeit) version of the FILA logo seen here:
From all appearances the logo was not present on the shirt worn by “White Tee-Shirt” guy before he made the “camera run”.
UPDATE at 8/5/06 7:25:00 am:
EU Referendum (Richard North) has kindly responded to a private email I sent and he pointed me to his response (look for comment that begins: “If I’d asked the Telegraph to check this out”) to Shane Richmond’s blog entry.
Shane has access to a higher resolution picture of the “White Tee-Shirt” guy and lays rest to the theory that “White Tee-Shirt” guy was using a different shirt (and incidentally corroborates my theory that the logo we see the guy wearing in the picture above is a FILA logo <grin>), but has failed to address EU Referendum’s substantive thesis:
that the photograph of Qana that you published on the front page of your paper was staged by Hesbollah to maximise the propaganda effect of the incident.
Of note, in EU Referendum’s latest post:
Make up your own mind. Is this a Hezbollah member, or a mere supporter? This is a Hezbollah stronghold, a town from which the IDF claim over 150 missiles have been fired. And our “White Tee-shirt” has a house full of Hezbollah material
I think EU Referendum’s thesis is correct, particularly in light of the Islamically sanctioned use of deception (i.e., kitman and taqiyya) in the Muslim world for over a thousand years:
“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims. The “compulsion” for Muslims comes from the treatment of apostasy as an act punishable by death.
“Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.” (from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320513/posts)
