What got me thinking about this was the attack on the UN school in Gaza.
If you read the accounts in the North American media, the attack was "near" the school.
If you read elsewhere, the school itself was attacked. As in the school was the direct target.
Then of course the spin went into overdrive. Doesn't it always?
Hamas was using the school, it was their fault all the kids died. But there is no evidence of that. None what so ever!
What makes the 'official' Israeli story so interesting is that the news of Hamas using the school came from anonymous IDF sources. Anonymous sources, now why would that be the case?
It would make sense that if the IDF had actual information, real evidence that Hamas was using the school to shoot at Israeli forces, they wouldn't need to make anonymous claims, based on anonymous information. No if their claims were legitimate they could back them up, but they aren't. Not very confidence inspiring is it?
On the other hand the UN, who by the way, is demanding an investigation into this incident.
Is saying they are 99.9 percent certain, there were NO militants present at the school
Gunness said based on UNRWA's investigation, the agency is "99.9 percent certain" there were no Palestinian militants in or on the grounds of the school that was sheltering civilians when it was shelled by Israeli forces.That is pretty good. Most days, I can't claim to be 99.9 percent sure where my house and car keys are. In fact, I can't even claim to be 50 percent sure. So 99.9 percent is dam good!
The UN had notified Israel of the schools location, and the schools were clearly marked as UN schools.
A U.N. official in Gaza said a school where dozens of Palestinians were killed by tank shells on Tuesday was clearly marked with a U.N. flag and its location had been reported to Israeli authorities.So it is clear that the UN knew what was going on at it's schools. It knew the schools were being used as safe shelters for the children of Gaza. And the UN is challenging Israel to prove their claim. So far Israel has not. They are sticking to their 'official version', the anonymously sourced story.
He said UNRWA regularly provided the Israeli army with exact geographical coordinates of its facilities and the school was in a built-up area. "Of course it was entirely inevitable if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties," he said.
While zooming about the information highway, reading various news sites, I came across something that was surprising in some ways, but yet, not really. Since I have seen this before, and I'll get to just where and when very briefly.
What I had noticed was how many people choose to believe an 'official story" based on no evidence, supported by anonymous sources in a heresay sort of fashion, as if it was the gospel truth. I don't know why this surprises me, and yet it does every time.
All I could think of was 9/11. The "official version" vs the reality. Which to this day, there is no realistic version.
There it was playing itself, albeit out on a smaller scale. The 'official" Israeli version of events at the school, completely unsubstantiated by even a shred of evidence.
Versus the obvious fact, the school came under attack, the third school by the way. Killing 40 children. Resulting in the school finally collapsing from the direct hits. Not the "nearby" hits.
I guess it is hard to understand why people willingly choose to be so gullible. Is it easier? Is it brainwashing, conditioning, stupidity, an inherent weakness of humanity. Just what is it?
Or is it a submission to authority? That it is some government telling us , so it must be the truth? If that is the case, goodness aren't a great many of us a lame excuse for humanity?