Reply #5: Pretty disgusting, if true [View All]

"However, the plan called for detonating the charge on the boy, if he were stopped. Indeed, as sappers handled his bag's contents, someone dialed the cellphone trigger. A technical failure prevented the death of the child and many of those around."
===========

But still, how does one know what "the plan called for." One knows only what happened, unless someone else were captured and confessed.

I constantly see selective and unsupported (in the rigorous, or even the preponderance of evidence sense) interpretations used by partisan in arguments (from news conferences, to articles, to simple statements). Is ANYONE interested in reality?

Let me give a made-up example related to the big bomb that went off in the crowded Baghdad market during the war (Dub's liars in uniform said it would be investigated but so far as I can tell it never was, so suspicion at least might lie in the direction that it was one of our missiles, as the Iraqis claimed but we denied). Iraqis, with far more evidence as presented above (the bomb went off, not just the maybe self-serving hearsay testimony from Israeli military), could interpret that we program our missiles so if they miss their targets they fly into the middle of the city to hit at least something. They DO make claims like that with other bombings. Do you believe them? Not likely. They why swallow other hyperbole or an enemy's testimony here? (I'm using the non-specific general "you" here, not you particularly.)