Class interview Mark Regev On The Ropes (War Crimes)

Watch professional liar, Mark Regev, Israeli spokesperson try to weasel out of the hard questions and try to insinuate that Hamas was actually the ones firing those White Phosphorous rounds from the Israeli gunships… unfucking believable..

2 Responses

  1. He was also threatening the interviewer… told him to be “Very careful”….

  2. I think it is interesting that the Israeli Mr. Regov tries to make the Hamas government responsible for the problem. I think if Hamas had phosphorus bombs they would have shot them into Israel, not over their own people.

    It seems that the strategy here by the Israeli spokesperson is to suggest that it’ss always Hamas that might be responsible for whatever the BBC or other western news reporters might have seen. If a plane comes over and drops a bomb on a hospital, the problem is that Hamas has been placing munitions in the hospitals making them legitimate targets.

    I think we saw this strategy put forward by the United States. When people complained after the first Iraq war that the U.S. embargo on Iraq was respoinsible for killing 500,00 children, because they couldn’t get proper food and medical supplies, the U.S. spokespeople claimed that Sadamm Hussein was really responsible because he was doing something evil and the embargo was justified.

    The Israelis have not been the only ones using this argumentative tactic.

    I am interested to find out when they started to blame the victims as a matter of strategy and way of shirking their responsibility.

    I don’t believe it’s very old. I don’t rem,ember the My lei massacre being justified along the same lines. The village had to be destroyed and the people all killed because they started it, or they were hiding viet cong terrorists, or they were arguing with the soldiers and the soldiers had to protect themselves.

    I think this is a strategy that is used frequently by American police officers when they kill unarmed people. They have been confiscating or destroying evidence from witnesses, like cell phones or cameras, and then just lying about what the victim was doing to justify the 67 bullets in their bodies, or the bullets in the back while they were handcuffed face down on the ground, and so forth.

    I wonder if there has been some change in the law that makes these kinds of strategies more successful.

    It used to be that people had to be given their Miranda rights or else whatever they said or did was inadmissable. The cops’ complaints were about how this was holding up their work. Now, it seems we find out that the police really wanted to just shoot the people instead of paying attention to “rights.”

    Could the law requiring something that simple as reading a person one’s rights have protected people from the brutality of these police? And, does the focus on rights act to keep governments from lying about their murders?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: