They knew they couldn't beat Israel, so Hezbollah and Lebanon faked a bombed ambulance in order to accuse Israel of war crimes (bombing an ambulance is a war crime) to force them to agree to a cease fire.

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

Why did so many of the news outlets uncritically buy this story? What with the New York Times, Reuters, the AP, and CNN getting caught with obviously forged photographs, doing stories on semi-professionally faked videos from Hezbollah (including directors, cameramen, props including ambulances, and actors playing soldiers, wounded, and paramedics), can you really trust any of the big news agencies?

A news story from Zombie Time dot Com? Not exactly what I would call a reputable source.

I haven't been following the whole middle east thing, and really don't care at the moment, but you should really find a better source for your data.

I would say that is about as good as CNN or the like....

What else would you expect from The Religion Of Peace?

Ignorance ftw!

absolutely nothing less. in addition to these wonderful instances of ignorance, bias, or just plain naivete so meticulously documented over the summer.

That was thoroughly debunked on the original website I linked.

Lukecp, who would you consider a reliable source? CNN, The New York Times, Reuters, The Associated Press? All of whom have been caught faking photographs and printing/airing stories based on footage staged by Hezbollah... What would you consider a reliable news source?

You're right, I'm ignorant. I'm ignorant of a religion that glorifies shooting toddlers in the head while they sleep in their homes. I'm ignorant of a religion that has numerous commandments to kill or enslave non-believers (apostates in particular), and that the followers of said religion seem to have a serious problem ignoring those commandments. I'm ignorant of a religion that convinces its followers that criticism of said religion should be a criminal offense, even in Western democracies. I'm ignorant of a religion that kidnaps foreign citizens, then tries to play the victim card when that country comes looking for their people, then tries to play the victim card again because that country accidentally kills the civilians that the religion hides behind.

Yeah, I'm the ignorant one, I guess.

I wasn't aware that the extremists of a religion represented that entire religion... my bad. Moving on...

The religion itself is the extremist part. I don't think a majority of the followers of The Religion Of Peace would actually commit terrorist actions, but I am confident that a majority of the followers aren't unhappy to see the acts committed by someone else.

I'm personally not too fond of stereotypes, but I suppose that's the great thing about America: we're both entitled to our own opinion and nothing can take that away from us, as ignorant as I think yours may be, and as naive as you think mine may be. I guess we can agree to disagree.

It looks pretty convincing. But then again, I have stopped give a fuck what happens over there. I know I should, but they have been at war for some 4000 years, the bombing of an ambulance isnt the worst thing they have done. It isnt even the worse thing they have done in recent years.

Is the 10% of British Muslims too many to be considered "extremists"? Or do we need 50% to consider the terrorists who carried out the 7/7 attacks on London martyrs to begin to worry? Note, these are not middle-eastern folk who grew up supposedly oppressed by Israel and US foreign policy. These are British Muslims, party to the same rights that the Koran explicitly denies nonbelievers. Is the 16% that approved of the goal, if not the methods used, that British society be destroyed a "small fraction"?

(source: 7/4/06 Poll)

Stereotype however you'd like... I'd rather judge an individual by the content of their character than the groups that they are associated with. But to each his own.

As a side note, I think you're slightly misinterpreting the poll. You're interpreting the "cause" to be the "destruction of British society", whereas the poll seems to suggest that the cause is deterring Britain's involvement in Iraq. Either way, the "cause" isn't very well defined by the article, which calls the matter of the poll into question all together.

The statistic you should be using to justify your argument is "7% agree that suicide attacks on civilians in the UK can be justified in some circumstances, rising to 16 per cent for a military target", which I will agree is an abomination, but still does not justify the classification of an entire group practicing a certain religion, in my humble opinion. Of course, I could see where the 16% would look a lot better to you...