August 04, 2006

Shadi Business?

When I saw Dan Reihl's post noting that refrigerated trucks came from Tyre before the media arrived after daybreak, I thought that the trucks were suspicious.

Now IsrealInsider (h/t A.J. Strata) is reporting that the Lebanese rescue worker known by many simply as "Green Helmet" that appeared in so many of photos brandishing a dead toddler by the neck, is a man named Abu Shadi.

In the days leading up to the Israeli attack on Qana, Abu Shadi, a mortician for the hospital in Tyre, had been driving refrigerated trucks packed with dead bodies.

Could it be another man named Abu Shadi? Perhaps. Another Shadi with a certified-by-the-media truckload of corpses? Not very likely.

The odd and unanswerable continue to add up in Qana.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at August 4, 2006 01:06 AM | TrackBack

How dare you question the honor and integrity of Hezbollah!

To even suggest that a pro-genocide terrorist organization with a history of using civilians as human shields would falsify forensic evidence is beyond the pale.

Posted by: John at August 4, 2006 08:26 AM

Yeah, like I'm real surprised by this. And they get insulted when you call them liars and cheats.

Go figure.

And the Lebanese are surprised and shocked that all of this is happening? I'm sorry, but this is what happens when you shelter terrorists and allow them to operate in your midst. It's bad that this has to happen, but certainly should not come as a surprise to anyone.

I sincerely hope Israel is able to wipe this disgusting group of terrorists off the face of the earth. Life in this world will be a LOT safer without them around.

Posted by: WB at August 4, 2006 01:36 PM

Oh yeah, that one guy who exaggerated or even faked some of the death and destruction over there is really gonna make the whole crisis between Israel & Lebanon get so much worse. But hey, as long as the Israelis can only blow up enough people in Lebanon, the odds are they'll get some, or a lot, of the bad guys, so it's definitely worth it, even if it means killing lots of innocent people at the same time... oh, I forgot, you think that EVERYONE in Lebanon is guilty of either being a Hezbo, or conspiring to help them, and therefore, they ALL deserve to die.

It's simply amazing how you people think the answer to everything is just "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out later." One guy on here even said "all that matters is that we kill more of them than they kill of us." Yeah, that military strategy worked really well in the trench warfare of World War I, so why not repeat it here too?

Posted by: aja10024 at August 4, 2006 04:31 PM

No, it just means that if they are going to hide behind the civilians like cowards, and the civilians don't get out of the way, they are compliant and deserve what they get.

Posted by: MrJacobsen at August 4, 2006 06:13 PM

Is that why news commentator, author and uber-conservative Pat Buchanan (who is no opponent of using force ansd/or war toi solve problems) says that Israelis are fighting this war the wrong way and that it has ruined the good name of Irael AND the US throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world?

Posted by: aja10024 at August 4, 2006 08:21 PM

aja -

Posted by: SouthernRoots at August 4, 2006 09:16 PM

To Arabs, lies and deception are an integral part of everyday life, not merely of war. Why would anyone expect anything different? Read T.E. Lawrence and be amazed at how nothing has changed in 100 years (or longer).

Posted by: Bullfrog619 at August 4, 2006 10:14 PM

Aja is another of those morons who ignore the use of human shields by these muslim terrorists in Lebanon. "How awful. innocents were killed!" while studiously ignoring that the fanatic party of god manipulated just those civilian deaths.

Also, by allowing an armed extension of Syria&Iran to conduct war against Israel from its soil means that Lebanon was complicit in an act of war against Israel. So until Lebanon surrenders (or ejects the Iranian terrorists), then war will continue. And, in war between nations, there are few/no innocents.

But that assumes that Aja is something more than a terrorist apologist. More likely, Aja is just another hate Israel lefty who could care less about the actual ethics of what is going on in the ME and will spout any nastiness to denigrate Israel's legitimate right to exist and defend itself.

Posted by: iconoclast at August 4, 2006 11:51 PM

Southernroots: thanks for the web site link. I know all too well about the killings and death that you cite in that link. But the million dollar question is: why do you think that I don't find it 100% wrong and totally repulsive that the Hezbo's or PLO or anyone else kills innocent civilians, and that killing children is especially heinous, by anyone?

I don't deny that those atrocities happened, and I never said anything here that said those acts were justified in any way. All I said was that I disagreed with Israel using these tactics at this time, or ever. You seem to need to boil down a complex major military conflict into a simplistic, easy-to-define situation involving a "good side" and a bad side" wherein if you consider yourself to be on the "good side" it justifies committing the same atrocities as the "bad" side does.

I have typically always defended Israel's rights as a sovereign nation, especially in the larger political context of self-preservation and their right to defend themselves, and appreciate their alliance and good relations with the US. But where is the logic or justification for them being permitted to do anything to anybody, anywhere... or do you believe that two wrongs really DO make a right -- just as long as you are the one committing the second wrong...?

Posted by: aja10024 at August 5, 2006 03:34 AM

iconoclast: it's interesting, and deliciously ironic, that you bring up T.E. Lawrence, since he made his mark on the world partly, or mainly, by working closely with an Arab coalition of fighting forces, helping them implement a military strategy of attrition that was unheard of at the time, but which perfectly suited the particular needs of indigenous peoples who rebel against a much larger established force and/or an occupying colonial power.

His strategy was revolutionary (no pun intended, it had never been employed in that way, or with such success, in warfare ever before), because instead of the modern, mechanized trench warfare that was so prevalent (and destructive) in WWI, his innovative strategy permitted a smaller, weaker force to sap the resources -- and therefore the will to continue fighting -- of a Great Power that could not otherwise have been defeated in face-to-face battle in the field.

His military and political writings have been known to have stimulated the thinking of revolutionary strategists throughout the century since that time, including Mao Zedong, the campaigns of Vo Nguyen Giap, and the theories of Che Guevara -- and possibly the Hezbo's and PLO....? It is a typical paradox of his colorful career that Lawrence, the hero of British imperialism, should have become an inspirer of the Third World’s revolt against the imperial West, both then and today.

And speaking of lies, the Arabs -- who Lawrence supported, trained and helped unite into a cohesive political and military force -- were certainly not the ONLY ones at that time that may have utilized lies, more lies, and damn lies to mislead critics, fool adversaries, and promote or justify their actions on the world stage during a time of war. The British did their best to play all sides against each other in the Middle East, both during and after WWI, in their attempts to maintain control of that region. Didja ever wonder why most of the countries there today still have bad feelings about the West, and any attempts at what look like colonial invasion, occupation and domination...?

Posted by: aja10024 at August 5, 2006 04:34 AM

Bullfrog619 -- I totally apologize for mixing up your historically relevant comment about T. E. Lawrence with the hysterically irrelevant comment by iconoclast. I would have no logical or practical reason to reply to that posting, with its sweeping generalizations (i.e. "just another hate Israel lefty"), personal attacks ("who could care less about the actual ethics of what is going on") and the kind of pointless school-yard name-calling ("another of those morons") that is often used by people who have very few facts to offer, but have lots of angry opinions to vent.

Posted by: aja10024 at August 5, 2006 04:51 AM

"who is no opponent of using force ansd/or war to solve problems"

You do know that Buchanan wrote a book arguing we shouldn't have entered World War *Two*, right?

Posted by: Knemon at August 5, 2006 09:38 AM

Of the dead he's seen, Mr. Shadi says, "maybe 3 per cent" were men. The rest were women and children. "They're not targeting fighters."

So he's saying that indiscriminate missile attacks on civilians hit 97% women and children.

And the media swallows it uncritically.

Posted by: lyle at August 5, 2006 09:42 AM


What I find interesting about your comments is that you seem to think that Israel is specifically targeting civilians. Not the case. They don't need prceision guided weapons to do that - just plain dumb iron bombs and carpet bombing. Heck, with that they'd kill 100 X the number of civilians that have already been killed. You know - stupid munitions - kind of like the hundreds - even thousands - of rockets and mortars the Hezzies have launched indiscriminately at Israel. It's a sense of perspective.....

Posted by: Specter at August 5, 2006 10:02 AM

Imperial West???

Showing your true colors for a brief moment, aja.

The conflict in the ME is no longer guerrilla warfare. It is now a battle between states. Hezbollah is an Iranian/Syrian militia that operates out of Lebanon with the permission (and support) of the Lebanese government. The fiction that it is a stateless organization is just another fraud. That this state-supported militia chooses to use civilians as human shields and their inevitable (though overstated and often fraudulent) deaths as propaganda.

But since the alternative is genocide, world "opinion" is irrelevant to the Israelis. Israelis leaders would be criminally negligent if deaths of human shields and collateral civilian death weighed at all against the years of agression, terror, murder, and acts of war instigated by these three states (Lebanon, Syria, and Iran). Which is exactly how we expect our leaders to behave as well.

So take your anger against the imperial west tripe and stuff it. That meme is so completely discredited that even mouthing it reveals a reactionary and thoughtless worldview.

Posted by: iconoclast at August 5, 2006 12:47 PM

where is nassaralla ?
in every braodcasted tape of his I see curtains.
it is said in israel that he is in syria.
I tend to believe it, why is the press no asking this ?

Posted by: guy moran at August 5, 2006 01:45 PM

The Jerusalem Post says Qana may have been totally staged.

It is also a story about bloggers.

Bloggers get results

You got a mention

Posted by: M. Simon at August 5, 2006 02:08 PM

aja10024 wrote:

Pat Buchanan

Em, yes, so what solution do you and this journalist have to offer?

or do you believe that two wrongs really DO make a right

Ah, yes, resorting to the abstract; amazing how some people can keep on talking and talking about issues without saying anything, and usually wrap up with a "think about the children" remark.

Furtheremore, they never touch the relevant details, such as why are we in this situation to begin with. It all started when Hizballah crossed the border and murdered and kidnapped some soldiers, and then to top it off, they fired some rockets. All this happened even though Israel withdrew to the internation border according to UN decision 1559(?).

So whats Hizballah's excuse? The usual - (1) Palestinian suffering, and (2) Lebanse prisoners. For the first excuse, all I can say is that they should've minded their own business, and the fact that they are Shia, and the Palestinians are Sunni, doesn't really support this claim (especially given what's happening in Iraq between the two groups).

Now for excuse #2 -- it is an excuse, primarily due to how it is presented: that the people held by Israel are in fact Innocent civilians; well, I suggest you read about Samir Kuntar, an individual who for some reason become very popular in Lebanon, and a symbol for the prisonners. If that's their symbol, and represents the rest, then they might as well be kept in jails.

Hizballah appolgists argue that Israel's response is unproportional, execessive, and that all that it should've done was to negotiate an exchange. At this point one must recognize the hypocrasy of these appologists -- Israel, after being attacked, has only the diplomatic option, yet they make no such expectations from Hizballah, and completely ignore the fact the they initiated the hostilities -- as if they could not have approached Israel diplomatically, and make a case for the release of whatever prisonners.

Posted by: dna at August 5, 2006 11:40 PM
where is nassaralla ?
I dare say that he is somewhere exotic, enjoying his 72 virgins, without having to becoming a martyr. I'm sure he can afford it, since he most likely has a swiss bank account as bloatted as Araft used to have back in the goold old days. Posted by: dna at August 5, 2006 11:51 PM

It is interesting to compare civilan causualties caused by NATO in Kosovo and Israel in Lebanon.

Human rights noted both but in the case of NATO it was just a side note; in case of Israel - a major outcry of War Crimes

Posted by: Greg at August 6, 2006 10:44 AM

Here is the link to Kosovo numbers

Posted by: Greg at August 6, 2006 10:45 AM

Reuters news agency admitted on Sunday that it had digitally altered a photograph of an Israeli attack on Lebanon on Saturday, showing more smoke than was actually present.

The photograph, as initially published, showed an aerial view of Beirut after an IAF attack, with two large pillars of smoke rising over the city. The caption read: Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs.

The agency has since withdrawn the photograph, issued an apology and released the unaltered picture. Its public relations department said the photographer had been suspended until the investigation was completed.

Reuters was notified of the alteration by American bloggers who noticed repeating patterns within the smoke plumes, indicating that part of the image was duplicated several times.

The scene was photographed by Adnan Hajj, who had also photographed the aftermath of the Israeli attack on Kana last week, in which the Lebanese initially claimed 58 fatalities, but could later only confirm 28.

Posted by: hillel at August 6, 2006 12:10 PM

ahh....Al-Reuters at it again. No need for Al-Jezeera with Al-Reuters around.

Al-Reuters-uncovering the truth with lies, or something like that.

Posted by: iconoclast at August 6, 2006 05:33 PM

And the blogger at LittleGreenFootballs - Johnson is it? - got a death threat from someone who used Reuter's IP. In return, Reuters says a person has been suspended over the incident.

Posted by: Specter at August 6, 2006 10:18 PM

"But where is the logic or justification for them being permitted to do anything to anybody, anywhere... or do you believe that two wrongs really DO make a right -- just as long as you are the one committing the second wrong...?" Aja...

Anybody, anywhere...? I can't believe you really said that. Jews are the ones killing people in Bali, East Timor, New York City, Madrid, London, etc etc? Oh, thats right, they are just trying to kill the people on their borders that are trying to kill them and that have stated emphatically that they won't stop until all the Jews are pushed into the sea? That is your definition of anybody, anywhere?

My definition is: Bali, East Timor, New York City, Madrid, London, etc etc. Oh and Seattle! All we have to do to achieve peace is become Muslim ourselves...but wait, should I become a Sunni or shiite? I wonder which is safer? Maybe neither. Maybe, just maybe, no one can be 100% safe around Muslims. Hmm?

Posted by: y7 at August 7, 2006 10:39 AM