Hezbollah’s West Coast media office

A child’s death is always a tragedy, but this SF Chron report about Qana sounds like a Hezbollah PR office press release:

The tiny, lifeless bodies were laid out in a row on a black straw sheet in the concrete courtyard of the Tyre Government Hospital. Twenty-one of them, all still in the pajamas they were wearing before two Israeli bombs tore through Ali Hashem’s home in this southern Lebanese village early Sunday.

Dozens of members of the Hashem and Chalhoub families had sought refuge in the unfinished house about 10 days ago, thinking it was safe. Only eight survived.

After several sob stories with Lebanese pointing out the obvious — which is that their infants aren’t terrorists — we get to the article’s real point — the Israelis are cold-blooded civilian killers, who’ve murdered before:

There have been almost daily tragedies involving civilians since Israel unleashed its fury against Lebanon for Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12. In the days and nights since, the civilian death toll has sharply increased; the Lebanese Health Ministry now estimates nearly 550 people have been killed in air strikes.

But Sunday’s bombardment and killing of at least 56 helpless civilians — 37 of them children — is resonating with the Lebanese in a way that others did not: It occurred in Qana, the site of a bloodbath 10 years ago that is annually remembered with bitterness.

Just over 100 civilians cowering in a U.N. shelter were killed in an Israeli strike on the town on April 18, 1996. The attack sparked widespread international outrage and resulted in the “April Understanding” — an agreement by Israel, Lebanon, France, Syria and the United States that Lebanese and Israeli civilians would not be targeted in Hezbollah’s drive to end Israel’s decadeslong occupation of southern Lebanon. Four years later, the Israelis withdrew.

The story then flips back to the horrors, the horrors! As I’ve said, it is a horror when children die. Funnily enough, the story makes no mention of how the children ended up in a combat zone. You have to go beyond this MSM forum, which I was able to do thanks to a link that jg gave me (which took me from Dr. Sanity; to NRO’s Corner; to Rampurple, a Lebanese blogger, who wrote the following):

The situation in Ain Ebel is unbearable. Thousands of civilians have fled to the village from nearby villages and more than 1000 rockets have hit the village, there is no more food neither clean water and diseases r spreading.

Now here comes the most sickening part:

Hezbollah has been firing rockets from the village since Day 1 hiding behind innocent people’s places and even CHURCHES. No one is allowed to argue with the Hezbollah gunmen who wont hesitate to shoot you and i ve heard about more than one shooting incident including young men from the village and Hezbollah.

Urgent appeals have been done through phone calls from terrified people who wouldnt give out their name fearing Hezbollah might harm or even eliminate them.

This is the true image of our brave Islamic Resistance, putting the civilians and their homes as body shields to the Israeli bombardements.

Let the message spread and let those criminals move out of the village once and for all.

Free Ain Ebel from the terrorists !

The tragedy of villages held hostage to Hezbollah terrorists is not an isolated story. I’ve blogged — indeed, hundreds have blogged — about the fact that Hezbollah has made a strategic decision to use children to shield its military operations. Indeed, even a maverick at the UN has expressed disgust with Hezbollah’s tactics. You’d never know it, though, to read the Chronicle story. Instead of blaming the terrorists who trap children in the line of fire, the story, without saying so in so many words, clearly likens the Jews to the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, or any other 20th Century totalitarian killers. I would say that the Chronicle should be ashamed of itself for printing that kind of thing, but the Chronicle has no shame.

Talking to Technorati: , , , , , ,

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/ Bookworm

    Ravana:

    I’m not taking the time to address your whole email, just a point that struck me, which is that, as to the BBC, deception is not their goal. In fact, at the start of the Iraq war, the official position the BBC took wasn’t to report the news, but to stand against the war. (I can’t find the link right now. Can anyone help me with this?) This affects their credibility in their mind. As to the deception part, they were on the receiving end of a judicial tongue lashing a couple of years ago for intentionally lying about the news. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/28/hutton.blair/index.html)

    Here’s a nice, long, well-documented article about most medias’, and especially the BBC’s, spectacularly dishonest and biased reporting about Israel: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/28/hutton.blair/index.html

  • jg

    Ravana, please, reasoned argument. You do deserve that chance. Do you have a reply, then, to my post?

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    If you actually believe the things you have said in your last post, I think I am going to stop having this discussion with you. You are clearly out of your mind.

    I’ve already laid down the situation, Ravana, you just didn’t pay attention. Your logic starts with a NOT gate. If you don’t know what a NOT logic gate is, then here it is. A NOT logic gate makes a 1 into a 0 and a 0 into one. It is used in computers, computers that rely upon machine code otherwise known as binary code.

    This means, that whatever is positive for me, is a negative for you. de facto. If you want to opinionate it as meaning I’m out of my mind, then you’re free to wrongly do that. Others will know what I’m talking about and take from it more than your accussations based upon amateur psychotherapy.

    If you can’t tolerate, even comprehend, people who disagree with you, then that’s your problem, Ravana. Not mine or JG’s.

    You appear to see the world in black and white. Fortunately, it is not.

    Do you understand that there are more than one kind of number system? There is binary, decimal, Hexadecimal, octagimal, and various others. You can translate decimal to binary and back again, it’s easy. The world doesn’t have to be black white, the world just has to be able to translate black and white into colors. If you got a problem with someone’s 1 and 0 view of the world, then maybe you should criticize yourself for seeing anyone that disagrees with you fundamentally as being crazy. It’s either your way as 1 or craziness, 0, eh?

    You would have to start your reasoning from a premise accepted by me for your reasoning in turn to be accepted by me.

    So, I was right, it is either your way or the zero way? Regardless of that way, you’re also wrong because logic is about determining which premises and a priori propositions are correct. If I start my reasoning from a premise that you think is already true, then there is no way you could ever be wrong. You could change the fundamental laws of physics for god’s sake, just so your statement that “the sky is red” could be true.

    THat’s not how I play. But I know that’s how you play, though. Deductive logic is not about reasoning based upon “accepted premises”. Deductive logic, its usability, comes from exploring ALL possible PREMISES and fundamental foundations, in order to verify which ones are more accurately reflected by reality and facts.

    Determining whether the BBC is this way or that, requires that you assume the BBC is this way or that, then and only then asking yourself what should be true if the BBC was truely this way or that. That’s deductive logic used by someone who comprehends its usability.

    If you don’t think deception is their goal, you should say what their goal is. Then I’ll tell you why you’re wrong by assuming what you say is true, and verifying its consistency via the world line.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    There’s a lot of people emailing bookworm. That’s a litte bit… weird if I may say so. Does bookworm mean the email that wordpress sends her whenever a comment appears on her page, or a real email? Sorry book, I don’t pay attention to the BBC much, so I don’t have their links archived. I have Melannie Phillips to pay attention to the BBC for me.

  • http://ravana.wordpress.com ravana

    Ymarsakar, you said:

    “Determining whether the BBC is this way or that, requires that you assume the BBC is this way or that, then and only then asking yourself what should be true if the BBC was truely this way or that. That’s deductive logic used by someone who comprehends its usability.”

    Perhaps, but the practical problem with this type of reasoning (for you at least) is that you decide that the BBC is this way or that and then look for evidence. You see something which could be correlated and you call it evidence, even if it is not. Then you announce that your initial position is correct based on this false reading of evidence. Correlation does not imply causality.

  • Ymarsakar

    Actually, it’s the other way around. how things are or should be, is determined at the beginning. It can’t be made up on the spot.

    You troubleshoot someone else’s deductive logic by assuming their beliefs and premises are true, and then following the chain to its logical conclusion. If there are inconsistencies, then you have troubleshooted a problem with someone else’s reasoning.

    I’m not going to be the one announcing that your initial position was correct based upon this false reading of evidence. I’m going to be calling you on perpetuating false evidence, most probably.

    I didn’t decide the BBC was too worth trusting or not, I just troubleshoot your reasoning. If it has a problem, that’s your responsibility to solve. You after all said this first,

    My reason for trusting the BBC in general (not in all circumstances), is because, in my eyes, they aren’t afraid to switch sides depending on the circumstances.

    The reasoning that you should or do trust the BBC because they switch sides was troubleshooted, analyzed, and distillated into its component parts by me.

    People have a choice, either they can try it my way. Or they can try it your way. Your way being,

    “You would have to start your reasoning from a premise accepted by me for your reasoning in turn to be accepted by me. I do not accept either of the alternative premises that you offer.”

    You are clearly out of your mind.

    If you think I’m out of my mind, then you should check out the commenters at blackfive.com and Jay’s comments here.

  • http://ravana.wordpress.com/ ravana

    Your idea of what deductive reasoning is doesn’t correlate very well with Wikipedia’s explanation.

    The basic problem with your argument is that none of the three “If” options you used to say that the BBC are failures are true.

  • http://www.teamfortress2fort.com Team Fortress 2

    You cannot win an unconventional war by alienating the civilian population. It’s impossible.