1 Yep, looks like an ammo can to me, but in the interest of total objectivity, ammo cans are useful for lots of other things; I, for example, have many which hold anything but ammo.

2 Also there's that whole, "why did the building fall down five hours after the strike?" thing going on...

3 I considered the same thing, perhaps they store fruits and veggies in old ammo cans. You can put charts and maps which help target Israeli cities in an ammo can as well as small hand guns.

4 I'm not sure that's an ammo can. It looks more like a car battery to me (white body, blue lid) with one of its folding handles raised.

5 Maybe it's a diaper bag.

6 Yeah! That's it! a diaper bag! They were all just innocent members of two peaceful " families ". ROPMA

7 I think it may well be an ammo can, as it looks at least similar to the the two I keep at my cottage to store bolts and such. Which as we all know makes me a member of Hezbollah. It's now official. Bluto is insane.

8 Yes, grinnel; I'm sure they were simply using the ammo can to store bolts and such. What was I thinking to question the word of international terrorists? Everyone knows that Hizballah uses ammo cans for bolts and such. They use diaper bags for munitions.

Jesus H. Christ, man...use your head for something besides a hatstand for once in your clueless, gullible life.

9 I don't know whether grinnel buys left-wing propaganda hook, line and sinker, but it's funny to me that the same people who won't believe a single word the U.S. or Israeli govts. say about anything are ready to swallow every nugget of terrorist propaganda they can get their hands on.

No, the ammo can doesn't, by itself, prove anything. But it's a piece of information that might indicate that Qana wasn't the innocent choir boy Summer camp that Hizb'Allah would have us believe in. When you add that piece of information to other similar pieces of information, a picture starts to emerge. You won't see it if you don't want to, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

10 Sometimes I think of myself as a surly waiter in an exclusive French restaurant.

11 A mint for Monsieur? It is just one wafer thin mint. Bon appettite.

12 Hold on, hold on. Yes, I was being purposely glib and hyperbolic to illustrate how ludicrous these conspiracy theories are.

For God's sake people stand back for a moment and listen to yourselves.

There's the absence/presence/inconsistencies of rigor mortis. Then there's the delayed building collapse. And let's not forget the lack of blood and babies with pacifiers that weren't there a minute ago. And now we have ammo cans "suggestive" of what,this was actually a Hezbollah stronghold and the bodies were merely thrown in for effect? This goes beyond poor-man's forensics and lazy journalism to the stuff of moon-landing deniers and Bushitler 9/11 conspirasists.

It's not psosible that civilains got the shit end of the stick because bad stuff happens to them in guerilla war? It was a tragic mistake, but one made in legitimate attempts to nail Hezbollah? That's exctly what Israel's been saying, without the conspiracy theories, because that's the way some things happen in war. Why the need for this crap, which frankly sounds like something from the tinfoil crowd? It does no good and actually clouds the truth. And if that is being a gullible apologist for Hezbollah, guilty as charged.

13 I wouldn't necessarily call this jornalism dude. It is the comment section of a blog. I doubt Bluto would use that pic as the smoking gun for a staged event. We all believe something bad happened. Or most of us do. The pictures of the dead children are heart wrending. Perhaps this forum is a much needed way for some of us to point a finger at the bad guy without the need for serious journalism. Besides the serious journo's aren't doing much better or more than what we are doing.

14 Its journalism inasmuch as someone might actually read and believe this junk.

15 Shorter, more honest grinnel: "Shut up and believe what the Old Media tells you. You have no right to question them."

To which I reply: Blow me.

16 Yeah, grinnel's right; we should all get our news from al Jazeera like he does.

17 Ha! Hey, you douchebags can believe whatever medium you'd like. But you might want to quit making shit up. You sound like crop-circle people, not the cool, insightful MSM alternative/watchdogs you'd like to believe you are. Just let me know when you find the Bat Boy in the background of one your Qana photos. I'd like to see that one.

18 grinnel -

What facts has anyone here made up?

FACT: an IAF bomb either hit the building or hit near the building between midnight and 1:00 am. Whether the building was actually hit is yet to be determined.

FACT: there were numerous witnesses claiming that the building collapsed immediately after it was hit, thereby trapping dozens of people inside.

FACT: the IDF claims that the building remained standing for at least deven hours after the air strike

FACT: no one in Qana contacted the Red Cross, rescue workers in Tyre or the news media until SEVEN HOURS after the bomb was dropped by the IAF

Something clearly doesn't fit here. Given this very odd fact pattern coupled with the fact that the terrorists in the region are widely known to routinely stage fake news events (complete with fake casualties) for propaganda purposes, it seems completely unreasonable to take the terrorists' story at face value.

If you choose to respond, abd you think you have something worthwhile to say, how about you try doing so with facts and reason rather than loudmouth insults? If you're capable of it, it'd be far more impressive.

19 Eye, of course I'd like to respond. First, my insulting response was addressed to the insulting response from that wellhead of negativity Bluto. The guy's a jerk, plain and simple, incapable of reasoned debate. He thinks it makes him witty when it actually makes him boorish. So I write him off and respond-when I respond at all- to him in like fashion. Nothing more. But my apologies, if you require them, to you for using your thread in such a manner.

Secondly, my gripe is with what is being extrapolated from the facts that are known by many, though certainly not all, throughout this blog. The thesis is that the bombing didn't actually take place and now a wholly questionable foundation is being built to support this nonsense. Their conclusions — or actually allusions -- are neither supported by the visual evidence or reason, no matter what they'd would like to extrapolate from what they are seeing.

It reminds me of "JFK" by Oliver Stone, in which people take the most ambiguous of details, interpret them any way they'd like and keep adding them to the total. After long enough, the most outrageous conclusions seem plausible.

Even ISRAEL is not denying the event took place, and as you well know they make no apologies to doing whatever it takes to shut down Hezbollah.

FACT. I don't know why the bomb hitting near or on the house would make a difference. The damage looked complete from the many photos I've seen so I think the distinction is irrelevant to me.

FACT: It is entirely believable that the building collapsed upon being hit or nearly hit.

FACT: Earlier today, I read comments from an IDF general at Ynet.com to the effect that the building remained standing for six to seven hours after the initial bombing. He couched and qualified his comments several times, even as he said "choosing his words carefully" until the facts were known. But he did mention he heard reports that the building remained standing. Now, I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I have not read this statement from this general anywhere else, and the IDF as a body has NOT taken the position of this general. They have said it was a terrible tragedy and took responsibility, but that Hezbollah was ultimately to blame.

FACT: No one in Qana reported the disaster for seven hours? I didn't know that. Where DO you get these details? OK, why? Staged event, right? Well, where is the Red Cross from Qana? Several hours away? Does Qana currently have access to communications? Were there other missiles landing in the area throughout the night? Or was it all quiet after that one? Did anyone at all try to rescue these people through the night? Or did no one at all? Yes, I would like to know the answers to these reasonable questions as they might shed light on why people might not call the Red Cross or the media for hours.

Here's my thing: no one in the free world -- the US, Britain, Israel--no one is questioning that the event took place. Did Hezbollah use the opportunity to garner outrage in their favor? Absolutely. They are as media savvy as anyone else, including American politicians who used images of 9/11 to garner support during the last elections.

Of course we don't know the definitive facts yet, and its plain that Hezbollah rung as much benefit as they could from this mistake. But to posit that this was a staged event and they loaded up a building with 60 freshly-dead bodies pushes the limits of reason by any measure of the word.

20 Fact: this is the first thread on which I've responded to "grinell".

Fact: "grinell" started our relationship by calling me insane.

Fact: Amused, I responded in kind.

Fact: "grinell" then flew into a snit, and accused moi of instigating hostilities.

Logical deduction: "grinell" is delusional and/or a liar.

High-confidence supposition: "grinell" is a pussy.

High-confidence prediction: "grinell", as a delusional, lying pussy will not be happy on my threads.

21 No one in Qana reported the disaster for seven hours? I didn't know
that. Where DO you get these details?

That is, apparently, what the Red Cross report.

OK, why? Staged event, right?


Maybe.  Don't know.

Well, where is the Red Cross from Qana? Several hours away?

In Tyre, 15 miles away.

22 Fact: Yes, I addressed you as insane. Hyperbole, as I stated in the very next post. Unless of course you are. Then my original statement stands.

Fact: No snit here at all, equally bemused by the above retorts to insane; didn't respond with "douchebag" until invited to blow you, which, as a straight, I will gratefully pass on.

Fact: You are negative and boorish. I didn't even bring up condescending and self-impressed.

Fact: You get one, maybe two lines of semi-reasoned discourse from Bluto if you call him on his facts. Then you become a pussy (see above), a terrorist sympathizer, a Quisling, or, in the spirit of free and open debate, banned from posting.

Obvious deduction: As a blogger, you are far and away better at dishing it out then taking it.

Out.

23 grinell, you wound me. I called you neither "quisling", nor "terrorist sympathizer"...and I didn't ban you. I did call you a lying, delusional pussy, but only after explaining the logical steps that lead, inevitably, to that conclusion.

Btw, you referred to everybody on the thread who disagreed with you as "douchebags" - you seem to be dishing out quite a bit.

Did you think you were writing a letter to the editor, pinhead?

24 You're right, Bluto ... the douchebag retort was hurled largely at you. Apologies to all others who took offense.

>>>> Did you think you were writing a letter to the editor, pinhead?

Of course not; I never call editors douchebags. That's reserved for opinionated windbags with authority complexes.

25 Wrong, grinell, you call anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you "douchebags". You did it here, and are trying to weasel out of it.

Btw, sock puppets are so low-class - but expected from a delusional, lying pussy, such as yourself.

How many Appleton cheeseheads do you think we get here, anyway?

26 ...to posit that this was a staged event and they loaded up a building with 60 freshly-dead bodies pushes the limits of reason by any measure of the word.

grinnel -

Given that international terrorist groups (PLO, Hamas) in and around Israel are well-known to stage fake "massacres" for propaganda purposes, how can you possibly claim that it "pushes the limits of reason" to believe that an international terrorist group just north of Israel has staged a fake massacre? If this "massacre" is a fake, it differs from the prior fake massacres only in terms of its scale. Please explain how it "pushes the limits of reason" to entertain the idea that this particular "massacre" may also be a fake.

BTW, if you keep fucking with Bluto, he's likely to whip out his huge manhood of logic and beat you about the head with it until you start crying. It differs from my huge unstoppable bagel of logic and reason in a number of respects, not the least of which is the loud slapping sound it makes everytime it hits you on the side of your face.

27 Surpassed only by the loud slapping sound of his manly member as it hits you on the side of your face ......  :-o

28 How many Appleton cheeseheads do you get? I don't know, I live in Green Bay.

29 Your IP gets routed through Appleton, and, coincidentally, matches the IPs of a couple other sock puppets.

30 >>>> Please explain how it "pushes the limits of reason" to entertain the idea that this particular "massacre" may also be a fake.

Well, let's see. I started by running a quick Google search on the term "staged massacre?" I received about 315 individual results. Let's see what we've got ...

Milosevic Says Kosovo Massacre Staged by Rebels

WorldNetDaily: Probe: Famous 'martyrdom' of Palestinian boy 'staged'

Iraqi Rebels Staged "Massacre", Liberals Bought the Lie

NATO is preparing a staged massacre of Albanian refugees

The Dread Pundit Bluto: US Commanders: Shi'ites Staged 'Massacre'

Bosnian Muslims staged the massacre

IDF films staged Palestinian `burials' - Haaretz - Israel News

Hizb-ut-Tahrir member claims Andijan massacre was staged by Uzbek ...

Kind of a pattern isn't it? If this was the first I'd heard of a "staged massacre" by a group who didn't like bad press, I might be a bit more willing to buy into the elaborate conspiracy theory currently circulating about Qana from rightwing blogs. Is it possible this thing went down this way? Sure, anything at all is possible. Though the fact Israel has accepted blame and expressed regret takes a little of that edge off. Of course that it was staged is nearing gospel proportions here ...

And quit foisting your homo-erotic fantasies with Bluto onto me ... like I said, I'm not into that. Thanks anyway.

31 Wow, that's really weak, grinell. Why don't you explain the "pattern", and then name some groups who like bad press.

Then you could google "Pallywood".

32 Why weak? I cited just a few examples of past "staged massacres" that were either ultimately proven to be as authentic as a massacre gets or were never in any way proven to be staged.

Fact: There is no empirical evidence to back these claims of a staged massacre up. And that’s been my contention all along. If anyone wants to establish doubt about ANY event that happens on ANY day, it's no problem whatsoever to find reams of "evidence" to support whatever theory is being pushed. Of course it'll be exclusively anecdotal, supported by shaky interpretations, rumors and conclusions based not on fact but emotion, but hell, does that matter? In this case, its Hezbollah, and they’re the bad guys.

Now, before you brandish your standard "un-American terrorist supporter" sword, this is not in defense of Hezbollah; it's entirely possible that evidence may yet be produced that proves clearly this was a staged event by Hezbollah.

This is in defense of truthful reporting even in a form as low as blogging.

I hold innuendo and it supporters in as low esteem as I do the crackpots who continue to cite piece after "damning" piece of the Bush family's involvement in 9/11 — and not because I hold any love for George Bush.

33 Also: from Wikipedia re:"Pallywood"

"The extent and impact of such alleged manipulation is highly controversial and is part of a broader debate about media manipulation on both sides of the conflict."

34 Grinnel: Better watch the spelling. They'll really get you on that.

35 Grinnel: Thank you for your visit. Stick around.

36 Please excuse all seeing idiot. Merely, an academic meathead whose mommy doesn't let out often. Of course, you've already figured that out. This jerk doesn't know if you agree with him or not. Sooner or later Rusty will figure his value. Which is nothing.