Tim Blair

I don't get it... what was wrong with the FIRST version of the t-shirt?

"Donna is pictured here wearing the second version of the Human Shields T-shirt used to identify the organisation in Iraq. The original version featured a poor Arabic translation of the organsiation's name which read 'human target'. The replacement T-shirts had to be quickly reprinted."

I'll bet the translator didn't make any mistakes like that again after Saddam's thugs finished with him.

Where is Sheik Yurbooty?

Why the fuck isn't she at home looking after Nora? Or is she bored with that little diversion?

Great catch, Raindog. Did these two paragraphs jump out at you, too?

"They think (Nora) was born without limbs somewhere in the south of Iraq, a frequent occurrence where Saddam Hussein's long-term use of chemical and biological weapons against the mainly-Shiites has left many children limbless and malformed."

And then: "The US military doesn't seem to value Iraqi lives and not least the lives of disabled Iraqi orphans. What chance do they have?" said Mulhearn.

After embracing a limbless Nora, Mulhearn STILL wanted to stop us from ending a sadistic regime that used WMD against innocents? I'd say she was some kind of inhuman shield who doesn't need a shirt to show her for what she is.

Lewis, cartoonist for the Newcastle Herald, did a cartoon this weekend picturing an Iraqi militant holding up Donna to shield himself from gunfire. He says over his shoulder to friends: 'This human shield isn't working. Everyone's attacking her!'

(Link to that particular cartoon unavailable online).

Looking at Donna's photos this is yet more evidence (as if any is needed) that no woman over 30 should have long hair.

I wonder if the translator accidentally confused shield with "target", a type of wooden buckler or small shield (a targ was a big shield). The English started throwing arrows and darts at these 'targets' in their leisure time, giving us the modern meaning.

Where is little Nora, you ask? Possibly once DM realised her adopted bundle of joy was a victim of brutality by Saddam (yes, he whose virile dark eyes flash with anger when he speaks of the oppression that US imperialism has brought to his people), she put the kid straight into 24-seven daycare and then headed back to "work" [sic].

If you think this sort of Noble Savageing of third world peoples belongs back in the Reader's Digest circa 1963, have a look at the first parag or two of Pilger's cover story for this week's New Statesperson. (Look quickly, because these URLs aren't permalink). All that's missing is the orphaned kid with attitude, a la Short Round in Temple of Doom, to ask with wounded innocence: "Mister Pilger, why does George Bush love to kill and starve the children of my country?" (SEE: "Mr Gorbachev, why can't we all just have peace?", 1985).

Wow, the Pilge sinks to a new low. I didn't know slime went that far down.

Too bad she left her brain in the other t-shirt.

So according to Pilger, under Saddam, Iraq was safe as houses for lefty journalists. What a model society.

Later Pilger refers to "the pro-invasion Sydney Morning Herald." WTF? Is this SMH in some sort of parallel universe?