Human Shields on the Run

[Richard G]

Bwa HAHAHA! If we hurry, we may be able to take some out before they all get away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wshiel02.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/02/ixnewstop.html

Too funny. I seem to remember some fawning, puerile posts right here on this board about how noble and courageous these people are for doing what they did. As with most things the Left does, the "Human Shields" crap was little more than a rhetorical gesture.
It does point up the moral cowardice of the anti war movement and Leftists in general. They will cry loud and long about the war. They will snivel and complain and make feel good gestures about it. Ask them to do anything more than march in a demonstration (a very appropriate metaphor for what the Left does best) or actually RISK anything for what they say they believe in and they dry up and blow away with the wind.

[Smalso]

Seems to me they would be of better use in protesting the Bush Administration's eroding the Bill of Rights and infringing upon the civil liberties of citizens; which is what Rightists do best anyway.

[NoZed Avenger]

Without endorsing a blanket criticism of 'the Left,' I must admit that you have a point for these particular people:

Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.

* * *

Mr Meynell and fellow protesters who moved into the power station in south Baghdad last weekend were dismayed to find it stood immediately next to an army base and the strategically crucial main road south to Basra. Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding what they considered to be low-risk targets.


One must suspect (if one did not already) that these particular 'human shields' were only there long enough to get a few headlines and then scamper off without any real deprivation or risk.

NA

[karl]

I remember reading an interview with an alleged human shield a few weeks ago. She said a couple of things that stuck in my mind: "We don't want to become martyrs. [...] If there's a war, we may have to evacuate."

Interview in Aftonbladet (Swedish) (http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,262961,00.html)

For a while I assumed she had been misquoted, because that attitude kind of defeats the whole purpose of being a human shield. But later on I realized that to a lot of these people the "shield" concept is not meant to be taken literally. It's a gesture of solidarity, intended to prevent war -- not risk additional human lives in case a war actually breaks out. You've done your part as an enlightened intellectual simply by going to Iraq and fraternizing with the local population. Nobody expects you to stay when the bombs start falling.

Suddenly it felt a lot less noble.

[aerocontrols]

pointed to this story (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6031426%255E421,00.html) which has the following typo:


He said the activisits would let the US know of their positions through the internet.

Great name for these guys... "activisits".

MattJ

[Doctor X]

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Cough! Cough!

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

So . . . like . . . we didn't think the . . . you know . . . Evil Empire of America was . . . you know . . . like . . . serious about enforcing the UN resolutions and stuff. I mean . . . we thought they would understand that we are . . . you know . . . pissed it is not the 60s where . . . like . . . sex 'n drugs were safe . . . in all . . . and like bathing was . . . you know . . . Bad Karma!

--J.D.

[alancarre]

Originally posted by Richard G
It does point up the moral cowardice of the anti war movement and Leftists in general. They will cry loud and long about the war. They will snivel and complain and make feel good gestures about it. Ask them to do anything more than march in a demonstration (a very appropriate metaphor for what the Left does best) or actually RISK anything for what they say they believe in and they dry up and blow away with the wind.

Well, you know... those people (that quit) don't automatically represent the camp that they've latched themselves onto. One should always be weary when some random person jumps onto your side of an argument. They might only be looking for companionship... However, I admit it's a very embarrassing retreat.

I never had much faith in many of these human shields because I know, much like the pro-war fanatics, that it's pretty easy to talk the talk when there's nothing more on the line than your own opinion. There are some though, not many, but some that are staying and I think they should be commended for their actions. The people that are staying seem to think that giving up their own lives is worth the chance that conflict can be avoided or mitigated. Not an easy choice.

- Alan

[subgenius]

Wonder if PETA will protest this:
Dog joins human shields in Iraq
By David Blair in Baghdad
(Filed: 15/02/2003)
Possibly the first canine peace activist in the history of international pacifism rolled on his back, waved his legs in the air and panted happily.
Gustavo, a St Bernard, is the only member of the animal kingdom to have joined the ranks of the "human shields in Iraq".
He arrived in Baghdad after an overland journey from Rome at the heels of his owner, Juliana Tucci, an Italian grandmother.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/15/wirq315.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=29702

I think its outrageous. The poor animal is not there by choice.

[subgenius]

Richard G:
"It does point up the moral cowardice of the anti war movement and Leftists in general."

Amazingly bad over-generalization. Stupidity is ubiquitous.

By the way, wouldn't it make sense for the human shields/targets to insist on protecting purely civilian targets(i.e. hospitals, schools,etc), and see what Saddam's reaction is?

[Humphreys]

Brave Human Shields ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head, they bravely turned their tails and fled.
Yes, brave Human Shields turned about
And gallantly, they chickened out. Bravely taking to their feet,
They beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Human Shields.

They're packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely they're throwing in the sponge.

And in Audio:

http://www.stmoroky.com/sirrobin/fleeing~.au

http://www.stmoroky.com/sirrobin/meeting~.au

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Smalso
Seems to me they would be of better use in protesting the Bush Administration's eroding the Bill of Rights and infringing upon the civil liberties of citizens; which is what Rightists do best anyway.

What civil liberties have you lost since Bush et al took the helm? BTW, he is about as far "right" as JFK was, imnsho.

Which BOR erosion are you referring to?

Re human shields. ROTFLMAO! To bad they are leaving too soon.

[Reginald]

I'm glad they got the bus out.

At least one of those was a route-master, a fine london bus, would be a shame to have seen that get knackered.

Maybe that should now be rout-master?

What did they expect? As someone pointed out it was all for the post war self congratulation. IMHO.

[gnome]

If I might throw 2 cents in...

The "human shield" concept is a useful one in most forms of civil disobedience... but I consider it generally unethical in this case...

One distinguishing factor between civil disobedience and rebellion/terrorism is that in civil disobedience, the only ones that should be in danger (if there is any) are the protestors themselves. However, any direct interference in a military operation can cost the lives of troops in the field. I won't subscribe to that.

So, I'm glad they're leaving too.

[Skeptic]

Well, you know... those people (that quit) don't automatically represent the camp that they've latched themselves onto. One should always be weary when some random person jumps onto your side of an argument.

G. B. Shaw once said, "I'm not responsible for every idiot that agrees with me".

I know, much like the pro-war fanatics, that it's pretty easy to talk the talk when there's nothing more on the line than your own opinion.

Indeed so. However, so far as I can tell, there is a significantly greater proportion of "pro-war fanatics" who are willing to walk the walk (for example, those actually serving in the armed forces, which traditionally and currently are much more "right-wing" and "pro-war" than the population at large) than "anti-war fanatics" who are willing to do the same.

There are some though, not many, but some that are staying and I think they should be commended for their actions.

The problem with the "human shield" people is that, quite frankly, they are liars who propagate a blood libel against the USA.

They came as "human shields" to "guard" hospitals and schools... claiming that they will "protect" them from the evil American bombs... but when asked to become "human shields" to targets like power plants and military bases, they got cold feet and left.

Their actions show that they know very well that the US is highly unlikely to deliberatly bomb schools or hospitals, while it IS likely to bomb military targets such as power plants and army bases. But this doesn't stop them from lying through their teeth, blaming the US for "evil plans" to bomb hospitals and schools, plans that they KNOW it doesn't have.

These are not actions of people who are "brave protestors and activists for peace". These are the actions of people who deliberately invent malicious lies about the USA.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
[b][i]Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.



What??

Did they fail to read the "human shields" job description? You know the part where it says that, "taking this job can actually get you KILLED in the event of a war"?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(Yes FOUR rolleyes for these dopes, err...dupes).

Barkhorn.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Indeed so. However, so far as I can tell, there is a significantly greater proportion of "pro-war fanatics" who are willing to walk the walk (for example, those actually serving in the armed forces, which traditionally and currently are much more "right-wing" and "pro-war" than the population at large) than "anti-war fanatics" who are willing to do the same.



So true. It's no mistake that the absentee military ballots mailed in from overseas went overwhelmingly republican. Al Gore almost won Florida....but the absentee ballots pushed GWB way ahead.

Now, I wonder why that is?? :confused: :p

[wvgypsy]

Don't the 'human shields' kind of make a mockery of the human shields that Saddam took in 1991. I remember the one kid that Uncle Saddam kept trying to pull toward him and scared the kid looked.

Poor deluded, naive 'human shields'. :rolleyes:

[headscratcher4]

One has to wonder whether these brave human sheilds will throw themselves infront of Iraqi security forces trying to drag away anyone who protests, complains, questions, jokes about, belittles, leaks information about, talks openly about Saddam Hussien and his regime.

One wonders whether these human shields will travel north to the Kurd regions or south to Basra to protect the Shiite's from the continuing wrath of Saddam. Probably not...they are human shields in the way the Dutch Army at Sebrinicia (SP?) in Bosnia were the protectors of the moslem population...

PS...it all sort of begs a joke...and I invite you to supply the punch line:

How many Human Shields does it take to change a lightbulb?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Richard G
As with most things the Left does, the "Human Shields" crap was little more than a rhetorical gesture.

A.K.A. "Symbolism Over Substance"...

[wvgypsy]

How many Human Shields does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, they like being in the dark. ;)

[gnome]

Originally posted by rikzilla


So true. It's no mistake that the absentee military ballots mailed in from overseas went overwhelmingly republican. Al Gore almost won Florida....but the absentee ballots pushed GWB way ahead.

Now, I wonder why that is?? :confused: :p

Yeah, that "way ahead" victory margin of 0.009% in Florida really sends a mandate.
:rolleyes:

My own opinions on the election are of course discussed elsewhere and there's no need to jump into it again, I'm sure everyone's said what they care to say.

[headscratcher4]

some human sheilds returning home...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=518&ncid=732&e=10&u=/ap/20030302/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_human_shields

Got to admire people of steadfast conviction...

[NoZed Avenger]

--- Quote from Article ---

On Friday, the head of Sweden's largest peace organization urged human shields to leave Iraq, saying they were being used for propaganda purposes by Saddam Hussein

--- End of Quote ---

. . . and who could have possibly predicted that?

NA

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by gnome


Yeah, that "way ahead" victory margin of 0.009% in Florida really sends a mandate.
:rolleyes:

My own opinions on the election are of course discussed elsewhere and there's no need to jump into it again, I'm sure everyone's said what they care to say.

Gnome,

What I meant was that the absentee balloting...(mostly military living out of state) went something in excess of 80% for GWB. That's why dems were working very hard to disqualify absentee votes. It was this that put him ahead...not "way" ahead of course :rolleyes: that was my own poor choice of words.

-z

[gnome]

The vote was so close that just about any group you care to identify was large enough to make the difference. It doesn't give them any extra significance, just because they were added in last.

That said, I am sure that most of the absentee ballots were for Bush.

On the other hand, I have already explained why those "human shields" in this case, in my opinion, are NOT walking the walk.

If they had been, they'd be home exercising political influence, not out there actually interfering.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


A.K.A. "Symbolism Over Substance"...

A fair description of the UK Labour Party over the last few years, though they seem to have grown some balls recently...

[Doctor X]

How many Human Shields does it take to change a lightbulb?


I think you have to give the inspectors time to find a lightbulb. . . .

--J.D.

[Denise]

Typical of the bleeding heart. When it really comes time to action, they duck for cover.

Every war has civilian casualties, so if that is used to justify that war is always wrong, then all wars have been wrong. But I for one am happy that the third reich was brought down. Now, Saddam and Kim should be brought down.

Both leaders starve their own people, and I don't think comparison to Stalin for either would be far off.

[Reginald]

Let's get this absolutely clear, there is no light bulb, we did have a bulb, a small one, but we destroyed it back in '92. And even if we did have a lightbulb (which we havn't) it would be dim enough so that it did not exceed the extremely unreasonable limits on brightness placed upon us by the imperialist west. AND if it did exceed the limits, it would only be be a little bit.........honest.

[Shane Costello]

Not to mention the fact that Israel and the US have loads of lightbulbs, as did Hitler.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
One has to wonder whether these brave human sheilds will throw themselves infront of Iraqi security forces trying to drag away anyone who protests, complains, questions, jokes about, belittles, leaks information about, talks openly about Saddam Hussien and his regime.

One wonders whether these human shields will travel north to the Kurd regions or south to Basra to protect the Shiite's from the continuing wrath of Saddam. Probably not...they are human shields in the way the Dutch Army at Sebrinicia (SP?) in Bosnia were the protectors of the moslem population...

PS...it all sort of begs a joke...and I invite you to supply the punch line:

How many Human Shields does it take to change a lightbulb?

Point, set, match.