human shields decry placement

[sbp]

The first Western (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/23/wshield23.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/23/ixworld.html/news/2003/02/23/wshield23.xml) "human shields" will take up their places at strategic sites around Iraq today as dissent among them grows about the nature of the targets they are being asked to protect.

Fifteen volunteers from the first 200 shields are moving into a bunker at the South Baghdad Electricity Plant in an effort to deter attack by America and its allies. However some of the shields yesterday questioned Iraq's selection of the power plant, after discovering that it is situated next to an army base.

Since the shields' first visit to examine their new quarters, sandbags and unmanned check points had been erected around the plant. Asked about the neighbouring Rasheed military base, an Iraqi official said: "Don't worry, it is a small army camp."

The Iraqi government has drawn up a list of other sites that it wants shields to protect. These include water purification plants, communication centres, food stores, historic monuments and oil refineries.

Yesterday Iraqi officials gave way to pressure from disgruntled volunteers, and agreed to place some at the schools, hospitals and old people's homes where they had hoped to defend the civilian population against possible attack. Divisions between the volunteers and their Baghdad hosts had opened up during a meeting with Iraqi officials last Thursday. Rick Pruttwein, 28, from London, who runs summer camps for underprivileged children, told them he wanted to stay in an orphanage, capitalising on his work in Britain.

The officials, however, said that he could be better used at more strategically important targets. "There are maybe 40 or 50 children in the orphanage, which is in an area of maybe 200,000-300,000 civilians," said Abdul Razak Al Hashimi, president of the Organisation of Friendship, Peace and Solidarity in Iraq.

[UDawg]

Bomb them too.

[intercede007]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Bomb them too.

Yup. Bomb them too.

[de><ta]

bomb them, all is fair in war.

And if they survive and want to come back to their comfortable homes, execute them at the airport on TV.:mad:

If the iraqi's are raising violent children who have those same screwed up attitudes, bomb them too. It is about time we culled these inbreds. If it is holy war they want, we will be glad to send those schmuck to allah himself.:mad:

end of days. I wish the human race would just die. Why cant we not co-exist in peace?:(

This world get more and more ****ed up day by day.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

I'll have to e-mail my friends that are deployed in Kuwait right now and tell them about these idiots. Hell, shoot these idiots, they are worthless. Traitors.

[The Baron]

It's people like these that give liberals a bad name. We need liberals to balance out conservatives, but this is just insane.

[UDawg]

No, liberals give them selves a bad name. :p

BTW they are traitors by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

There was an ex gulf war marine with the group. He was stopped in Turkey and deported. Shameful to say the least:o

[intercede007]

Hmm..too bad thats not enough reason to revoke his benefits.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

I beleive it might be. Since he is aiding a group which is supporting the enemies of the United States of America. When citizens join the military they make an oath to protect this country and its interests. This guy, even tho he is retired, obviously isn't respecting his military service, so why should the military honor his benefits? His citizenship should be revoked, since he likes Saddam so much, he can go and move in with him and try and shield Saddam from the bullets our boys are gonna be firing in their direction ;) My dad was in the military, he gets no benefits, it can be done:D

[netviper13]

Ah yes, it's a free country until someone disagrees with the mainstream views. Guess Jefferson was wrong when he wrote that everyody is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think it really shows something when vets are voicing their disapproval of the "war." After all, who better to know the horrors of war than those who have experienced it first hand?

While I don't personally agree with their tactics, I don't think these protesters should die. None of the major changes of the past century would have happened without protests along the lines of these (boycotts, picket lines, etc). They have just as much a right to voice their opinion as the ultra-conservatives in this country. What's the point of freedom if it's not applied equally?

*edit*

Okay so they are making a really stupid decision. But that doesn't mean they're no longer human. Regardless of what Dubya says, it's a fallacy to believe "you're either with us or against us." It's not that the people are pro-Iraq, it's that they're anti-war. Just another example of people with a good message who choose a very stupid way of going about presenting it.

[-=Gib-McFragger=-]

Traitors.

They want to get in the way, they can suffer the consequences. Period. :mad:

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by netviper13
Ah yes, it's a free country until someone disagrees with the mainstream views. Guess Jefferson was wrong when he wrote that everyody is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think it really shows something when vets are voicing their disapproval of the "war." After all, who better to know the horrors of war than those who have experienced it first hand?

While I don't personally agree with their tactics, I don't think these protesters should die. None of the major changes of the past century would have happened without protests along the lines of these (boycotts, picket lines, etc). They have just as much a right to voice their opinion as the ultra-conservatives in this country. What's the point of freedom if it's not applied equally?

Netviper, this isn't the case. These people are putting themselves in a situation in which they will force military to fire on its "own" countrymen. These people aren't protesting, they are trying to work against the coalition and are trying to interfere with possible military action. They aren't carrying signs or voicing their opinions, they are doing Saddam's will, letting him decide what to do with them and aiding Saddam in forcing the military to hurt innocent civilians. Liberals have been up in arms about civilian casualties, these guys, are attemping to cause civilian casualties. They have abdicated their alleigance to the US and have joined Hussein's ranks, much like John "Taliban" Walker did. Last time I checked, Saddam was the enemy, they are aiding him, so they are aiding the enemy. They are in league with the enemy, so they become the enemy. I'm sure once the bombs start dropping these people will run tho. Hussein isn't even letting people leave cities and towns to seek shelter, he is forcing them to stay with threats and making them his unwilling human shields.

[netviper13]

I agree that it's really stupid what they're doing; but it's sad that it has come to this. Extreme actions are what we'll be seeing more of, as even mass protests have no effect on politicians. Their stupidity, however, does not justify KILLING them. In the same way Rosa Parks was acting "outrageous and confrontational" when she got in the way of the more-powerful white person on the bus, the protesters are attempting to do just that. Unfortunately the world has changed, and instead of facing jail they are facing being blown apart. What they are doing is stupid and ignorant, but it doesn't mean we immediately sign their execution papers.

[Kruno]

I can understand where boths sides are coming from, they have a right to protest in their own country, though if they want to stand in the way of bombs and the like, they will be destroyed. The bad thing about it is that if/when the pilot finds out there were people from his own country protesting that can severely mentally affect the pilot, wheather it be early or later in life.

I won't protest against any war as for every action there will be winners and there will also be losers.
Losers would obvisuly be Suddam Hussein, I doubt many people would grieve over his loss (wheather he loses the war and gets exiled or just gets killed), there will be many more losers on both sides too.

Winners would obviously be large corporations (according to 60 minutes) and a majority of the Iraqi population (maybe?) as well as the Kurds who will never have to fear getting slaughtered with chemical weapons.

There are a lot of dumb **** protesters who use the argument: "It's happening over there, it's none of our business."
That's what some people (even some world leaders) also said about Adolf Hitler, guess what? He committed mass genocide and the world suffered. The world deserved word war 1 and 2 so they can wisen up. Unfortuantely people still tend to want to turn a blind eye to countries leaders that are aggressive.

If one of those dumbass protesters were the leader of the USA back during WW1, there would be no WW2 and we would all be speaking German if we are even born.
Turning a blind eye to things doesn't make them go away.

If problems would go away by ignoring them, then you can be sure we would all ignore SH and he would be a good little boy. Unfortunately this is real life and we can't just make things go away.

(Not all protesters are dumb, might I add. It' just seems the majority of them are.)

[LORD-eX-Bu]

All I know is that I won't hold anything against any coalition soldier that fires on these guys if they try and interfere with ongoing operations. If these people try and grab or slow the troops in any way, the troops will have every right to get them out of the way whichever way is necessary.

Its these people's own decision to become these "human shields". With that they should understand that the US nor any other country fighting Iraq will ensure their safety. I don't think any country should go out of its way to do so anyways. These people were smart enough to get themselves in such a situation, they should be smart enough to take care of themselves and get out when they need to on their own.

[netviper13]

Originally posted by [eNv]-LORD-eX-Bu
All I know is that I won't hold anything against any coalition soldier that fires on these guys if they try and interfere with ongoing operations. If these people try and grab or slow the troops in any way, the troops will have every right to get them out of the way whichever way is necessary.

Its these people's own decision to become these "human shields". With that they should understand that the US nor any other country fighting Iraq will ensure their safety. I don't think any country should go out of its way to do so anyways. These people were smart enough to get themselves in such a situation, they should be smart enough to take care of themselves and get out when they need to on their own.

I agree. They made the decision and took risks, and should have to live with the consequences of those actions. It just sounded like earlier posters were advocating AIMING for those people, which would be insanely pointless. It's not like they're holding the AK47s (or shoulder-launched SAMs :eek: ) and firing at our jets.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by netviper13
I agree. They made the decision and took risks, and should have to live with the consequences of those actions. It just sounded like earlier posters were advocating AIMING for those people, which would be insanely pointless. It's not like they're holding the AK47s (or shoulder-launched SAMs :eek: ) and firing at our jets.

I would not put that past most of those "human shields".

[Phyre]

Man, this has a Darwin award written all over it. Cooking rings? They had best be begging for gas masks and protection from bio-weapons.

I can see it now. We and our allies get close enough, and we have a hostige situation on our hands. Oh, wait, they're not hosties...they're Darwin recipients.

I guess people don't remember that it was Saddam's own people who suffered from his own gasing let alone these "Westerners."

Phyre

[chaos14]

wait a minute, they are there to "help protect iraq" yet they are complaining that they want to "guard" schools and hospitals not real military targets???? i have no proof of this but i am pretty sure it is not US policy to try and bomb schools and hospitals. sounds to me like they just want you to think they are willing to die for the cause.

[silence]

Originally posted by chaos14
wait a minute, they are there to "help protect iraq" yet they are complaining that they want to "guard" schools and hospitals not real military targets???? i have no proof of this but i am pretty sure it is not US policy to try and bomb schools and hospitals. sounds to me like they just want you to think they are willing to die for the cause.

it's called "collateral damage".....in war everything gets bombed, only thing these days you have CNN which reports and then there is press conference where you say "we are sorry, we were aiming that army base which is near".

ohhh.........don't get me wrong, i think it's damn stupid to go and explain yourself after you drop a bomb >> that's war,ppl die,bombs explode. i just wanna say that those dumb a*** prolly saw few bombs that went off their path and hit some civilian targets and now they want to "protect" those targets........how dumb.

funniest thing is........they came there to "protect" things that need no protection and their hosts want them to sit near legit military targets >> hehehe, they are doing some heavy thinking about how good this idea was.

i feel sorry for them.

:rolleyes:

[Kruno]

Originally posted by chaos14
wait a minute, they are there to "help protect iraq" yet they are complaining that they want to "guard" schools and hospitals not real military targets???? i have no proof of this but i am pretty sure it is not US policy to try and bomb schools and hospitals. sounds to me like they just want you to think they are willing to die for the cause.

A bomb can hit a school by accident. Accidents happen frequently at war. What happens if Suddam's soldiers decide to use a hospital or school as a base or whatnot? You don't know they won't do that. What happens when the hospital/school becomes a target and gets hit and the intelligence by accident or whatnot says that there are no friendlies only hostiles?

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by UDawg71
BTW they are traitors by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I guess we should kill the Red Cross too then;) :D

[silence]

i agree........and what about later stages of war when infantry and artillery starts to enter and shell Iraq??

just as i said before......ppl in US and some other western countries as well, have strange idea how wars look like. most of them saw reports on CNN or some other station and they think it's like few planes fly over, drop some laser guided bombs and then "bad guys" surender......these guys that went in Iraq are for a big surprise......i don't even wanna imagine what might happen if Saddam and his military starts to defend Baghdad like fanatics.......and they might,cause for them this is question of life and death...literally......

[silence]

Originally posted by vampireuk
I guess we should kill the Red Cross too then;) :D

heh.......all i can tell you is that when bullets and shells fly around they don't stop to ask if you happen to be in Red Cross;) those buggers are pretty dumb and accidents happen..........

btw.....how many allied soldiers died from Iraqi fire and how many from friendly fire during the Gulf war??.....if u can hit ur own troops by accident then u sure can hit anything else;)

and there are also "deliberate accidents" (hope i spelled this one ok) ;)