You’re with us, or the terrorists. Clearly, you’ve made you’re choice. GPS coordinates locked in
The your / you’re gnomes are here.
Shatner records. Never again.
december: So, the human shields promote the idea that America is planning to bomb civilians. In fact, America made efforts not to bomb civilian targets in the first Gulf War and in Afghanistan.
Human sheilds will become human casualties in this case. No war can be a complete war without casualties. lol. What they are trying to do is impossible first off. What they will do is hinder us secondly and thirdly this falls in part of treason…I say we should just leave em there then, because the aftermath will need a few hippies in there to count bodies even of their own. Suicide is what these morons are up to. What’s a voice with a guided missle lodged in it anyways? Cause I guarantee you the military will strike wherever they need to regardless of who is there and of what country they are from. Its not Ghandi thats leading this country peacfully its Saddam and hes no barefoot angel of mercy. Check out his new favorite torture devices sometime and maybe the innocent citizens he has tested them on.
Unfortunately, their efforts were sometimes unsuccessful, and US bombs did in fact take out many civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think you’re kidding yourself if you imagine that fears about potential American bombing of civilian targets are prompted more by stories about “human shields” than by the well-known fact that America has bombed civilian targets in the past.
It is also a well known fact that saddam will use this to his advantage as he did in the past and now he some real neat new toys to play with AMERICAN HUMAN SHEILDS. Its good to know we can arm him too…so to speak.
The middle eastern regimes have been fighting and much blood has been shed for hundreds of years. Im pretty sure America is not going to stop them but we can atleast stop them from launching us into this bizare 200 year lame ass religious Im-gonna-take-your-land war. Blood has now been shed on our land as well over it. Terror war or not we still (regardless of the civilian deaths) probably have more civilian casualties in this war which has not begun yet than afghanistan and iraq (WTC)…
—Apos, the Iraqis did have something to lose - their control of the situation. If that doesn’t make any sense to you, you don’t understand them.—
I guess I don’t, because that’s still utterly moronic of them. Heck, the sheilds are even useful right where they were: just blow them up and claim the Americans did it. Giving them a choice between military targets and leaving is stupid.
Though your point may be technically correct, you seem to be glossing over the horrors which were Hiroshima and Nagosaki. Over 100,000 people were killed.(cite)
Though your point may be technically correct, you seem to be glossing over the horrors which were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over 100,000 people were killed.(cite)
Though your point may be technically correct, you seem to be glossing over the horrors which were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 200,000 people were killed.(cite)
My apologies for the multiple posts. My browser is playing tricks on me 
Your point is irrelevant, misleading, and relies on implication rather than actually saying what you mean. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not special in the course of the war.
I once started an excellent thread on this. Please search for it.
I heard yesterday that the shields had opted to return from whence they came. The reason given was that Saddam had refused to let them into hospitals and schools. Frankly I wondered how much the announcement that to be a human shield was a war crime affected that decision.
BTW, you know what our troops call human shields? Speed bumps.
CNN is saying a lot of them are coming back home. Remember my WELL, DUH last week?
"Most of the activists thought they would be “shielding” schools or hospitals, but instead found themselves assigned to power stations, oil refineries and water purification plants.
“We had been told we would go to humanitarian sites, specifically hospitals,” Ken O’Keefe, the former U.S. marine who led the activists, told the newspaper. “But we’ve now been told that we can’t go to those places. The human shields strategy will not work under these circumstances. The level of trust is not present now.”
Heh.
yay!
If nothing else, I admire their commitment to the preservation of innocent human life, but what naivete!
I think it is a culmination of two different things here. Not naivete by itself but couple this a few too many Bong hits and you basically get someone who believes in their own naivete…
Disclaimer marijuana does not have the same effect on everyone!!!
:rolleyes: Good one Diogenes. Think about that for a moment.
First, saying that “The US has no right to attack even military targets as of yet” makes me wonder what you think the US has been doing by enforcing the No-Fly Zone all of these years. Secondly, I am perfectly aware that the legal grounds for war here are tenuous to say the least. I know that Bush would be setting a precedent of pre-emptive strikes and nation-building that should make every nation take pause. Noble intentions from the US government do not always translate into noble deeds. And don’t think I that don’t despise Bush for leading us between a rock and a hard place while squandering hard-earned diplomatic capital in the process. Perhaps if W could negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag we wouldn’t be in this mess anymore. But I will say it again, if the actions of a “human shield” put our soldiers in danger I can tell you right away which one I want to come out unscathed. The one without the deathwish.
But your premature correction really makes me wonder; do you really think that the US is really going for some kind of “hospitals and orphanages first” bombing campaign? As it turns out, not even the Iraqis are that naive. Going to Iraq to serve as “human shields” to “protect civilians” is just about the most pointless thing you could be doing in the context of the situation. Civilians are their own “human shields,” they don’t need any activists standing next to them to make their life any more valuable. Our military gets that, the “human shields” don’t.
Your sentiments are commendable, non-violent resistance is always commendable, but just try and remember who you are ultimately supporting. I think the “human shields” began to realize exactly that when they got to Iraq and saw who they were supporting plastered on every wall. Maybe that slapped some sense into them, maybe not. Personally I think it had more to do with being forced to defend military targets, you know, places that might actually get hit.
Be careful with the criticism. However naively and briefly, they acted upon what they believed was in the world’s best interests, at substantial personal risk. Most of the rest of us do little more than post anonymously on message boards, right?
Uh, didn’t they chicken out just at that point that “substantial personal risk” manifested itself? Unless they suddenly realized–and admitted–the stupidity of their actions, it sounds to me like they progressed from breathtaking naïveté to rather run-of-the-mill cowardice.
I think they bailed at the point where “substantial personal risk” became “probable and futile suicide”. I don’t call that cowardice.
What was the “risk” they were running up to that point, then? Their VW van might break down in the desert?
ElvisL1ves, it’s not letting down the side to admit that these “human shields” are a load of naive wankers who ran at the first sign of trouble. You’re not required to admire everyone on your side.