PDA

View Full Version : Lol..Human shields leave Iraq...cite "security concerns"...



PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 12:08 PM
Just out of curiosity, what did you think the term "human shield" meant? And exactly how many hospitals and schools has the US ever targeted? We may have hit them by accident, but we've never targeted one, so how would the protestors have had ANY impact(pardon the pun) on those sites? Just more proof that when the poop hits the fan, the majority of Anti-War activists will run and hide behind the protection of those they profess to despise. Also proof that they were hopelessly naive in thinking that the Iraqi regime was trustworthy.




'Human shields' catch bus back
Activists said they were assigned to likely military targets
Monday, March 3, 2003 Posted: 8:54 AM EST (1354 GMT)


LONDON, England (CNN) -- Most of the British human shields who traveled to Baghdad in red double-decker buses are returning home before a gunshot has been fired because of "safety fears," organisers say.

Many of those returning are concerned for their safety after the Iraqi authorities began dictating which sites they could "protect," said Christiaan Briggs, a co-ordinator for the action group in Baghdad.

Briggs told the UK's news agency Press Association: "Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals, so we are reassessing our strategy.

"I must stress the people on the bus were always intending on going back. The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war.

"We do not have those numbers and a lot of people were always intending to go back before the bombing campaign started."

The two buses, which left Baghdad Saturday, are thought to be heading towards Syria.

Abdul al-Hashimi, head of Saddam Hussein's Peace and Solidarity Organization, ordered the volunteers to disperse to nine sites in Baghdad or leave, Britain's broadsheet newspaper, Daily Telegraph reported. 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."

Nine of the 11 British human shields in the bus convoy had left Baghdad, the Telegraph said. Among them was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, a former High Sheriff of Derbyshire, who was assigned to protect Baghdad South power station but admitted that he was leaving out of "cold fear."

A 22-year-old student from Pennsylvania assigned to an oil refinery told the paper: "The people staying there sleep 50 yards from stacks billowing black smoke.

"And it's sinister: twenty minders are there for eight shields. There are three security gates, including one manned by plain-clothed guards carrying AK47s."

U.S. officials have said that it is a "war crime" to use civilians as human shields and that there is no way of guaranteeing their safety.

Briggs estimated around a dozen remained in Baghdad and said he and others may now act as witnesses rather than human shields.

"I said right from the start, I was prepared to die but when I knew I had a chance of affecting change," he said.

Grueling journey
The original bus protesters were the first British human shields to arrive in Baghdad, on February 16, after a grueling 3,000 mile journey from London.

They encountered many problems on their way, including O'Keefe who at one point was forced to stay behind in Rome to fix a broken-down bus before having to fly on later to Damascus.

Other setbacks included punctures, running out of petrol, route alterations -- and according to British media reports -- squabbles between different activist factions.

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 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodation and news conferences for the human shields.

"To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio

Muck
03-03-2003, 03:13 PM
God I love it. My entire department got a boost from that one!!

Kamikaze
03-03-2003, 03:30 PM
I'll get in my two cents since I'm probably the most vocal anti-war person here. Being a human shield is just plain ****ing stupid. I don't think that the presence of American citizens is going to stop an F15's payload from hitting its target. Some of you might call them traitorous and stupid, but I'd just call these people insanely stupid.

t2thejz
03-03-2003, 04:16 PM
OMG once again i agree with chicago

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
I'll get in my two cents since I'm probably the most vocal anti-war person here. Being a human shield is just plain ****ing stupid. I don't think that the presence of American citizens is going to stop an F15's payload from hitting its target. Some of you might call them traitorous and stupid, but I'd just call these people insanely stupid.


I think someone who vocally speaks out against a war is performing the most American of acts. But going to another country to serve as a shield IS in fact traitorous. It's the essense of giving aid and succor to the enemy. In fact, I think that had the US Airforce managed to bomb Jane Fonda when she was sitting on that N. Vietnamese AA battery, we'd be able to declare the Vietnam war an overall "victory".

ohall
03-03-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Just out of curiosity, what did you think the term "human shield" meant? And exactly how many hospitals and schools has the US ever targeted? We may have hit them by accident, but we've never targeted one, so how would the protestors have had ANY impact(pardon the pun) on those sites? Just more proof that when the poop hits the fan, the majority of Anti-War activists will run and hide behind the protection of those they profess to despise. Also proof that they were hopelessly naive in thinking that the Iraqi regime was trustworthy.




'Human shields' catch bus back
Activists said they were assigned to likely military targets
Monday, March 3, 2003 Posted: 8:54 AM EST (1354 GMT)


LONDON, England (CNN) -- Most of the British human shields who traveled to Baghdad in red double-decker buses are returning home before a gunshot has been fired because of "safety fears," organisers say.

Many of those returning are concerned for their safety after the Iraqi authorities began dictating which sites they could "protect," said Christiaan Briggs, a co-ordinator for the action group in Baghdad.

Briggs told the UK's news agency Press Association: "Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals, so we are reassessing our strategy.

"I must stress the people on the bus were always intending on going back. The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war.

"We do not have those numbers and a lot of people were always intending to go back before the bombing campaign started."

The two buses, which left Baghdad Saturday, are thought to be heading towards Syria.

Abdul al-Hashimi, head of Saddam Hussein's Peace and Solidarity Organization, ordered the volunteers to disperse to nine sites in Baghdad or leave, Britain's broadsheet newspaper, Daily Telegraph reported. 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."

Nine of the 11 British human shields in the bus convoy had left Baghdad, the Telegraph said. Among them was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, a former High Sheriff of Derbyshire, who was assigned to protect Baghdad South power station but admitted that he was leaving out of "cold fear."

A 22-year-old student from Pennsylvania assigned to an oil refinery told the paper: "The people staying there sleep 50 yards from stacks billowing black smoke.

"And it's sinister: twenty minders are there for eight shields. There are three security gates, including one manned by plain-clothed guards carrying AK47s."

U.S. officials have said that it is a "war crime" to use civilians as human shields and that there is no way of guaranteeing their safety.

Briggs estimated around a dozen remained in Baghdad and said he and others may now act as witnesses rather than human shields.

"I said right from the start, I was prepared to die but when I knew I had a chance of affecting change," he said.

Grueling journey
The original bus protesters were the first British human shields to arrive in Baghdad, on February 16, after a grueling 3,000 mile journey from London.

They encountered many problems on their way, including O'Keefe who at one point was forced to stay behind in Rome to fix a broken-down bus before having to fly on later to Damascus.

Other setbacks included punctures, running out of petrol, route alterations -- and according to British media reports -- squabbles between different activist factions.

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 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodation and news conferences for the human shields.

"To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio

Hmm they are going to be human shields and they leave because it's no longer safe?

I guess they had no plans to live up to their word, and be human shields after all. So if that's the case then they must have been there to boost the moral of the Iraqi troops.

If it was me I would revoke their citizenships and possibly give them jail time. These ppl are an embarrasement to all Americans.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 05:07 PM
Careful Oliver, you've been agreeing with my viewpoints over here in the lounge....that could set a bad precedent over on the Phins board...:)

Sniper
03-03-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
I think someone who vocally speaks out against a war is performing the most American of acts. But going to another country to serve as a shield IS in fact traitorous. It's the essense of giving aid and succor to the enemy. In fact, I think that had the US Airforce managed to bomb Jane Fonda when she was sitting on that N. Vietnamese AA battery, we'd be able to declare the Vietnam war an overall "victory".

I don't think this is traitorous at all. They were exercising their right to free speech and their right to peacefully assemble. These laws are higher than any aiding and abetting type laws we have.

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2003, 06:23 PM
The rights of free speech are not absolute. You don't have the right to give up state secrets. The rights of assembly are not absolute either, as you don't have the right to expose yourself or others to danger to do so. And lastly, you do NOT have the right to give aid to the enemy. If we had to avoid bombing a military target to avoid those individuals, and that resulted in the additonal loss of US troops, I'd say those individuals should be brought up on charges. This isn't aiding and abetting of criminals, this is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Those are COMPLETELY different laws.

Kamikaze
03-03-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
The rights of assembly are not absolute either, as you don't have the right to expose yourself or others to danger to do so.

Where does it say this in the Constitution? If I feel like putting myself in danger to exercise my First Amendment rights, it's my own damn business, not the government's.

LeftCoastPhin
03-03-2003, 07:44 PM
Damn, I was hoping they would get bombed. It would be a minor cleansing of the gene pool, but still a cleansing.

No, I'm not cruel but as human shields I think they had it coming. But, alas, to all of our "shock" and amazement" when the going go tough, they split!! big shocker.

Sniper
03-03-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
The rights of free speech are not absolute. You don't have the right to give up state secrets. The rights of assembly are not absolute either, as you don't have the right to expose yourself or others to danger to do so. And lastly, you do NOT have the right to give aid to the enemy. If we had to avoid bombing a military target to avoid those individuals, and that resulted in the additonal loss of US troops, I'd say those individuals should be brought up on charges. This isn't aiding and abetting of criminals, this is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Those are COMPLETELY different laws.

I agree that these rights are not absolutes... especially with giving out state secrets which did not happen in this case. I disagree with you on being able to put yourself in harms way. They had every right to do that. It is a real stretch to say that they were giving aid to the enemy. They were just sitting around over there and not pulling a Prescott Bush over there.

ohall
03-03-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Careful Oliver, you've been agreeing with my viewpoints over here in the lounge....that could set a bad precedent over on the Phins board...:)

The thing is they are my view points as well you don't own em! :D

Oliver...

ohall
03-03-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
Where does it say this in the Constitution? If I feel like putting myself in danger to exercise my First Amendment rights, it's my own damn business, not the government's.

That's why they left when they left. If they were doing the same thing once we went to war they most certainly could lose their citizenships and see jail time in America if they ever returned. It's called aiding the enemy. You as a citizen cannot decide who the enemy is our government does that for us.

Oliver...

Kamikaze
03-04-2003, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Oliver
That's why they left when they left. If they were doing the same thing once we went to war they most certainly could lose their citizenships and see jail time in America if they ever returned. It's called aiding the enemy. You as a citizen cannot decide who the enemy is our government does that for us.

Oliver...

I still don't understand how trying to stop a war (not matter how idiotic it may be) is aiding the enemy. I'd say they're doing a duty to humanity by trying to prevent senseless killing of people on either side. Of course I don't agree with their methods, but I need someone to please justify to me how they're helping the Iraqis to win a war against the United States.

Muck
03-04-2003, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Sniper
I don't think this is traitorous at all. They were exercising their right to free speech and their right to peacefully assemble. These laws are higher than any aiding and abetting type laws we have.

Those laws don't exist in Iraq. lol. Peaceful or not, Saddam Hussein reserves the right to cut their nuts off make them wear them as earings.

Honestly, what a bunch of hypocrits. Yeah, "We're gonna go sit in front of civilian sites....like schools and hospitals. Places the US won't shoot at. We're brave."

Now they got called on it and they got exposed.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
Where does it say this in the Constitution? If I feel like putting myself in danger to exercise my First Amendment rights, it's my own damn business, not the government's.



The Constitution clearly states you have the right to PEACEFUL assembly. That word allowed the Supreme Court to rule that the government has the right to determine when and where an assembly can take place in order to maintain the peace. Any assembly which is likely to result in your injury would never recieve a permit. If you don't believe me, try and get a permit to hold a protest in the middle of a functioning highway.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Muck
Those laws don't exist in Iraq. lol. Peaceful or not, Saddam Hussein reserves the right to cut their nuts off make them wear them as earings.

Honestly, what a bunch of hypocrits. Yeah, "We're gonna go sit in front of civilian sites....like schools and hospitals. Places the US won't shoot at. We're brave."

Now they got called on it and they got exposed.


That's the part that REALLY freaks me out. If they could cite ONE example of the US targeting a school or hospital, I could almost see their point. If they were REALLY there to serve as human shields, they should have WANTED to go to the power plants, water purification, and military sites. THOSE were areas we were going to hit. Otherwise, they're just loud tourists.

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
I still don't understand how trying to stop a war (not matter how idiotic it may be) is aiding the enemy. I'd say they're doing a duty to humanity by trying to prevent senseless killing of people on either side. Of course I don't agree with their methods, but I need someone to please justify to me how they're helping the Iraqis to win a war against the United States.



Not all killing is sensless. If they were parked around a SAM site, and our Generals were stupid enough to let that fact influence their decision to NOT take out that SAM site, that would be giving aid to the enemy. Let me ask you a question...if during WWII, a group of protestors decided to camp out on the runways in England from which we were flying bombing missions into Germany, wouldn't that have been giving aid to the enemy? How is this any different?

Biggunndunn
03-04-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
Not all killing is sensless. If they were parked around a SAM site, and our Generals were stupid enough to let that fact influence their decision to NOT take out that SAM site, that would be giving aid to the enemy. Let me ask you a question...if during WWII, a group of protestors decided to camp out on the runways in England from which we were flying bombing missions into Germany, wouldn't that have been giving aid to the enemy? How is this any different?
well put...

If it were up to me they would not be allowed to come back to the us.

Biggunndunn
03-04-2003, 11:32 AM
http://www.jameshudnall.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=518

PhinPhan1227
03-04-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
The thing is they are my view points as well you don't own em! :D

Oliver...


Hey man, no ownership of ideas...just enjoying the irony of our complete agreement on so many actually important issues when considered against our complete disagreement on so many completely UNimportant ones. What can I say, I've got a thing for irony:lol:

themole
03-04-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
I don't think this is traitorous at all. They were exercising their right to free speech and their right to peacefully assemble. These laws are higher than any aiding and abetting type laws we have.

Sniper, The truth about these people is they are all fluff. What did they think, they were going over there to witness a game of "marbles".:lol: The higher law that they were purporting to follow is the one where "one chooses to lay down his life for his fellow man". They were willing to "talk the talk" but not "walk the walk". The first hint of danger and they grab their bags and run home. The conviction and courage they were wanting the world to believe they had was the same as the one a mother or father would display by placing themself in harms way for a child.

They are nothing but spineless, yellow cowards.

WharfRat
03-04-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
If you don't believe me, try and get a permit to hold a protest in the middle of a functioning highway.

Or just ask the idiotic "Rev" Al Sharpton, who in his absolute genius, decided to try and hold a "civil rights" rally ... in the middle of the Atlantic City Expressway a few years back... the ACE is a 4 lane MAJOR artery into Atlantic City ... and this mental giant decided to try and block it in "peaceful protest". He spent some time reading up on the law while in the county jail for that one....

ohall
03-05-2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by chicagodolphan
I still don't understand how trying to stop a war (not matter how idiotic it may be) is aiding the enemy. I'd say they're doing a duty to humanity by trying to prevent senseless killing of people on either side. Of course I don't agree with their methods, but I need someone to please justify to me how they're helping the Iraqis to win a war against the United States.

They weren't there trying to stop a war they were there defending the Iraqi soldiers because they hate America. It's just that simple.

No one that loves their country would do what they are doing. They can hide behind that crap, but their actions are telling. That's why they are leaving. They were only there when there was no chance of getting hurt. They are leaving because they may actually become a human shield. Which means to me they were there to support Saddam and his actions, both present and past. They are sick ppl and I hope for their sake I never meet any of them.

Oliver...

Scrap
03-05-2003, 08:13 AM
We should have sent our troops in early.