'Human Shields' Begin Deploying in Iraq

HeXp£Øi±

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
By BASSEM MROUE
The Associated Press
Friday, February 21, 2003; 8:24 PM

Seventeen foreigners bunked down Friday night at a Baghdad water purification plant as the first "human shields" to deploy in Iraq in preparation for a looming U.S.-led war.

The volunteers from Sweden, Spain, Italy and Finland weren't roughing it: Their quarters at the Seventh of April water purification station were a huge room with beds, a television, electric heaters and a large table. The wall was adorned with a picture of President Saddam Hussein.

"We will try everything to get peace instead of war and to protect civil societies," said Ingrid Ternert, a Swedish member of the group.

The volunteers planned to spend only one night at the station, but said others would rotate in to protect the infrastructure installation, which wasn't bombed during the 1991 Gulf War.

Workers at the station were happy with their unusual visitors.

"We welcomed them. I feel happy and it is nice because they want peace for our country," said Hussein Alwan, a 32-year-old supervisor.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that any Iraqi officials who help in the deployment of the human shields could be punished as war criminals.

Asked about Rumsfeld's remarks, Ternert, a high school teacher, said: "He doesn't know that this is protecting the society."

"We do this because we are very angry," said Ignacio Cano, a bearded Spanish university professor. "Our governments, especially in those countries like mine - Spain, Italy and Turkey - are supporting the war even though the population are overwhelmingly against the war."

Nearby, a woman sat on her bed covering her face with a sweater to prevent television crews from filming her.

Some of the human shields weren't exposing themselves to much danger. Cano said the United States would be to blame if anyone is hurt - but conceded that likely wouldn't be him.

"I will be leaving Iraq in two days," he said. "So I personally think I will be all right."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44415-2003Feb21.html
 
Ya buys yer ticket, ya takes yer chances.

If we lose a few of these goombas, I'm not likely to cry for too long.
 
Pretty unwise yes. I can't bring myself to get angry at these people however though as i know many of their intentions are valid and true and many of them really believe they are standing up against an unjust cause.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
Pretty unwise yes. I can't bring myself to get angry at these people however though as i know many of their intentions are valid and true and many of them really believe they are standing up against an unjust cause.
Click to expand...

Many people think that since they don't agree with the "shields" we might as well kill them too.
 
In the event of inevitable collateral damage, who's to blame? The US/allies for bombing or saddam for not following the mandates or the volunteers who willingly placed themselves in harms way?

I say #3.
 
Bush has been responsible for alot of the worlds problems, but I'm not talking about G.W.

If these dumbfucks want to put themselves there KNOWING they may get blown to shit, that's thier problem.
 
Many people think that since they don't agree with the "shields" we might as well kill them too.
Click to expand...
An important note Flav as it sheds light upon the anger built up in these subjects against the 'other side' over time. People become convinced that the other side holds apposing views purely for reasons that are "evil" or "bad".
I think it's from watching politicians to closely. Example: I am not a Bill Clinton fan. I think the guy is completely absolutely selfish and whatever gives him more power is where he will sell his soul. So i begin seeing people aligning themselves with Clinton and using him as an example and my anger at him begins to focus on people like say Squig. But, i know Squig is a caring decent fella so i have to pause and put things in perspective, put people into perspective. Squig may agree with much of Clintons ideas but for different reasons. By the same token i agree with many of Bushs' ideas about going into Iraq however i think it's very possible that his motives are oil based whereas mine i'm thinking more of the starving children in Iraq. Thus it becomes important that we delineate our motives explicitly if we don't wish to be automatically aligned by the 'other side'.
 
Wouldn't it just be a laugh riot if these human buttwipes got wiped out by leaking chemical and biological weapons at the sites they're protecting:D:D
 
You're close Prof. I heard on the radio (salt, salt, salt) that they are being asked to not stand by hospitals & such because the Americans are known to avoid those like the plague. They are being quietly ordered t go near factories &-of all the gall-military bases.:rofl2:

There seems to be quite a standoff. A bunch of peacenics being asked to guard a military installation & they're, of course, saying no to a guy who's never been told no before.
 
*chuckle* you realize that the moment it's apparent that the allies won't be stopped, all of these peacenics are going to be found to be either CIA or spies.
 
They were turned by a man defending his own neighbourhood. Against his own military. Not some yahoo with nothing better to do. IMHO, these 'peacenics' are no better than Bush or Blair. They're all trying to impose their idea of good on others. The difference is that Americans and British people voted Bush and Blair the right to make that imposition. Who voted for these rabble?
 
Do you really think they are there because they have "nothing better to do"? They believe in what they are doing. At least recognize that much....
 
Why don't we dress weapons inspectors up like peacenics and have them ask the Iraqi's where they want us to go? Then we might have a chance at finding some shit.
 
Squiggy said:
Do you really think they are there because they have "nothing better to do"? They believe in what they are doing. At least recognize that much....
Click to expand...

For the record Squiggy, I do recognize that much, they obviously feel very strongly about what they are doing. Either that or they are CIA.
 
I've seen the same assholes here in Montreal. If peace means so much to them, why are they carrying sticks, chains, and bricks? They're rabble. Nothing more. They're there because they believe in what they're doing, that's true. Understand what they're doing? Doubtful. But their belief is assured.

But my original point stands. Why aren't these people at work? Did they quit them? Leave their families? Leave their pets? Is this really the most important thing they have to do?
 
Another point. I think, IF they are this dead-set against ALL war, I can respect that. However, why isn't one, just one, carrying a sign asking saddam to do as the UN orders? It's all political crap. If it were Carter bombing, they'd let it go.

on another subject
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) says he would rather die than leave his country, dismissing recent arguments by U.S. and Arab leaders that he could go into exile to avoid war.
Click to expand...
:dance:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top