Human shields" told to find a target or go home.So they chicken out and go home

[Phoenyx]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...02.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/02/ixnewstop.html

Human shield Britons quit Baghdad
By Charlotte Edwardes in Baghdad
(Filed: 02/03/2003)

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.

Two red double-decker buses, which symbolised the hopes of anti-war activists when they arrived to a fanfare of publicity a fortnight ago, slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain.

Nine of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country. Among those departing last night was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, a former High Sheriff of Derbyshire, who admitted that he was leaving out of "cold fear". He had been summoned, along with 200 other shields from all over the world, to a meeting at a Baghdad hotel yesterday morning.

Abdul Hashimi, the head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organisation that is hosting the protesters, told the shields to choose between nine so-called "strategic sites" by today or quit the country.

The Iraqi warning follows frustration among Saddam Hussein's officials that only about 65 of the shields had so far agreed to take up positions at the oil refineries, power plants and water-purification sites selected by their hosts.

It heightened fears among some peace activists that they could be stationed at non-civilian sites. 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.

Iraq's decision to force the pace was welcomed by some of the 20 Britons remaining in Baghdad. "It's only fair," said Uzma Bashir, 32, a college lecturer who is one of the team leaders.

"We've come here as shields to defend sites and now the Iraqis are asking us to make our choice.
==============================================
WHAT THE FUCK DID THEY GO THERE FOR..

 

[sweet soft kiss]

Thats shows just how strong their principals were....

 

[Ham Murabi]

I think the real reason for leaving had more to do with the shocking lack of Starbucks franchise locations in Bagdhad.
Otherwise, these people were really committed.

 

[sweet soft kiss]

I think the real reason for leaving had more to do with the shocking lack of Starbucks franchise locations in Bagdhad.
Otherwise, these people were really committed.

It's a big dumbass idea (IMHO) anyway.... glad they left, I would have had to endure nightly debates on Fox News about wheter or not they deserved to die if any of them had been hit...

 

[Ham Murabi]

It's a big dumbass idea (IMHO) anyway.... glad they left, I would have had to endure nightly debates on Fox News about wheter or not they deserved to die if any of them had been hit...

There's no question if you place yourself in or near a likely target you deserve to die. Their departure shows how bogus, and shallow, their resolve was.

 

[sheath]

Way to stand up for what they believe in, eh?

Chickenshits.

What would they do if they were working for a REAL cause? It's a good thing they are too chickenshit to go into the military.

Can you imagine???

S.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Way to stand up for what they believe in, eh?

Chickenshits.

What would they do if they were working for a REAL cause? It's a good thing they are too chickenshit to go into the military.

Can you imagine???

S.

It's all really kind of funny, isn't it? Makes one wonder what they were REALLY thinking when they first made the decision to go there.

 

[teddybear4play]

That they'd make a difference.

They won't. Saddam will use them as pawns like he does everyone else, and we're certainly not going to refrain from hitting strategic targets because of idiots.

TB4p

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Have a heart people.

Those bomb fragments really REALLY hurt.

 

[Ham Murabi]

I'm shocked, shocked, that many of those activists didn't go camp out at those SAM sites U.S. and Brit aircraft have been leveling in recent weeks.
What better way to make a political statement than having your body returned home in a Happy Meal-sized box.
Or maybe they're going home cause they've already missed the Grammys and they sure don't want to miss the Academy Awards.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Human shields" told to find a target or go home.So they chicken out and go home

Human shield Britons quit Baghdad
By Charlotte Edwardes in Baghdad
(Filed: 02/03/2003)

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.

They were always considered a bit of a joke...

They even detoured Bosnia on the way to Iraq because they thought it was 'too dangerous'...

Not surprised to see them pull out. Now all they've got to do is put up with howls of derision for the next few years...

"Hi, I'm Tom. I was a human shield in Baghdad"...

cue: guffaws, hysterical laughter, choking sounds, bodies rolling on the floor holding hands over stomachs, tears streaming out of eyes...



ppman

 

[Guest]

They got their 15 minutes of fame, now they're running home with their tails between their legs. Good thing they weren't trying to accomplish anything worth a shit.

 

[MissTaken]

I don't know...
Perhaps there being given the choices as they were, it hit home, that Sadaam is not particular about who dies in this war.

His own people have been used as "human shields" or "body count statistics." As he seems so ready to use peace keeping "Friends" to do the same, well it may have been a wake up call.

Besides, is there a cause you are ready to put your life on the line for if it isn't absolutely necessary to you, your family and your life?

 

[Dantetier]

I really wish they shold have stayed. They were perfect canidates for the Darwin Awards.

"Thanks for removing yourselves from the Gene pool, assholes"

 

[LukkyKnight]

Bravery includes daring to change.

So, you want to give these people shit for coming to their senses? What's stupider, making a decision to get involved in a cause you feel strongly about, or sticking to that decision fanatically when evidence and reflection suggest perhaps the danger isn't actually being counterbalanced by the likely outcome? I'm sure Hussein would prefer them having resolutely adhered to their original plan(s) instead of exercising their brains on the matters.

You're 17, you decide to drive the car as fast as you can from point A to point B, now you hit the first curve and realize it's a foolish, dangerous plan. Are you a fool for changing your mind?

You're 22, and ready to marry because that's the next thing on your plans after college, and find yourself engaged to somebody who's "nice" and seems to meet with your friends and parents approval, but you get jittery because you're not sure love is real but you're even less sure you want to spend forever with this person? Are you a fool for calling off the wedding?

You're 40, you have kids, and a loveless, very unrewarding marriage. You've heard the arguments about staying together for the kids, and you think perhaps you can do so until they're all out of college, after all, you did vow "until death do us part." Of course, by then the oldest will probably be married - and you realize you're modeling a sort of relationship you desperately don't want your children to be in. Are you more of a fool for putting a facade on and pretending this sort of marriage is a good one, or for deciding that your vow sounded good at the time but a divorce might improve your lot and show your children that sometimes changing your mind isn't simply quitting?

If you want to criticize people, I suggest you reserve your harsh, judgemental criticisms for the ones who never dare to examine their own positions, preferring to simply stick blindly to the original course they set no matter what they might learn or realize later.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Bravery includes daring to change.

So, you want to give these people shit for coming to their senses?

Yes, if I met any I'd give them shit for making such an empty, idiotic gesture.

Some of the comments they were making en route beggers belief...

"I came because I thought it'd be a laugh"

"I don't think we'll be in any real danger"

"I decided to come after my fifth pint" (that one could have been a joke. )

The mere idea that they thought they would be safe shielding areas from attack and destruction is something out of Monty Python...

If they wanted to do something realistic they should have stayed at home and help organise the protest marches...

I've got no time for the fools...

ppman

 

[The Heretic]

Have a heart people.

Those bomb fragments really REALLY hurt.

Yep. He who runs away, lives to protest another day.

 

[The Heretic]

Re: Bravery includes daring to change.

If you want to criticize people, I suggest you reserve your harsh, judgemental criticisms for the ones who never dare to examine their own positions, preferring to simply stick blindly to the original course they set no matter what they might learn or realize later.

I take leave to doubt that this is why these people left for home. I would dare say that if you asked them they would have the same position regarding the war, but that they just decided they didn't want to die. Did a single one of them renounce their original purpose? Not that I read. If they had then I would be congratulating them for coming to their senses - instead I am deriding them for being the two-faced cowards they are.

 

[Olivianna]

That they'd make a difference.

They won't. Saddam will use them as pawns like he does everyone else, and we're certainly not going to refrain from hitting strategic targets because of idiots.

TB4p

Why shouldn't he use them like pawns? What business do a bunch of Brits have in Iraq, deciding that country's military strategies? Were they thinking that they were just going to be left alone to make some peace train in downtown B'dad or something?

 

[Linedrive]

The only thing more disturbing than a human shield is pp_man making me laugh at his post. I think it's funny the guy was "dismayed" his civilian target was located right next to a military one. You mean Saddam didn't mention that...?

 

[p_p_man]

What business do a bunch of Brits have in Iraq, deciding that country's military strategies?

Not only Brits I hasten to add, very rapidly hasten to add. They came from all over the planet and the leader, now get this, was an...

American!!!



ppman

 

[big4life99]

Re: Re: Bravery includes daring to change.

The mere idea that they thought they would be safe shielding areas from attack and destruction is something out of Monty Python...
ppman

Ha ha ha That is a good point because it sure does seem like a good idea for a Python movie. Anybody want to write the story for python to direct.

 

[LukkyKnight]

I doubt Python would; obviously there are fanatics on both sides of this issue.

A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (yes, of Monty Python).

Sunday January 26, 2003

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.

Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr. Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr. Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'.

It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?

How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr. Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr. Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

 

[big4life99]

Re: I doubt Python would; obviously there are fanatics on both sides of this issue.

A letter to the London Observer from Terry Jones (yes, of Monty Python).

Sunday January 26, 2003

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything..............

What does this have to do with Human Shields?


Besides I know its not very obvious but cant you see that George W Bush is using the Ultimate Bluff against Sadam so that he will finally stop lying about his weapons.

 

[LukkyKnight]

It had to do with the notion of Python commentary on the absurd.

The closed-minded fanatics on both sides of the war issue are obviously well represented here. Perhaps the human shields in question thought Bush and his coalition likely to be influenced by their actions, then grew fearful as the reality drew closer? What's so awful about that?

Is it wrong to want to prevent a war? Is it more or less wrong to change your mind?