Human Shield?

Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
115
Did anyone catch the news the other day about a group of 50 people that were flying out to Iraq to act as human shields? In my book this is nothing less than treason. If they want to be sheilds they should get what they deserve. Peace is a wonderful thing as long as it can be enjoyed without fear. As long as Iraq is run by that individual There will never be peace of mind.
 
I don't know those folks anymore than than I know the ones in Iraq who have done nothing and may be in harm's way. The ones in Iraq who have done nothing and don't have the option to be elsewhere trump the "imports" in my mind. If those people had traded places with innocents in Iraq, then I would give them respect.

My 2 cents, inflation included.
 
Maybe they'll earn the right to be nominated for the Darwin Awards.

I can understand those who, like the Quakers, act consistently with their beliefs and are prepared to pay the consequences. If nothing else, they serve to remind us others can take other stands than we do in good conscience.

But what you describe sounds like Hanoi Jane all over again.
 
Originally posted by mattjerom
Did anyone catch the news the other day about a group of 50 people that were flying out to Iraq to act as human shields? In my book this is nothing less than treason. If they want to be sheilds they should get what they deserve. Peace is a wonderful thing as long as it can be enjoyed without fear. As long as Iraq is run by that individual There will never be peace of mind.

Lets just hope they finish their mission as shields so they never come back!:mad: These are the kind of people that spit on my father and other vets when they came home from Vietnam! America is much better off with out them so shoot away!:mad:
 
Risking one's life to save or better another's is a valiant endeavor.

Declaring that one's life is so important that no-one dare take it is hubris.

--I hold myself hostage???:confused:
 
Originally posted by firkin
Risking one's life to save or better another's is a valiant endeavor.

Declaring that one's life is so important that no-one dare take it is hubris.

Beautifully put. You summed up the situation wonderfully. Thank you for saying what I wanted to but couldn't quite see clearly enough to realize.
 
on the part of the human shields, for they are no better than the suicide bombers. It is not always the hero who gives his life for an idea or ideal. Altruism is often the mark of the fanatic...I have more sympathy for John Walker (the "American Taliblah") than I do for these misguided few.

Let me tell y'all a story bout the Crusades, the Children's Crusade to be specific... Seems back in 1212 CE, a buncha dudes in Europe deemed it a worthy cause to liberate the holy land from the Muslim invaders. Well, the priests, politicans, and military leaders, all those who inherited the power of the fallen Holy Roman Empire, set up the call for those who would serve their god by killing in another contry. We'll not argue morality or motivations here, tho.

So, all of these kids hear their elders going on an on, see the ships laden with Gods warriors heading out, and they decide to take up the banner themselves, for this must surely be path to right in Gods eyes. Now there are thousands of children lined up, and they charter several boats to take them to the Holy Land, so they may join God's war. They boarded the ships, set sail--and were never heard from again. Most were either sold into slavery or kept as pets by the ship crews.

The moral of the story -- whether not a cause is just, blind adherence and fanaticism to a goal or idea will blind you, bind you, and make you a tool.

I may not be happy with all that my country does, or how it does it all of the time, but I will not close my eyes to the fact that there are wolves just outside the door. I will not be lured by the temptations of false peace or freedom to drop my guard, nor will I be swayed or blinded by any would be oppressor.

Anybody remember when the job of Human shield was NOT something for which the human shield volunteered?

Each to his own, I guess...

Keith

P.S. For a conncise and quite well written summary of the Children's Crusade, check this out.
http://www.byu.edu/ipt/projects/middleages/LifeTimes/CHILD.html

It was written by a high school student, who would be just about the age of those 'crusaders'. He sums it up by calling it a "pathetic tribute to the grip that the Holy Land held on the imagination of Europeans and to the craze that the Crusades excited among all classes of the population"--He's got a good point.
 
All I can say is "they" are lucky that I am not going over there.:rolleyes:

The human shield wouldn't be there long.
 
It's nothing that a Browning .50 Cal Machine Gun couldn't handle in about 10-15 seconds.:D

Next..:D
 
The Marines mission (From when I was in anyway).

Point A: Were we started from.

Point B: Were we are going.


Go from point A to point point B killing everything in our path stopping for nothing.:D
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by firkin
Risking one's life to save or better another's is a valiant endeavor.

Declaring that one's life is so important that no-one dare take it is hubris


This is best said. You left out the ending though. The ending puts everything back into place.


munk
 
If that one fellow is a former Marine, he ought to know about the Law of Armed Conflict's rule about military necessity. We don't target non-military targets, but if there's a military target that needs to be taken out, we weigh collateral damage against the importance of destroying that target. If those well meaning, but misdirected, individuals position themselves around a surface to air missle launcher, etc., there won't be anything left of them but a smoking hole. Maybe they should rethink.

Sarge
 
No, I would rather they were just where they are. Social Darwinism at it's finest.>>


I admit to wondering if we shouldn't be encouraging more to go?




munk
 
Originally posted by Sylvrfalcn
If that one fellow is a former Marine, he ought to know about the Law of Armed Conflict's rule about military necessity. We don't target non-military targets, but if there's a military target that needs to be taken out, we weigh collateral damage against the importance of destroying that target. If those well meaning, but misdirected, individuals position themselves around a surface to air missle launcher, etc., there won't be anything left of them but a smoking hole. Maybe they should rethink.

Sarge


In other words they need to stay home and don't get in the way or they will get vaporized along with everything else.
 
I TO SHAKE MY HEAD IN BEMUSEMENT
silly people putting them selves in harms way, sadam will welcome them with open arms, then pop them right into the most dangerous positions hopeing they will get blown to bits , GOOD PUBLICITY.
but i to wonder what the real cause is in iraq ????
OIL OIL AND MORE OIL.
the allies have openly stated they are going to protect there countrys oil intrests. every thing else is secondry.
iraq is a threat to the rest of the world because once they have nuclear capability, they will take over there nieghbours oilfields, and the world will not be able to do a thing about it because they would then be able to nuke any force sent against them.
this of course would spell disastor for the allies as it would mean iraq controls there economys.
why the bloody hell dont the allies be honest and take all the oilfields and be done with it.
ANOTHER THING IS THE ALLIES STATE THAT KOREA IS NEXT HO HO???
i hope they realise that as soon as the allies are embroiled with iraq ie at war,
the koreans will storm across the border in a blitzkrieg attack , knowing the usa ect can do nothing about it cos there troops are busy elswhere. ww3 here we come:eek:
AND IF THE CHINESE ARE HALF AS SMART AS I THINK THEY ARE THEY WILL LAUNCH AN ALL OUT ATTACK TO TAKE BACK TAIWAN AT THE SAME TIME.
after all they are koreas allies and stuck by them last time. double eek :eek: :eek:
 
comes great responsibility.

World powers feel that the current leadership of Iraq does not exhibit this responsibility, and thus may not wield nuclear power in a world that mistrusts it.

Just as there are rules to owning certain firearms, driving cars, etc., there are rules to owning nukes.

Keith
 
Back
Top