Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
News

Journal Otter's Journal: Where are the human shields now? 12

Journal by Otter
Peter Kennedy (scroll down) makes a terrific point in this letter to The Australian. Remember a few months ago all the "human shields" rushing to Iraq to place their bodies in front of the water purification plants and hospitals they insisted Bush was going to target? And then fleeing when the Iraqis stuck them in radar installations instead?

Well, now someone actually is targeting Iraq's civilian infrastructure -- water mains, power plants, oil pipelines. Any sign of our former human shield heroes?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Where are the human shields now? More

Where are the human shields now?

Comments Filter:

  • Moo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) * on Thursday August 21, 2003 @10:50AM (#6754515) Homepage Journal
    Slight difference.

    The people who are doing the destruction wouldn't mind killing them too. A huuman shield only works when the attacker cares.
    • Agreed 100%. Sorry, Otter, I'm removing you from my friends list.

      • Re:Moo (Score:2)

        by wdr1 ( 31310 ) *
        Sorry, Otter, I'm removing you from my friends list.

        Typical leftist self censorship. "I don't like what you say, so I'm not listening to anything you say... NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"

        -Bill
        • Typical leftist self censorship. "I don't like what you say, so I'm not listening to anything you say... NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"

          Someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning, I see...

          MT.
    • I think that was his point. They only wanted to be brave human shields when there was no risk to themselves. So much for thier nobility and willingness to put thier lives on the line for principle.

      • Re:Moo (Score:2)

        by Chacham ( 981 ) *
        They only wanted to be brave human shields when there was no risk to themselves.

        A human shield does not include risk, as much as the care and effort involved. There is little risk. Either the attacker will kill them or they won't. It's not like they are saying, "if a bullet comes i'll take it". They're saying, "since i am so important, my being here will save you."

        So much for thier nobility and willingness to put thier lives on the line for principle.

        I doubt most would risk their lives. But even from
        • I doubt most would risk their lives. But even from those who would, the risk itself must have a payoff. Standing next to a place that is likely to get bombed, regardless of you being there, is not risk, it's stupidity.

          Funny, you seem to have missed all the press interviews they gave out before the evil US invasion. They were gonna place thier lives on the line to stop Bush's vile war machine from destroying the lives of the Iraqui people. They said the US was gonna target (civilian) infrastructure targets

          • Re:Moo (Score:2)

            by Chacham ( 981 ) *
            Funny, you seem to have missed all the press interviews they gave out before the evil US invasion.

            If "missed" can have intentional connotations, then yes. :)

            They were gonna place thier lives on the line to stop Bush's vile war machine from destroying the lives of the Iraqui people. They said the US was gonna target (civilian) infrastructure targets.

            Regardless of what they said, their intention was that with their statements they'd be heard, and the bombs would not drop on them. In their minds, there w
            • In their minds, there was no risk.

              I don't doubt it. That's what makes them hypocrits, not standing up for thier declared principles.

              To be an enemy, the law must declare them so.
              We are entering the area of semantic hair splitting here (and I haven't proposed prosecuting thier treasonous asses..). However, "The US is attacking country x" pretty much makes country x an enemy. Maybe I'm just simple.

              They never were, nor was their a congressional vote for war. So, while stupid, and borderiung on treason

    • Re:Moo (Score:2)

      by wdr1 ( 31310 ) *
      The people who are doing the destruction wouldn't mind killing them too. A huuman shield only works when the attacker cares.

      This makes no sense. American forces were not going to intentionally target those things. So what were they sheilding against?

      -Bill

      • Re:Moo (Score:2)

        by Chacham ( 981 ) *
        Irrelevant. They either thought they would attack it, or wanted to give off the impression that they would attack it.
    • Wanna know the REAL reason they wont volunteer for this?

      No self-rightous face time on CBS.

Slashdot Top Deals

ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.

Close