[TheeBadOne]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/858878.asp?0cv=CA00

Anti-war activists gather in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 13 — With tens of thousands of U.S. troops mobilizing for a possible invasion, waves of anti-war activists have descended on Baghdad in recent days to plead for a peaceful solution to the showdown between the Bush administration and President Saddam Hussein’s government.

[4570Rick]

Would they (the protesters) be happy if we backed off far enough and long enough so S.H. could use his WOMD or would they still want us to show understanding if Israel were wiped off the map?:banghead: :banghead:

[Zander]

Anti-war activists gather in Baghdad Sometimes a little chlorine gets dropped into the gene pool.

[rock jock]

Please let them make Sean Penn their leader.

[Monkeyleg]

Awww, for old time's sake, let's have Hanoi Jane right up front. Besides, Sean Penn's nose gives our infra-red sensors an unfair advantage.

[Chris Rhines]

Well now, this is interesting. Is the White House so hard up to vaporize some Iraqi real estate that they'll shoot through a couple (hundred) noncombatants, including American citizens?

News at eleven.

- Chris

[Tamara]

Not real keen on the whole reasoning behind our Short Victorious War, but you have to admit that these folks are engaging in what looks like a prime Natural Selection Opportunity, here...

Just because I don't think a train should come down a particular set of tracks doesn't mean I'm going to step in front of the locomotive, y'know? ;)

[dfrog]

Too bad all of them couldn't go over there and shield Iraq! What would there expression be when the missles started dropping in? :what:

[fallingblock]

A classic example of organisms exhibiting behavior which is 'non-adaptive' for their survival:D

[Chris Rhines]

Tamara -

Oh, don't get me wrong, most of these folks on the majoritarian collectivist side of the anti-war movement are ten kinds of stupid. Still, you have to give them some respect for being willing to lay their lives on the line. Doesn't make them smart, and it really doesn't make them immune to the whims of Dr. Darwin.

It is still interesting to ponder, though, how this might play out when the shooting starts. Interesting question for the pro-war folks, too; Do you think that it is morally acceptable to bomb a building when you know that there are a dozen noncombatants camped out in the lobby?

- Chris

[Tamara]

It is still interesting to ponder, though, how this might play out when the shooting starts.

I'm not covering bets, but something tells me that if you want a preview, you could go get some ground chuck out of the fridge and throw it real hard against a cinderblock wall... ;)

[rock jock]

Still, you have to give them some respect for being willing to lay their lives on the line.
You don't really think these peaceniks are going to place themselves in harm's way, do you? This is posturing for the cameras.

[Rangerover]

Interesting question for the pro-war folks, too; Do you think that it is morally acceptable to bomb a building when you know that there are a dozen noncombatants camped out in the lobby?
Yes.

Simple question. Simple answer.

[Chris Rhines]

rock jock - Perhaps, although a cursory reading of the article leads me to think that some of these folks...I wouldn't dismiss them as peacenicks out of hand.

Rangerover - Sigh. Well, I guess it's to be expected that some people will decide to be evil when given the choice.

- Chris

[Blackhawk]

Do you think that it is morally acceptable to bomb a building when you know that there are a dozen noncombatants camped out in the lobby?Puhleeeeze...! :rolleyes:

Were they warned? Yup, that's why they're there.

Did they have a chance to leave? Yup, plenty of them.

Don't confuse war with morality.

------------------------

Edited to delete a paragraph that bothered me....

[KY Moose]

Once the bombs and rounds start landing close by, they will run like the wind. If they stay at the target, oh well, collateral damage I guess.

[Lord Grey Boots]

Remember folks, these are volunteer human shields. They have made their choice to deliberately camp out next to prime military targets.

If they were really anti-war, they would be demonstrating in downtown Bagdad, demanding Saddam's resignation. :D

If they get killed in either endeavour, thats the result of their own decisions.

[dinosaur]

Gee, I can see a lot of sleepless nights agonizing over this.:rolleyes:

[2dogs]

As far as the Americans are concerned:

"Treason: "Against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort..."




"In the Twentieth Century, eight treason cases arising out of World War II established four elements for conviction on the "aid and comfort" prong of the crime: (1) intention to betray the United States, (2) manifested in an overt act, (3) testified to by two witnesses, (4) giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (A declaration of war is unnecessary; mere hostilities are enough). "

If they plan to surround military targets they meet all four. Treason is punishable by death.

[JPM70535]

When the SHTF the protesters then can be said to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and as has been said, makes them guilty of treason. Not a problem though, trial, conviction, and sentence will have been carried out saving us further expense.


KEEP YOUR FRIENDS CLOSE AND YOUR ENEMIES CLOSER!!!

[Delmar]

Oh boy.......demonstators in front of military targets? Does Hans Blicks have enough brain matter to go and investigate these sites? Probably not-the demonstrators and Blicks are at least a cheeseburger short of a Happy Meal.:uhoh: Blicks reminds me of a lot of ARVN soldiers on patrol-they knew where the bad guys were and just went where they weren't.

[foghornl]

I have an idea for the roster for the "Human Shield Squad"....

Hanoi Jane Fonda

The Baldwin 'Sisters' Alecia Willemenia Stephanie i.e Alec William Stephen

Sean Penn

Rosie O'Dumbo

Lil Tommy Cruise

That's all I can think of right now, I'm sure there are lots more....

[Didn't Lil Tommy Cruise make a statement about moving self & kids to Australia a while back?]

And, while we are at it, lets send Prof. Mikey Belles-Lies over to see how many Iraqis passed guns down to their children through wills & trusts, etc....
:neener:

[T.Stahl]

Do you think that it is morally acceptable to bomb a building when you know that there are a dozen noncombatants camped out in the lobby?

IF they are inside that building of they own free will and know that they are inside a target - yes.

If an enemy soldier was hiding behind a noncombatant (who is willing to cover the soldier), would you rather get shot or shoot the enemy, risking to hit the enemy noncombatant?

[Chris Rhines]

Sometimes I wonder if some of our more militant hawks had idealogical forebears manning tanks in Tianamen Square...

- Chris

[buzz_knox]

Rangerover - Sigh. Well, I guess it's to be expected that some people will decide to be evil when given the choice.

Evil? Hmm. Not quite. These people are making a voluntary choice to involve themselves in this matter. They are placing themselves in harms way with the forseeable result of harm actually coming to them, and while you may respect their fortitude, they are directly aiding Saddam. They are a different kind of combatant and should be treated accordingly. They've made their choice, they must now bear the responsibility. Or do you believe that they should be protected from themselves?

[GhostShooter]

Ok, here's a question. While I'm not necessarily saying that I wouldn't bomb the building lets spin this scenario. If you're justified in blowing up an Iraqi building full of innocents to get a few military then if Sadam sent terrorists over here to blow up government facilities and kills innocent along with the government workers wouldn't that be just as legitimate? We are at war.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

Ghostshooter...the Devil's advocate:evil:

[Chris Rhines]

buzz_knox -

Interesting that you speak of natural consequences, when the real situation involves nothing of the sort.

A person who goes cliff-diving in three feet of water, or plays eighteen holes of golf in a lightning storm is subject to the natural consequences of his actions, and as such deserves no sympathy. But that is not what we are talking about. If a military commander orders the destruction of a hospital or water-treatment plant (leaving aside the question of those being legitimate military targets), knowing that there are civillian noncombatants inside, he is commiting an act of deliberate, premeditated murder.

I dislike collateral damage when it happens by accident. When it happens intentionally, that is evil.

- Chris

[Delmar]

I think that depends upon what you call an "innocent". If it were, say, an apartment building where some people happened to live and didn't necessarily know what was going on in the basement, thats one thing.
To surround a military position with volunteers holding a full knowledge of what they are protecting, I say most certainly not innocent. Terms immediately which come to mind are fool, bullseye, idiot, oxygen thief-you get the idea.
I would have a lot more respect for them if they would pick up arms for Saddam-not to say I think they would be right, but I would hold more respect for them.
I would give even more respect if they readied themselves to take care of the wounded in the area as caregivers and unarmed to demonstrate their courage.

[Chris Rhines]

Let's cruise back to the article for a second...

They plan to act as human shields, hunkering down in hospitals, water-treatment plants and other civilian installations to dissuade U.S. commanders from targeting those facilities. You might be able to make an argument for some kind of combatant status if they were protecting SAM sites and airbases. But they aren't.

- Chris

[buzz_knox]

Collateral damage cannot happen intentionally given the current political climate. In recent years, we generally don't engage in operations when we know that civilians will be injured. And that's one of the reasons that our military has been generally ineffective.

[Edited upon noting that the article brought up arguably civilian targets].

[Delmar]

Good point Chris, but I think Hans should be inspecting these so-called civilian facilities, as Saddam has a record of hiding things in these places which aren't supposed to contain anything of a military value.
So now you have a dilemma-if for example, Saddam has used the storage area of a hospital to set up a C&C site which will be used to direct the killing of our soldiers, and you know there are these people surrounding the building, you have your choices-you may bomb the site, saving a lot of your allied soldiers and killing the volunteers, you might warn the volunteers to vacate by a leaflet drop just prior to bombing, or you leave it alone, causing "innocent soldiers" to die because you failed to do what you could to protect them?

[Greg L]

I don't have a link handy but I heard a couple of days ago that one of the Canadians who went there to act as a human shield was killed in a traffic accident soon after arriving. Oh the irony. :D

Greg

[NewShooter78]

I think S.H. would more than likely blow one of these places up to kill these human shields, to make it look like we did it way before any US or NATO force actually dropped any bombs near them.

[Daniel T]

Delmar:

Good point Chris, but I think Hans should be inspecting these so-called civilian facilities, as Saddam has a record of hiding things in these places which aren't supposed to contain anything of a military value.

Sadam probably does hide weapons in places like that. However, if you read the article, the "human shields" aren't going to be people that Sadam is going to tell his secret weapons locations to. Or do you think inspectors should search every civilian building in Iraq?

From the article:
They include Italian legislators, South African Muslims, German musicians and a flurry of Americans, from church leaders and professors to four women who lost relatives in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Give Sadam a little credit. He may be insane, but he's not an idiot. He's not going to advertise the location of his secret stuff by sitting a bunch of foreigners in front of it.

[Yanus]

Let's see......... A bunch of American "useful idiots" decide to sing kumbya next to a high value military asset.

Sounds like a "target rich environment" to me. Darwinism at its finest...........

Yanus

[Delmar]

Demise,
You might be right, but the fact is that Saddam has no more cards left to play but public sympathy, so I wouldn't hold out for him actually putting WMD's where the moron's are just to get the world fighting amongst themselves over what should be done. I doubt he would confer with the squatters before doing it, but neither would I put it past that creep to put weapons grade plutonium in a pediatrics ward.

[bogie]

I wonder just what they're shielding... I mean, maybe some of the idjits will notice that they've got strange chemical trucks rolling in and out of the unmarked building that's right next to the daycare center...

Nyah....

[TheeBadOne]

bogie, don't worry about that, Sean Penn already confirmed there are no WMD and did so in under 6 hrs...

[Delmar]

I can just see Sean Penn doing an imitation of Robin Williams in "Good Morning, Vietnam"......BIG DOGS, LANDING ON MY FACE :what:

[Atticus]

Most are leaving this weekend, and the rest are going to "hunker down" in buildings that are very unlikely targets. Now that's dedication to a cause! I thought shields were supposed to be in front of the target..not on a departing flight or in a cellar.

Saddam has probably given the order to blow up those locations at the drop of the first bomb anyway - if for no other reason than to eliminate his paranoid belief that those human shields might be spies.

[owen]

they are choosing to defend a military installation that belongs to an enemy of the United States. That makes them combatants.

Owen

[Chris Rhines]

Ahem! Let me repeat, from the source article:

They plan to act as human shields, hunkering down in hospitals, water-treatment plants and other civilian installations to dissuade U.S. commanders from targeting those facilities.

- Chris

[benewton]

I really only have a single question, but it's on the technical side, and I really don't have enough data to even start to provide the parameters...

How many "human shields" does it take to preserve a target from a military munition, aircraft dropped?

Even leaving out nukes, it does get interesting...

More interesting, as far as I'm concerned: where can we find the required quantity, and how much do I need to donate to ensure their arrival on site before the munition?

Another interesting thought: will they have time to get the required publicity for the loss and erect the monument to the "fallen" before the follow-up comes and destroys the target?

If a tree falls....

I agree with the hamburger/wall image, and, if they want to do it, I think we should provide!

[ojibweindian]

War is war. Fight it as such.

[Lord Grey Boots]

So, they aren't acting as human shields in front of Iraqi secret police headquarters, military command and control centers, military bases etc etc.

They are going to act as human shields on buildings that would not be targeted in the normal case.

So, whats the point then of them acting as human shields?

[Daniel T]

It's so they can get on TV and spout their idiotic beliefs. Duh. :)

[T.Stahl]

Let's cruise back to the article for a second...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They plan to act as human shields, hunkering down in hospitals, water-treatment plants and other civilian installations to dissuade U.S. commanders from targeting those facilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might be able to make an argument for some kind of combatant status if they were protecting SAM sites and airbases. But they aren't.

- Chris

BTW, installations like hospitals, water-treatment plants, dams and nuclear powerplants are already protected by the humanitarian international law and must not be targeted!

[TheeBadOne]

I wonder if the "human Sheilds" will wonder why those hospitals have large liquid tanks all over...... :rolleyes:

[Guy B. Meredith]

These people are living out their own silly propaganda about the vicious drooling idiots of the American military trying to wipe out Iraq babies and are huddling on what they consider civilian "targets". The fact that the propaganda they believe in is empty bull puckey means that they are safe.

I don't believe any such group of people who have no particular resouce to intelligence or are otherwise operating on pesonal opinion have the right to decide the fate of the world. If they want to get in the way that is their decision and the results are their responsibility and no one else's. So called civilian sites have been covers for military gear in the past, so that title is not valid. However, if these people are not at valid military targets they are safe.

[Bruce H]

When the shooting starts there are NO civilian casualties. There is no collateral damage. This thinking is what lost us the last few skirmishes we were in. If it comes down to killing do it hard, sharp, fast, ruthless, and be done with it. If they die for what they believe in, fine that is their choice. Will I feel sorry for them, not hardly.

[capt_happypants]

It's been tried before. Somali miltiamen used women and children as human shields during the Battle of the Black Sea ("Black Hawk Down"). They tried to take advantage of our RoE, but when American soldiers are taking incoming fire, our guys aren't going to worry about the niceties of warfare.

Mark Bowden's book recounts several instances of U.S. servicemen firing into crowds without much regard for collateral damage.

Besides, a human shield looks exactly like an Iraqi soldier through a FLIR.

[Hkmp5sd]

I think we should take up a collection and buy them some nice white t-shirts with bright red bullseyes front and back. While we're at it, let's give each one a cell phone so they can talk to Larry and Phil during the bombing. A cell phone that just happens to transmit a signal on the same frequency that the missile guidance systems use.