Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Iraq War: Human Shields

Iraq War: Human Shields

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
htmlxmlquestion
18 Posts 8 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • P peterchen

    The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; I guess this Iraqui has been watching too much CNN. :cool: Concerning your question: Not only parts of US fall for black-and-white-politics. When you recognize YOU MUST FIGHT Bush BECAUSE presents a greater danger for more people than Saddam, it's easy to forget that Saddam is still an asshole and many people would be better off without him. The idea of a human shield is: Do you want this war so muhc you're willing to shoot me? Which can work well, on the premise that "the enemy", before going to war, is usually demonized and de-humanized. exaggerated: Are you willing to kill a human being to eradicate the antichrist.


    Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
    sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

    P Offline
    P Offline
    Paul Watson
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    peterchen wrote: Are you willing to kill a human being to eradicate the antichrist. Err, ok the answer is undoubtedly yes. Every war involves death and if a country has neared the stage where a human shield feels the need to go then that country is not going to back off. It just seems very innefective, even theoretically.

    Paul Watson
    Bluegrass
    Cape Town, South Africa

    Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • P Paul Watson

      Can anyone explain to me just WTF this guy was taking[^] to have had to go all the way to Iraq to be convinced that Sadam really is bad for Iraq? I started reading hoping it was a story about a human shield who realised the daftness of his acts, not because he suddenly became pro-war but because it is supremely inefficient and unhelpful to place yourself in front of a hospital hoping that a bomb is going to do a u-turn for you just because you are not an Iraqi. Ugh. I really want to meet a sane, well thought through human shield. These nuts who turn back because "it was dangerous! they were going to really shoot at me!" can't be the majority of human shields... can they?

      Paul Watson
      Bluegrass
      Cape Town, South Africa

      Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

      M Offline
      M Offline
      Michael A Barnhart
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      To Quote the article "The group was less interested in standing up for their rights than protesting against the US and UK governments." "The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war."" Which is the same for all of the Iraqi immigrants around me. They praise Bush as a hero. Yet my basis for supporting the war is for the benefit of the Iraqi people. So I do have to say who cares about who? And my feelings that anti-war does not imply pro-peace. I do agree and have the concern for how to you invade cities with out civilian casualties. Especially now with reports of Iraqi soldiers firing into the civilians in addition to "accidents". Only time will tell if this was good in the long run. I can hope that if nothing else the worry of attack will keep other dictators somewhat inline. ""

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • P Paul Watson

        peterchen wrote: Are you willing to kill a human being to eradicate the antichrist. Err, ok the answer is undoubtedly yes. Every war involves death and if a country has neared the stage where a human shield feels the need to go then that country is not going to back off. It just seems very innefective, even theoretically.

        Paul Watson
        Bluegrass
        Cape Town, South Africa

        Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

        P Offline
        P Offline
        peterchen
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        Paul Watson wrote: Err, ok the answer is undoubtedly yes. Ok then, how many for a minor demon? The idea is to avoid the war, get the attacker to reasons, powerlessness is an important part of that. Like a little girl blocking the door: "You want to kick my daddy? You first have to kick me!" If any, it's a moral thing. I don't see any HS "throwing itself into the path of the bullet." If the US were the hero it claims to be, being so much concerned about the safety of it's citizens and the happiness of the Iraqui people, that they are willing to dip their economy and bury a few poor lad's for it, it points out that they are not concerned about anyone else on the planet. I think their time is long over - but how can they leave without loosing face?


        Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
        sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

        P B 2 Replies Last reply
        0
        • P peterchen

          Paul Watson wrote: Err, ok the answer is undoubtedly yes. Ok then, how many for a minor demon? The idea is to avoid the war, get the attacker to reasons, powerlessness is an important part of that. Like a little girl blocking the door: "You want to kick my daddy? You first have to kick me!" If any, it's a moral thing. I don't see any HS "throwing itself into the path of the bullet." If the US were the hero it claims to be, being so much concerned about the safety of it's citizens and the happiness of the Iraqui people, that they are willing to dip their economy and bury a few poor lad's for it, it points out that they are not concerned about anyone else on the planet. I think their time is long over - but how can they leave without loosing face?


          Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
          sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

          P Offline
          P Offline
          Paul Watson
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          peterchen wrote: I think their time is long over - but how can they leave without loosing face? You don't have to convince me peterchen. However many tens of millions of Americans will disagree with you. I wish we had a good alternative answer though. Then at least we would not just be up shit creek without a paddle.

          Paul Watson
          Bluegrass
          Cape Town, South Africa

          Macbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P peterchen

            The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; I guess this Iraqui has been watching too much CNN. :cool: Concerning your question: Not only parts of US fall for black-and-white-politics. When you recognize YOU MUST FIGHT Bush BECAUSE presents a greater danger for more people than Saddam, it's easy to forget that Saddam is still an asshole and many people would be better off without him. The idea of a human shield is: Do you want this war so muhc you're willing to shoot me? Which can work well, on the premise that "the enemy", before going to war, is usually demonized and de-humanized. exaggerated: Are you willing to kill a human being to eradicate the antichrist.


            Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
            sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            peterchen wrote: I guess this Iraqui has been watching too much CNN Perhaps he meant in comparison with the Iraqis killed by SH ? :( The tigress is here :-D

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • P peterchen

              Paul Watson wrote: Err, ok the answer is undoubtedly yes. Ok then, how many for a minor demon? The idea is to avoid the war, get the attacker to reasons, powerlessness is an important part of that. Like a little girl blocking the door: "You want to kick my daddy? You first have to kick me!" If any, it's a moral thing. I don't see any HS "throwing itself into the path of the bullet." If the US were the hero it claims to be, being so much concerned about the safety of it's citizens and the happiness of the Iraqui people, that they are willing to dip their economy and bury a few poor lad's for it, it points out that they are not concerned about anyone else on the planet. I think their time is long over - but how can they leave without loosing face?


              Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
              sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

              B Offline
              B Offline
              Brit
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              peterchen wrote: If the US were the hero it claims to be, being so much concerned about the safety of it's citizens and the happiness of the Iraqui people, that they are willing to dip their economy and bury a few poor lad's for it, it points out that they are not concerned about anyone else on the planet. :confused: I'm not quite understanding the logic of that statement. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

              P 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • B Brit

                peterchen wrote: If the US were the hero it claims to be, being so much concerned about the safety of it's citizens and the happiness of the Iraqui people, that they are willing to dip their economy and bury a few poor lad's for it, it points out that they are not concerned about anyone else on the planet. :confused: I'm not quite understanding the logic of that statement. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

                P Offline
                P Offline
                peterchen
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                Detailed: The US claims they went to war for the security of it's own citizens, and to bring relief and democracy to the Iraqui people. Which sounds very noble, but, one may ask, when they are so much concerned about the feelings of their own people, and the needs of the Iraqui people, why aren't they concerned about other people? From the very beginning the US has shown a clear desire to go to war - "either you follow us, or you are irrelevant". Why there's no concern about the people that don't want this war? Which is not an insignificant number of people worldwide. Of course, they are either deluded Arabs that just hate the US, or wimsy Europeans that don't know how well protected they are... :X


                Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
                sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

                B 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • P peterchen

                  Detailed: The US claims they went to war for the security of it's own citizens, and to bring relief and democracy to the Iraqui people. Which sounds very noble, but, one may ask, when they are so much concerned about the feelings of their own people, and the needs of the Iraqui people, why aren't they concerned about other people? From the very beginning the US has shown a clear desire to go to war - "either you follow us, or you are irrelevant". Why there's no concern about the people that don't want this war? Which is not an insignificant number of people worldwide. Of course, they are either deluded Arabs that just hate the US, or wimsy Europeans that don't know how well protected they are... :X


                  Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
                  sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

                  B Offline
                  B Offline
                  Brit
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  peterchen wrote: Why there's no concern about the people that don't want this war? Are you talking about people who don't want the war, or people who are serving as human shields? To play devil's advocate for a bit, I could simply say that the US is concerned about the saftey and security of Americans and the freedom and saftey of Iraqis. But, the US is less concerned about the feelings of anti-war people. Henced the word "concerned" takes on different meanings for different groups. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • B Brit

                    peterchen wrote: Why there's no concern about the people that don't want this war? Are you talking about people who don't want the war, or people who are serving as human shields? To play devil's advocate for a bit, I could simply say that the US is concerned about the saftey and security of Americans and the freedom and saftey of Iraqis. But, the US is less concerned about the feelings of anti-war people. Henced the word "concerned" takes on different meanings for different groups. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

                    P Offline
                    P Offline
                    peterchen
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    I'm talking about the people that are against the war. Such an worldwide outcry, shouting "No" is rare, don't you think? Brit wrote: But, the US is less concerned about the feelings of anti-war people I guess now we're at the heart of the problem. It's not about feelings. It's not my "tender feelings", but I am convinced if we go down this road further, we all end up in a big and ugly mess. And, in this case, one might wonder why the opinion of the Iraqui opposition counts so much more. You may call the anti-war-movement as "stuck up in their own little interests", or "state fed wimps knowing nothing about the real life." But that is a serious underestimation. I know enough people willing to fight a new pax americanum, just because they distrust huge governments as much as the average US american. And with fight I mean: fight, with all means.


                    Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
                    sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

                    B 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • P peterchen

                      I'm talking about the people that are against the war. Such an worldwide outcry, shouting "No" is rare, don't you think? Brit wrote: But, the US is less concerned about the feelings of anti-war people I guess now we're at the heart of the problem. It's not about feelings. It's not my "tender feelings", but I am convinced if we go down this road further, we all end up in a big and ugly mess. And, in this case, one might wonder why the opinion of the Iraqui opposition counts so much more. You may call the anti-war-movement as "stuck up in their own little interests", or "state fed wimps knowing nothing about the real life." But that is a serious underestimation. I know enough people willing to fight a new pax americanum, just because they distrust huge governments as much as the average US american. And with fight I mean: fight, with all means.


                      Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
                      sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

                      B Offline
                      B Offline
                      Brit
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      peterchen wrote: I guess now we're at the heart of the problem. It's not about feelings. It's not my "tender feelings", but I am convinced if we go down this road further, we all end up in a big and ugly mess. And, in this case, one might wonder why the opinion of the Iraqui opposition counts so much more. Well, I'm not actually the one who brought up the 'feelings' idea. Maybe I'm misreading you, but when you wrote "Why there's no concern about the people that don't want this war?", I thought you were implicitly saying 'feelings and opinions'. Afterall, if you didn't mean 'feelings and opinions' of anti-war people, there's no reason at all to use the phrase "the people who don't want this war" in the sentence. To say, "I am convinced if we go down this road further, we all end up in a big and ugly mess" is saying everyone will end up in a big mess - not just the "people that don't want this war". (But, I think I'm getting a bit pedantic to point out the shift in reasoning.) peterchen wrote: You may call the anti-war-movement as "stuck up in their own little interests", or "state fed wimps knowing nothing about the real life." But that is a serious underestimation. I never said that and I've never used derogatory language to describe anti-war believers. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups