tv // lbd // shoulder touch

Human Shields Plan Collapsing

Abdul al-Hashimi, head of Saddam Hussein's Peace and Solidarity Organisation, ordered the volunteers to disperse to nine sites in Baghdad or leave. Most of the activists thought that they would be "shielding" schools or hospitals, but the sites on Mr
al-Hashimi's list include power stations, oil refineries and water purification plants.

"We had been told we would go to humanitarian sites, specifically hospitals," said Ken O'Keefe, a former US marine who has emerged as the informal leader of the activists. "But we've now been told that we can't go to those places"


LOL. At the risk of sounding vulgar... no shit!

Darn those mean and nasty totalitarian dictators!

Read the full article on news.telegraph.co.uk.
  • Current Mood: hysterically incredulous
  • Current Music: Fisher -- Human
I don't know - it kind of makes sense to me. I figure there's no military advantage in bombing schools and hospitals is there? And that's not even to speak of the PR pitfalls in such a military strike. So why would you need human shields for sites that probably aren't going to be bombed anyway?

And I'm a little disturbed that the 'human shields' did not feel that people working in oil refineries and water purifications plants were worthy of protection.

I laud their efforts for peace, but that's a little odd.
So why would you need human shields for sites that probably aren't going to be bombed anyway?

Oh, I'm sure that's what the Iraqi's are figuring. It's just kind of sad that it took the 'shields' so long to figure it out.

And I'm a little disturbed that the 'human shields' did not feel that people working in oil refineries and water purifications plants were worthy of protection.

You know, I thought the same thing...
So why would you need human shields for sites that probably aren't going to be bombed anyway?

Because those who remember the last Gulf war know they will be. Among many other atrocities, in the last war the Americans bombed a civilian bomb shelter (they "mistook" it for the millitary command centre 25 miles away), killing 310 innocent civilians, mostly women and children.

Hospitals, orphanages, schools: these will be considered legitimate targets in the coming war. All the Generals have to say is they "suspect" these sites have military significance. If it turns out they were wrong later, it will be dismissed as "collatoral damage". A nice, friendly, American euphamism for murdered children. Clearly, George Bush senior did the world a favour when he ordered the illegal bombings that killed 350,000 Iraqi children.

These people are attempting to prevent such things from happening again. And, BTW, the pro-war Telegraph's report is a long way from being unbiased. Many of the volunteers remain in Iraq, and have no plans to leave.
Because those who remember the last Gulf war know they will be. Among many other atrocities, in the last war the Americans bombed a civilian bomb shelter (they "mistook" it for the millitary command centre 25 miles away), killing 310 innocent civilians, mostly women and children

Oh bleh. I knew that comment was going to get me into trouble.

I'm very aware that there were MANY civilian casualties in the Gulf War and in the recent military campaign in Afghanistan. You can't have these wars without civilian casualties - that's why so many of us are against it.

I was actually trying to make sense of Abdul al-Hashimi's logic in sending human shields to what would obviously be target sites and consequently suggest that it's not purely because he's the representative of an evil dictatorship with only the protection of its own interests at heart.

I teach Mass Communication and media studies to university students so I get that a media article probably doesn't tell the whole story. It's up to us to think about what they're saying, why they're saying it and to think about further issues that might be involved. I also teach that it's important to understand the complexity of all points of view - even the ones you agree with.