Anti-war 'shields' in Iraq go home

Washington Times ^ | 3/02/03 | Philip Sherwell, LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

[kattracks]

BAGHDAD

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

They almost made the Darwin award count for 2003.

[DensaMensa]

Too Too Funny! Bet it will be the lead story on CNN all day tomorrow.

[Chad Fairbanks]

"We are the Human Shield - Reservists. One weekend a month, two weeks a year..."

[pgkdan]

What a bunch of idiots! Buffoons, boobs, and blithering idiots!

[dixiechick2000]

BTTT!

For anyone who missed it this afternoon, this one is a hoot!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/854819/posts

[billhilly]

"Uzma Bashir, 32, a British college teacher who is one of the team leaders."

A courageous bloke, Mr. Bashir.

[JoJo Gunn]

Panty shields....

[Husker24]

Many shields had earlier asked to be stationed at sites such as schools, hospitals or orphanages, but Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding low-risk targets in any aerial assault.

Even the Iraqis admit this crap about targeting civilians is just that .....crap.

[CheneyChick]

"It's only fair," said Uzma Bashir, 32, a British college teacher who is one of the team leaders. "We've come here as shields to defend sites, and now the Iraqis are asking us to make our choice."

That's right. Put up or shut up.

[GUIDO]

I wish we knew what bus they were coming in on, so that freepers could be there protesting them like they did to our Vietnam Vets when they came home.

[Beck_isright]

"Almost all the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home yesterday after deciding that their much-heralded task is now too dangerous."

At least they were consistent and followed the lead of the French....quitting before the shooting starts.

[Polybius]

Nine out of the 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials yesterday to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country.

Well, at last we have found one thing that we and the Iraqis agree upon.

These "activists" wanted to station themselves at hospitals, orphanages and any other place that could be bombed only by sheer accident. They were nothing but grandstanding cowards.

[Mr. Mojo]

Iraq's decision to force the pace was welcomed by some of those remaining in Baghdad. "It's only fair," said Uzma Bashir, 32, a British college teacher who is one of the team leaders. "We've come here as shields to defend sites, and now the Iraqis are asking us to make our choice."

Good, some still choose to remain. We need to cull these people from the gene pool immediately.

[Semper911]

United States could not be deterred from attacking militarily significant sites by the presence of human shields.

I loved Rumsfeld's comment on the human shields: "I would say to them, If you put yourself in harm's way, you put yourself in harm's way." So Rumsfeldian.

Many shields had earlier asked to be stationed at sites such as schools, hospitals or orphanages, but Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding low-risk targets...

Nice, Saddam. Nice.

Mr. Meynell, a former high sheriff of Derbyshire, said he was leaving out of "cold fear."

I have nothing but praise for his honesty.

[yankeedame]

Almost all the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home yesterday after deciding that their much-heralded task is now too dangerous.

So typical. Big hat, no cattle.

[Constantine XIII]

Chickendoves?

[RobFromGa]

It's "I'm a Human Shield- Get Me Out of Here!"

This is so true to form for these particular strain of hypocrite.

They want to be "human shields", but only as long as they are guaranteed to be safe; and certainly not against real "live" weapons.

All the while, real American men and women, many with families and close business associates who count on their safe return, stand in harms way in order to provide these fools with their freedom to be "virtual shields" in assistance to the enemy.

Whisc side is right? I think the answer is obvious.

Which side is more serious about this debate? Those in harms way and those who will comfort the widows of those that lose their lives are very serious in their resolve.

The opposition, represented by the "virtual shields" are, in comparison, child-like and unserious. Not yet grown-up children who Know everything (who didn't know everything at that age?), marching along aging hippies who fondly rememember the Vietnam protests, and the Hollywood money men who fund the remaining Socialists.

It's like Spring Break but it feels so much more serious and wil help your chances to be a star.

Call them what they are: "virtual shields". To qualify you need small brain, large mouth and no guts. Amd please don't muss my hair or makeup.

These ridiculous people are standing in the way of our liberation of the same population they claim to love.

[BamaFan69]

Maybe they can go to North Korea and position themselves around Nuclear Plants, no wait, that would be too dangerous.... LMFAO... Gutless Cowards

[A CA Guy]

Shields + Idiots = Shidiots

Shidiots went home rather than die, they are French through and through.