If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   British "human shields" told to find a target or go home. Intestinal fortitude nowhere to be found   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 314
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11133 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2003 at 10:15 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



314 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-03-01 10:17:30 PM  
How about Testicular Fortitude?
 
2003-03-01 10:19:45 PM  
Did Harmonia chicken out?
 
2003-03-01 10:20:24 PM  
DAMNIT! you stole it! And you had the only post Korzenioski :)
 
2003-03-01 10:20:37 PM  
This would have been much more humorous if it had been abouty panty shields.
 
2003-03-01 10:23:33 PM  
Farking limey pansies. Guess that whole "human shield" thing wasn't the most thought out idea in the world. Baghdad never gave a damn about you and your ideals. They're evil - the sooner you get that through your skulls, the better off we'll all be.
 
2003-03-01 10:23:57 PM  
LOL. Dicks.
 
2003-03-01 10:24:01 PM  
Thats ok fellas go on home. There is a busload of Frenchmen on the way to replace you.

Really.
 
2003-03-01 10:24:42 PM  
Hey Coach, if they are evil for using the weapons we gave them what does that make us?
 
2003-03-01 10:25:44 PM  
I hope they get stoned when they get off the plane.
 
2003-03-01 10:26:31 PM  
It kinda sucks that these people were (apparently) willing to go there to defend civilan sites, then got suckered into shielding military sites, and in the end look like a bunch of discredited idiots. Oh well, let no good deed goes unpunished.
 
2003-03-01 10:27:02 PM  
The Jerk store called and they ran out of YOU!
 
2003-03-01 10:27:05 PM  
We did a whole lot of things over there (installing Saddam, etc.), but we didn't hand them the chemicals. In fact, I'm willing to wager every chemical weapon has a "Made In France" tag on it. That's what Jacque's problem is.
 
2003-03-01 10:27:34 PM  
Well, you have to admire them for being willing to give up their lives for something they really believed in.


No, wait...
 
2003-03-01 10:27:55 PM  
Xtremehklr: the world's moral police. Now, sit back, enjoy your Prozac, drive you big dangerous SUV and let the schmucks that you didn't vote for yet are running the government anyway spoonfeed you the info that they want you to know.
 
2003-03-01 10:28:06 PM  
Talk about perverting the truth

The human shields were told by Saddam's goon squad to stand in Military target rather than civilian ones, and they said, no. Good For them. They were not there to protect Saddam or his goons, they were there for the people, I'm glad they are leaving.

Would you stand in the path of a righteous missile aimed at Saddam's means of production, nope, good.
 
2003-03-01 10:29:16 PM  
JohnnyontheSpot: I know I'm getting stoned as soon as I get off work tonight!
 
2003-03-01 10:29:47 PM  
Operation Hide Behind the Limeys?

/South Park
 
2003-03-01 10:30:28 PM  
Good call Nitemayr.
 
2003-03-01 10:33:01 PM  
Seemed pretty obvious to me that Saddam would ask them to stand at military targets, it's not like he gives a damn about his people. Though I don't agree with the human shields, nice try anyways guys.
 
2003-03-01 10:33:46 PM  
Nine of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country.

Wait, you mean that the US will not intentionally target civilians. Next thing that they'll say is that this war is not for oil, and the French have ulterior monetary interests.
 
2003-03-01 10:34:09 PM  
Please, some kind patrol who does laser targetting, please focus on a red double-decker bus convoy headed northwest?

You can't miss 'em, if you can't see 'em you'll definitely be able to smell 'em.

Whether you're pro or anti war, you know the whole world would be better off if this particular group of butt nuggets was vaporized. Drop one on 'em for us, willya.
 
2003-03-01 10:36:09 PM  
Maybe they should guard the Telegraph. The whole registration deal probably pisses off a good number of people.
 
2003-03-01 10:36:10 PM  
Coachwdb: We did a whole lot of things over there (installing Saddam, etc.), but we didn't hand them the chemicals.

Umm...yeah, I'm afraid we did. At least some of them.

That's according to Bill O'Reilly, so I doubt it's left-wing propaganda.
 
2003-03-01 10:36:44 PM  
Look, I think being a human shield is one of the most selfless ideals a person can ever have. In fact, it's a downright American ideal - standing up for those without a voice. BUT, how could you have NOT known Saddam wasn't going to insert you into the propaganda machine. Beautiful thought on paper, horrible in practice.
 
2003-03-01 10:37:27 PM  
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

This is the funniest article I have read here in a long while! Good post! Those asshats should not be let back into England!

So funny!
 
2003-03-01 10:37:44 PM  
In the words of Nelson....


HA HA!
 
2003-03-01 10:38:05 PM  
Funny they had to travel all that way and waste all their time to realize that Saddam is an ass and purposely builds military stuff right next to civvy stuff. Hmm maybe thats the problem with certain groups in the world today, they cant see reality till their hero of the millisecond bites them in the butt.
 
2003-03-01 10:38:21 PM  
Coachwdb: Agreed, for the most part.
 
2003-03-01 10:40:32 PM  
Thanks AtomEverlasting.

And FarkWicket, for God's sake, don't ever listen to Bill O'Reilly. I tend to be hawkish on this issue, and even I think O'Really is an asshat. He makes mistakes more often than you'll ever know.

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/
 
2003-03-01 10:41:15 PM  
Coach:

The U.S. Congress itself has admitted that U.S. companies, at the knowledge of the U.S. government, provided Iraq with instruments to use chemical weapons -- including chemicals and crop dusting helicopters that instead of crop chemicals, are filled with human-killing chemicals.
 
2003-03-01 10:41:20 PM  
Wait? Let me get this straight? The Iraqis wanted them at "strategic" sites? Aren't the orphanages and the group-home-for-retarded-baby-seals-and-cute-little-kittens in Bazra that they wanted to hang out at strategic? I mean, doesn't this mean that Iraq doesn't think the US and Britain will be going out of their way to bomb hospitals and convents? If they want them to go to power plants and such, military targets, shouldn't that have told the shields something?

Just a thought...
 
2003-03-01 10:44:08 PM  
Coach,

Just found it.

According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994, from 1985 through 1989, biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:

Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.

Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

This information is from the following report, as mentioned above: "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994.
 
2003-03-01 10:45:21 PM  
Whodat? Don't forget the retarded-baby-seals-and-cute-little-kittens baby milk factory.
 
2003-03-01 10:47:15 PM  
HA!
 
2003-03-01 10:47:35 PM  
from 1985 through 1989

Guess who Iraq was at war with at the time at you'll figure out why we gave it to them.

As far as the article: hahahahahaha
 
2003-03-01 10:48:17 PM  
Coachwdb: FarkWicket, for God's sake, don't ever listen to Bill O'Reilly. I tend to be hawkish on this issue, and even I think O'Really is an asshat. He makes mistakes more often than you'll ever know.

So I went to foxnews.com looking for some cites on this, and I think I might have discovered something far more interesting:

Blix and the boys have been looking in the wrong place ALL ALONG!

At any rate, I'll keep looking.
 
2003-03-01 10:49:45 PM  
Jewnig: Unlike O'Reilly, I admit that "I stand corrected." God, if the world could cooperate like FARK!
 
2003-03-01 10:51:36 PM  
TheseBurgers, that's just wrong!
 
2003-03-01 10:52:12 PM  
Dadgim quitters. Well, at least they got a vacation in sunny Bagdad.
 
2003-03-01 10:53:19 PM  
Coach,

Because I do not like to see people humiliated, France was also a major contributor of these weapons to Iraq.

However, no one can claim that the United States did not have a hand in the killing of Iranian soldiers through chemical weapons and Kurdish resistance groups with these same weapons. The Reagan administration kept absolutely silent while the bodies stacked up higher and higher.
 
2003-03-01 10:53:49 PM  
They don't let you drink alcohol over there.
 
2003-03-01 10:54:27 PM  
JDJoeE, I don't think Hussein was their hero. I'm against the war, too and I still think he's the antichrist.

They were willing to give up their lives to protect civilians but didn't want to be on THAT side of the war anymore than they wanted to be on THIS side of the war. Leaving was the only sensible thing to do.
 
2003-03-01 10:54:34 PM  
JDJoeE --

Yep. Saddam's not a complete idiot. 1991 taught him how much the US relies on airpower, and he knows that the US has been preparing more precision weaponry -- for instance, by converting gravity bombs to guided via JDAM kits. He also knows that, with five or six carrier groups in range plus land-based air, he has practically no chance of preventing US/UK air superiority. Isolated military installations, vehicles or troop concentrations will be particularly vulnerable... so parking them next to civilians is one of his better options.
 
2003-03-01 10:56:52 PM  
"Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous"

Didn't they read the job requirement for "human sheild."
 
2003-03-01 10:57:11 PM  
Ah, I see Jewing already found what I was looking for.

Don't get me wrong, Coachwdb, I'm 'hawkish' on this too...I just don't want there to be any skeletons in the closet that'll come back to haunt us later.

Mixed metaphor alert: orange...
 
2003-03-01 10:57:43 PM  
Farking limey pansies

Don't generalize the whole country dork-wad. They do have like a quarter of their army over there helping out.
 
2003-03-01 10:57:47 PM  
Jewing:
"The Reagan administration kept absolutely silent while the bodies stacked up higher and higher."

Iran, then, was the lesser of two evils. Can you honestly say that if you were put in the position you would deny Iraq the means to combat Iran's 'Human Wave' assaults. I couldn't

Didn't France help build Iraq's nuke program? Just like they did Israels?
 
2003-03-01 10:59:56 PM  
Greater, not lesser. Damn!!
 
Bhh
2003-03-01 11:00:11 PM  
Mutilato - and stupid enough to think that Saddam would let them "protect civillians." Franky, I figured these people were doomed. They'd be taken as hostages and wind up dead one way or another - maybe killed by Saddam's goons and then their bloated corpses paraded before cameras with the implication that the US killed them. Unfortunately, they'll get live on and breed and spread the stupid gene. Darwin surrenders.
 
2003-03-01 11:01:19 PM  
In any event, I doubt that their mission would have any effect on Pentagon military planners. After all, they're there voluntarily, deliberately assisting the Iraqis. Hell, random Iraqi civilians are more innocent than the "human shields", since they may simply happen to live near possible targets, while these folks openly choose to put their lives on the line in order to have a direct impact on military policy. That makes them active participants in a war and not innocent bystanders, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Displayed 50 of 314 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report