Human Shields!!! WTF??

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Eric N (Grnrvr) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 05:40 pm:    Anybody read about these anti war protesters that are taking busses from London to Baghdad so that they can be used as human shields? I say blow up the busses before they even get out of London.. One ex-marine plans to starve himself to death till 10,000 others join him in being a human shield. You believe this crap??? I found the article here http://northernvirginia.cox.net/ it's titled "Human Shields" .. These people need to be lined up and shot as an example of what needs to be weeded out of the gene pool here on earth...   muskyman Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 06:10 pm:    key word...100 those 100 people will be toast! can you say john micheal walker they wont get past turkey   Tom Rowe Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:14 pm:    Whether or not I agree with what they are doing, I admire them for putting their lives at risk to live up to their principles. Very few people today are willing to do that.   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:30 pm:    tom, very few people in the world today have their heads so far up their respective asses that they need plexy-glass to see where they are going. fukin morons are all that they are, and as sad as the modern media will paint it they deserve whatever happens to them! i mean this with all the love i can muster. mike w from the right wing   Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:33 pm:    One JDAM and 100 people are no longer lippy to the world.   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:33 pm:    tom, very few people in the world today have their heads so far up their respective asses that they need plexy-glass in their navals to see where they are going. fukin morons are all that they are, and as sad as the modern media will paint it they deserve whatever happens to them! i mean this with all the love i can muster. mike w from the right wing   Jake Hartley (Jake) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:46 pm:    Perhaps the Government can plant GPS locators in these assholes so that we can use them for targeting purposes. Fucking assholes! Minneapolis is full of these peace pussies, they just had a "street demonstration" today....makes me sick to my stomach. America is really slipping down the sewer.   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:50 pm:    jake, i have a line on a used bus maybe we can all chip in and help them with a map to Irack.... mike w   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:52 pm:    I see we have more fans of ideology along the lines of the Alien and Sedition Act rather than the Bill of Rights. We are talking about people, flesh and blood. People who value all life so much that they are willing to risk their own lives to save others. Disagree with them all you like but they are exhibiting more of what this country was founded on than most ever will. REMEMBER when we go to war with Iraq we kill people, many times innocent people who are caught in the middle of a giant, international chess game. But hey, I guess most of you guys would have shoved a grenade up Ghandi's ass too.   Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 07:58 pm:    Sooo Mr. Grant, What war have you fought in?   Jake Hartley (Jake) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:00 pm:    Free speech is on thing Paul, but actually going to a country that we are going to war with to hamper the war effort goes beyond that quite a bit. Yes, we will kill people in Iraq that are caught in the middle, but thats how it goes. Our national security is WAY more important than some foreign national's ass.   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:04 pm:    hmmmmm bill of rights, free speech????? paul (grant), dude, i just excerised my right to free speech, is that wrong or just wrong when it disagrees with your views.... mike w   Dana Giles (Dana_G) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:04 pm:    Hell, let em go, it'll thin the population of idiots in the world. It's one thing to put your life on the line for a cause you believe in, it's entirely another to commit suicide. I thought suicide bombers were the crowning achievement of idiocy, but these suicide anti-bombers are looking to one-up them.   Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:06 pm:    Well Mr. Grant....I am waiting.....Have you served your country in order to enjoy the rights of free speech? Or, are you freeloading off the bloodletting that happened 227 years ago.   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:07 pm:    Mr. Morgan, I was unaware that fighting in a war was a prerequisite for voicing an opinion on this board. But, let me ask you if it is a requirement, what war did George Bush, Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh, and Condoleeza Rice fight in? I'm on the way out now, we'll have to continue this conversation tomorrow night. Cheers!   Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:10 pm:    LOL Paul! You are absolutely correct. Voice away! But don't be surprised when people get all fired up about certain current events. Are you French by chance?   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:12 pm:    as i said................... a persons right to express their views are right as long as they agree with your own opinion, let it differ, then those folks become a war whore, thats the rub, so many want to debate their own thoughts but few welcome a counter belief, i have a bus ticket for them too. mike w   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:13 pm:    Stop it Paul, I really have to go! We'll talk more tomorrow but just to tide you over, I'm not French, more a mixed bag of immigrants who dared to come to this country during the nineteenth century. Cheers!   Jake Hartley (Jake) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:14 pm:    "Disagree with them all you like but they are exhibiting more of what this country was founded on than most ever will." WTF? Perhaps you would like to explain what this means? I thought that this country was founded to eliminate taxation without representation and make a nation where all its occupants can pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That did not extend beyond our borders EXCEPT that we have stepped in to help others with their freedom issues, but, primarily, we jump in when OUR nation is threatened. It doesn't take any courage to do what those dickheads are doing, because, believe me, when the ordance starts flying these idiots will be headed for the nearest border crossing. If they truly wanted to help mankind, they would support eliminating dictators like Saddam, instead of putting down their own country. All they are doing is hurting America and making us look weak and divided when we need to be strong in the eyes of th world. Veteran.. Retired US Army Officer, Infantry & Civil Affairs Gulf War, Somalia & Bosnia   Dana Giles (Dana_G) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:23 pm:    No Mr. Grant fighting in a war is not a prereq, but you speak as if you have sole posession of the moral high ground. My life happens to be on the line to defend your right to exercise your first ammendment rights. I choose to risk my life to preserve the rights we enjoy in this country. These 'human shield' types are sacrificing their lives to keep an oppressive dictator in power. Although this is not their stated cause, it is certainly one of the results. Furthermore, walking over to the enemy camp in the midst of war is known as treason. If they do survive, they will hopefully never be allowed back into this country. btw..President Bush may not have fought in a war, but he did serve his country in the military and made it through Air Force pilot training and SERE, which is not an easy feat.   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 08:34 pm:    jake, i am sorry to say those who will be running will be the ones that are plastered all over the news as the "poor souls that attmepted to stop the war machine". this is truly sad, those like you who have answered the call, who took their turn in the shit to assure that people such as those who board the buses and walk on the streets of this great land, protesting, accusing those that are the elected, those who lead, those who dare to make a decisions for the greater good, can have their 15 minutes to cower behind the shield of the constitution and throw rocks at those who bare the weight of freedom. its easy to sit at home or at work and with a long stick poke at the real freedom fighters, and praise the misguided that feel that its better to allow the fall of this republic than it is to defend the precious blood of those who have fought and died to give us these precious rights. so sad but true there are few real Americans left, so few who have the true heart to leave all their loves behind to endure hardships beyond description... aw forget it..... night all mike w   muskyman Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 11:14 pm:    the funny part is if those morons actually get to Iraq they will be slaughtered in the streets. Saddam would sooner put his own people(children included) around him and his weapons then let the world think he is hiding behind someone from the US or great britain.   Dana Giles (Dana_G) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:12 am:    Tom, In re-reading the thread I have to wonder what your thoughts on terrorists might be...They put their lives at risk for their principles. Do you admire them as well? They truly believe that we westerners are the cause of all evil in the world and want to destroy us. This is their conviction and to that end they are willing to sacrifice their lives. Do we admire them for their conviction or recognize that they represent a threat and destroy them?   GregH Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 01:21 am:    That is really sad...Unfortunately our men and women in uniform will be in harms way to protect their right to free speech too. I would ask them why they didn't do this to protect the Kurds? Is Jane Fonda going this time too? GregH   Ho Chung (Ho) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 01:22 am:    Quote: they wont get past turkey hehe, i am sure umit will kick their asses.   Dana Giles (Dana_G) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 01:47 am:    Greg, Part of putting on the uniform is accepting that you are defending the rights of people to disagree with you. I love a good debate....I'm very conservative and have several very liberal friends, we have some incredible conversations thanks to our diverse views. Our country works because we are allowed to have differing opinions, many countries are not so lucky (Iraq). As far as I'm concerned these idiots have every right to play human shields as long as they go into it eyes wide open. They need to realize that their action is sheer lunacy, they aren't going to stop a single bomb, and they may very well be blown into itty bitty pieces. They also need to realize that their actions may be considered treasonous by many. Now, why didn't they do this to protect the Kurds? (turning on sarcasm now) Simple, the Kurds are an internal Iraqi matter for their benevolent leader Mr. Hussein to do with as he pleases, it's none of our business. Now, talk about our big evil imperialistic government telling another country how they're going to conduct their affairs, that's a cause worth getting blown up for!   Dana Giles (Dana_G) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 02:04 am:    I found this little gem on the crusade's leader http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/general/ken-nichols.html It also has links to his other webpages, some good comedic reading. Looks like we don't have to worry about him returning to the US   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:33 am:    long winded ole cuss. mike w   Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 09:24 am:    Jane Fonda....LOL Greg. Did you catch the 'big important' trip made by Sean Penn to Iraq? What a joke. Hell, Saddam doesn't need or want sympathizers; he even twisted Penn's words around in the Iraqi media.   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:03 am:    oh sweet grapes, sean went to support the iracks!, well thats it, GW call the boyz back, we apparently have under-estimated the problems that as a nation we would face when we take on the might of whoreywood and the great minds that roam the sands in the perisan gulf. wow i am so glad that you posted that Paul, i had no clue as to the importances of allowing the terrorist hussien his first admendment rights to express his views, and altho we as a country have rights, they are superceded by those who wish to oppress people because they are a bit, uh, touched in the head. anyways i now have seen the light, i am burning my repulician only memberships card, retuning my radio from rush, and buying me a bring back bill t-shirt...... what a fag! he isnt even a good actor. mike w   Craig J Davis (Craigjdavis) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:15 am:    Said morons traveling by bus to Iraq are just posers/poseurs. There's no way that they could actually get to Iraq before the war is over, and they know it.   Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:10 pm:    "...what a fag! he isnt even a good actor." Mike you made my day with that comment.   Jake Hartley (Jake) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:19 pm:    the only decent movie Penn was in was "State of Grace" and Gary Oldman stole the lead away from him in that. He really surprised me with this anti-war shit, I didn't think he had enough brains to formulate an opinion, much less do all the shit he has done. What a disapointment.   Jake Hartley (Jake) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 12:21 pm:    "Do we admire them for their conviction or recognize that they represent a threat and destroy them?" both Dana, both...... however, they are surely in the wrong here, no question about it.   gp (Garrett) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 02:06 pm:    dude. Sean Penn in 'Bad Boys' was a great flick. you gotta admit.   M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 03:54 pm:    ..... regardless of how good any movie he did his stock went way down with me. i don't watch the that hag fonda and now i am removing penn from my must see re-run tv!! craig, one of the main problem i see in our modern world are poser (sp). they are in the youth, the old and in mainstream america. they are the ones that that pass the plate but never add to it. they are gang members, religous leaders and yes even goverment officals. they are anyone who has never taken a chance. if these posers really cared about the plight of his fellow american. instead of grabing a sign and spending time with a tyrant in a hope of being recoginzed as a true humanitarian,i say if you want to give to your fellow man, go to the Applachain and help a child learn to read. go to detroit and hand out blankets to the street people. take that tax refund and give it to the local volunteer fire department so that you can help them save lives and after doing these things, sit down and not say a fucking word about what you just did. don't brag, boast, or even pat yourself on the back, let the the warmth of being a real human fill your heart. after doing all this if you want to jump on a bus and stand on a picket for peace in irack, well you deserve it and your still a dumbass. mike w   Dana Giles (Dana_G) Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 04:52 pm:    Fonda, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, Richard Gere, Streisand...the list could go on and on of hollywood types I would prefer not to ever spend any money supporting.   GregH Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 12:21 am:    Paul- Yeah, I read about Sean Penn's "humanitarian" jaunt to Iraq. I remember thinking, "Yeah, someone who would marry Madonna would know what "loyalty" means"... Dana-I don't disagree with anything you said. You read this guy's bio and agenda and he sounds like another Lee Harvey Oswald. (AND NO I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE GRASSY KNOLL!!) GregH   Tom Rowe Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:14 am:    Dana.. admire terrorists? No...I don't think so. But I also wouldn't call them "cowards" as many do. I know *I'm* not brave enough to commit suicide. Though going into a burning building to rescue people just because it is the right thing to do, as I did as a volunteer firefighter, would be called suicidal by some. So who knows? Paul...what war did Donald Rumsfield fight in? Well..he didn't fight, but he was intrumental in providing Saddam with the chemical and biological weapons that we are now using as the reason to go invade another country. Jake..." All they are doing is hurting America and making us look weak" On the contrary, I think they are making us look stronger than the people who jump on the war bandwagon. It's very easy to join the side of the masses. Dissent makes us look strong because we can "allow" contrary opionions to be aired in public and risk no more than being called assholes, traitors and scum. In the weaker countries you'd be shot or tortured for saying such things. That's one reason I am *adamantly* opposed to a law to ban the burning of the US flag. I for one have been greatly distressed at the disrespect shown to our flag by "patriots" after 9/11. Like plastered all over the place, being used to sell everything from cars to underwear, hanging filthy from the backs of trucks and cars. But IMO it would be sad indeed if we are so weak as a country that we have to make a law against burning the flag because we can't tolerate someone who dissagrees. I know I'll be labled god knows what, but I have *never* been tempted to burn the flag, but if an amendment is passed banning it, I will be sorely tempted to. But I doubt I'd have the courage to. Greg..."I would ask them why they didn't do this to protect the Kurds?" does that mean you advocate we attack Turkey because of all the Kurds that *they* have torutred and killed? Again, I don't know what the answer is for Iraq. But we made our bed, in some degree, now we must lie in it. I wonder when we will learn that we can't keep proping up criminals, supporting their efforts to oppress their people, and not have it bite us. And for those who wonder, I was totally opposed to the police action in Vietnam, but I was also very put out by Fonda's trip to North Vietnam. I had nothing but scorn for the people who spit on returning soldiers and called them baby killers. I am adult enough to realize that in the emotional turmoil of trying to keep from getting your ass blown off, you might do things you are later not so proud of. But people who can sit back and cooly make the choice to send other's to do their bidding better have a damn good reason. BTW, the more I think about it, the more I lean towards requiring every citizen to provide some form of public service as your right to vote. Military service, peace corp, something like that. Some list of things that are for the public good, but that also don't force people to go against their morals. For those moraly opposed to public service, I don't know ;-)   Andrew Clarke (Aclarke) Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 12:36 pm:    Tom, I like the idea in your last paragraph. Have a 2 year (or something) mandatory part-time involvement in some sort of community service. Disaster relief, tree planting, I dunno. Not that it will ever happen, but it's a nice idea! I suppose I could just go devote 2 years of my life to planting trees if I like the idea that much, too.   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 01:09 pm:    Tom, regarding the mandatory public service - i believe this is a nice and sure way to move from a trained and professional military to a ... large group of people who are unskilled, untrained, called upon all oddball jobs that nobody wants to do, and unwilling to do them. i came from a country with a mandatory military service - it was regarded just as a version of a labor camp, two years of life wasted. so i believe the best public service one can do is to have as many kids as he/she can afford and raise them right. The rest will follow. peter   Dana Giles (Dana_G) Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 02:35 pm:    Paul, I'd call going into a burning building to rescue people far more brave than suicide, and I do consider terrorists cowards. Terrorists target non-combatants. They intentionally target civilian populations. While it is true that in any armed conflict civilians will end up caught in the middle, it takes one hell of a compelling argument to justify intentionally targeting civilian populations. To a terrorist civilian targets are the first choice because they are easier and it gets more attention. In other words they are chicken-shit bastard cowards.   Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 04:58 pm:    Hey Dana, ever hear of "Shock and Awe?" Do a Google search for "Shock and Awe" and Iraq and see what comes up. You say above that "it takes one hell of a compelling argument to justify intentionally targeting civilian populations. To a terrorist civilian targets are the first choice because they are easier and it gets more attention. In other words they are chicken-shit bastard cowards." Well, statements by someone in the Pentagon and reported on CBS News as well as other news outlets claim that the US is intending on hitting Baghdad with between 300-400 cruise missles a day in the initial stages of a war with Iraq. That means more cruise missles than were fired during the whole conflict back in 1991! The source is quoted as saying "the sheer size of this has never been contemplated before. There will not be a safe place in Baghdad" a city of over 5 million. The expressed goal of "Shock and Awe" is to destroy the Iraqi people "physically, emotionall, and psychologically." I thought George Bush said his fight was with Saddam Hussein and not the people of Iraq. If this country actually does attack in this manner we will lose what little credibility we have left. Like the piece on the Alternet says, we will have a modern day Guernica perpetrated by a leader who will have shown no more compassion than Hitler when he annihilated that small Basque town in the 1930's.   Peter Carey (Pcarey) Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:02 pm:    I know I'm coming into this way late, but I gotta laugh at Jake's comment : "Yes, we will kill people in Iraq that are caught in the middle, but thats how it goes." I'm betting the reason most people have opinions on this that are so different is because WE would be attacking, not the other way around. The story would be different if, when we attacked Iraq's homeland, they attacked ours too. I don't think the attitude would be "that's how it goes". I need a drink. pwc   Dana Giles (Dana_G) Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:16 pm:    Paul, see my reply in the shock and awe thread. That we are targetting the Iraqi people is complete and total bullshit, there simply isn't any other way of saying it.   Lets Roll Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:27 pm:    "The time to take counsel of your fears is before you make an important battle decision. That's the time to listen to every fear you can imagine! When you have collected all the facts and fears and made your decision, turn off all your fears and go ahead!" -Gen George S. Patton   Jake Hartley (Jake) Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:36 pm:    Get over it and laugh all you want Peter, it is a fact of war that civilians get caught in the middle and die. Is that good? No, but that doesn't lessen the fact of the reality of it. Now, concerning the rest of your posting, we are attacking Iraq not out of agression, but in self-defense. Wev are war against terror; they are part of the terror equation. We are the good guys in this and the sooner you figure that out the better off you are. Iraq may in fact strike back, that's why the sooner we eliminate the threat there the better.   Jake Hartley (Jake) Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:40 pm:    "Our national security is WAY more important than some foreign national's ass." Remember this Peter, and think about September 11, 2001 and then cry to me about collateral damage.   GregH Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 01:53 am:    Tom- In my comment as to "why THEY didn't do this to protect the Kurds" I was referring to the "Human Shield" participants not the US military. They'd be slaughtered in Iraq or Turkey but I would've at least admired their cause. GregH   Tom Rowe Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 12:16 pm:    Well damn, my long winded reply to several people didn't get posted, even though it said it did. Well, luckily for you folks, I'm too lazy to retype it all. :-)   Dean Chrismon (Chrismonda) Posted on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:15 am:    Hey Dana add Sherryl Crow..