Terrorists Use Children as Shields; Child Dies in Firefight

Bikereddie:

The fact is, and has always been, that the Western World has greater morals than some of the people they are now fighting against.

Haha, good one.

The "Western World", under the auspices of "economic sanctions" was responsible for the deaths by disease and malnutrition of over HALF A MILLION Iraqi children between 1992-2001. These kids weren't strapped to the front of a tank and used as bullet shields, but they were used all the same.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

www.fair.org...

To say that the Western world has some kind of moral high ground over the rest of the world because of the actions of some wackos using kids as human shields is totally off base.

None of these things happened when Iraqis had no "freedom". Under Saddam there were no massive suicide bombings. No police stations being destroyed. For as much as he was a dictator, he had CONTROL of the country enough to guarantee most of its' citizens safety. Not from him, but from other criminal elements.

So all this is actually the fault of the Coalition, which invaded in the first place under false pretenses. If the US hadn't unilaterally invaded Iraq, these children would be alive today.

Not free, no. But breathing.

The United States military has killed more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians since the beginning of the war. They don't report them, they don't count them, and they don't compensate anyone for their deaths. The ultimate disregard for the actual natives of the country they are supposedly "liberating".

Oh and read the article from your non-biased .mil link:

The coalition forces did not see one of the terrorists pick up a small child as he was fleeing the second safe house. During the firefight, the hostage-holding terrorist was shot. The same bullet that killed him also killed the child as it exited the terrorist's body, officials said.

? Sounds to me like the "terrorist" was "shielding" the child. Maybe it was his son or daughter? Maybe he not in fact a terrorist and was trying to grab his kid and get the hell out of there?

How exactly does your "human shield" end up dying because the bullet passes through YOU, killing you, and THEN through your shield?


Yay moral high ground!

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

None of these things happened when Iraqis had no "freedom". Under Saddam there were no massive suicide bombings. No police stations being destroyed. For as much as he was a dictator, he had CONTROL of the country enough to guarantee most of its' citizens safety. Not from him, but from other criminal elements.

Yeah...Just ask the Kurds. I'm sure they'll agree with you on that.

Though, you might have to wait till they clear their lungs . . . you know . . . it takes a bit to recover from a good gassing!

12m8keall2c:

Though, you might have to wait till they clear their lungs . . . you know . . . it takes a bit to recover from a good gassing!

Wasn't that back in 1984? Was it just bureaucracy that took the United States more than 20 years to actually punish him for that? Weren't you in fact SUPPLYING him with the agents to create biological weapons because he was better than those Iranian bastards that he was fighting against?

Any other massive Saddam atrocities that happened more than 2 decades ago that you would like to trot out as rationale for the invasion?

It's really not about WMD's anymore?

by Jakomo
None of these things happened when Iraqis had no "freedom". Under Saddam there were no massive suicide bombings. No police stations being destroyed. For as much as he was a dictator, he had CONTROL of the country enough to guarantee most of its' citizens safety. Not from him, but from other criminal elements.

And i guess you had your head buried in the sand while Saddam was in power then?

The only control he had, was the control of power and the power to kill and maim thousands. Read the history of Saddam.

Oh and read the article from your non-biased .mil link:

I posted no link, other the link to original thread i started about my sons experience in Iraq. IE, the story i posted. (I noticed that has gone by the way, and has gone un commented by a certain few)

How exactly does your "human shield" end up dying because the bullet passes through YOU, killing you, and THEN through your shield?

I guess you did not read my other post explaining this scenario?

Have you served in Iraq by the way?
Do you have any stories like the one i posted?
I tend not to read too much into what i see within the media we are shown, but i do have people around me who have served in Iraq (4 people by the way, with one still there, due to be home at the end of next month) who can relate to me and others exactly what they saw and went through.

Did you read my post of my sons experience? Can you answer why that would happen?
Did you read my post of why a bullet could kill two people at the same time? Don't take my word of how a bullet can pass through a human body. Do some research on the subject.

Any other massive Saddam atrocities that happened more than 2 decades ago that you would like to trot out as rationale for the invasion?

It wasn't intended as rational for the invasion. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me....

You made a very broad assumption as to the state of Iraq prior to the war. I was simply pointing to the fact that many within the population of pre-war Iraq might tend to disagree with your assumption.

And as for the US supplying Saddam with biologicals and such . . . just because I sell you a gun doesn't place my finger on the trigger!

on another note:

Bikereddie,

I read your post concerning your son's experience and it's an awfully sad situation. My daughter's friend is currently in Iraq with HMH-465's out of Miramar. Our prayers are with all the troops.

[edit on 9/23/2005 by 12m8keall2c]

First - this story is coming from a MILITARY site, meaning it has very little to do with something that is really goin on. The Army has Propaganda Officers that take care of the Public Opinion and their JOB is to make sure that the Public Hates the "Terrorists" and Loves the Army. What better then stories how they use Children as Shields - sure makes them look like Animals and they make this Fight, this War on Terror look more "Noble" and it makes US Soldiers Chivalrious Knights in shiny armor that help Innocent civilans.

OK, I don't know exactly what happened in this case but I am sure that the Army has its OWN side of the story and the other side has Another side of it. Just like when the US Soldiers were giving out Candy to little children, and then these little children were blown up by some sucidie bobmer. Why would you give out Candy in Combat Zone, when you know that US Soldiers and their Armred Jeeps attract enemy fire and other aggression? Why would you attract little children to the Jeep when you know you are in enemy combat zone and you just never know when you are gonna get attacked? Doesn't that sound like a Human Shield also?

This story is a typical example how every possible event in Iraq can be turned and twisted to approve the Invasion.

And you cannot say that Ministry of Defence is a non-biased news source.

Originally posted by Souljah
First - this story is coming from a MILITARY site, meaning it has very little to do with something that is really goin on. The Army has Propaganda Officers that take care of the Public Opinion and their JOB is to make sure that the Public Hates the "Terrorists" and Loves the Army. What better then stories how they use Children as Shields - sure makes them look like Animals and they make this Fight, this War on Terror look more "Noble" and it makes US Soldiers Chivalrious Knights in shiny armor that help Innocent civilans.

How about this site then?
link
Is this a US defence site?

The Army has Propaganda Officers that take care of the Public Opinion and their JOB is to make sure that the Public Hates the "Terrorists" and Loves the Army

Im sure this could be true. Is it not true also, that Iraq'is have such propaganda going on?

My sons experiance cannot be propaganda marketed by the Army? (i am not saying that anyone actually said it was propaganda by the way)It was myself that posted the story, not any media, yet this has had no comments on how certain factions of Iraq'is deal with things. I wonder why? Maybe this is too close for for comfort for any meaningfull reply?



[edit on 23-9-2005 by Bikereddie]

[edit on 23-9-2005 by Bikereddie]

bikereddie

That's the link for my quoted reply to Syrian Cynic . . .I mean Sister.

My source has a photograph to support it, yours does not, your source is nothing but opinion. INFACT you didn't even source your claim, where is the link.

quote:
"We will not take shots in which we could possibly hit children," the commander said.

There ya go Sis...

As djohnsto77 commented . . .

your ways of twisting to suit the need are becoming increasingly humorous :O)

Originally posted by Bikereddie
How about this site then?
link
Is this a US defence site?

Eddie, I thought you knew better then this....

JihadWatch? And the Date is April 20th 2004 - one year and a Half old?

I wonder how many CHILDREN died in the Invasion of Iraq then?

How many CHILDREN died in so-called "Shock and Awe" bombings?

How many CHILDREN died in Fallujah, where US forces released most of their Depleted Uranium shells?

Please...

And then I am attacked for using Non-Biased Sites.

Such Hypochricy.

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Bikereddie
How about this site then?
link
Is this a US defence site?

Eddie, I thought you knew better then this....

JihadWatch? And the Date is April 20th 2004 - one year and a Half old?

Please...

And then I am attacked for using Non-Biased Sites.

Such Hypochricy.

Come on Souljah. you do know me better than this. I posted the link as 'a for instance'. To show that its not just the US that uses propaganda etc.
Maybe i should have stressed this in my post?
By the way, i did not attack you, i just posted a link to make a point of view.

[edit on 23-9-2005 by Bikereddie]

Bikereddie:

The only control he had, was the control of power and the power to kill and maim thousands. Read the history of Saddam.

I have. All the huge mass graves that have been found were from the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam Hussein didn't kill millions of his own people, it is mostly US misinformation. Was he a saint? No. Was he a terrible dictator with no regard for human life? Sure. Did he kill many of his political opponents? Yep. Pretty much from the first day he took office he was a monster.

And yet, he was your friend until 1991. How long was he in power before that? A willing customer of yours, buying arms and munitions to use against Iran? If you don't think everyone in the region and in the world doesn't realize that, you're mistaken.

Did you read my post of why a bullet could kill two people at the same time?

No, I know that a bullet can ricochet wildly when it hits bone. My assertion is that if you are holding up a human shield, chances are it's going to get hit FIRST, and OFTEN, if you are taking fire. In your experience in Iraq, when someone is FLEEING the fight, as mentioned in the original link, do you fire one shot or do you spray fire? Sniper shot or semi-automatic?

If you are fleeing with a shield, human or otherwise, wouldn't you be running backwards, holding your shield in front of your chest?

Did you read my post of my sons experience? Can you answer why that would happen?

Yes, I did. I don't know, maybe it was, indirectly, partly your son's fault. If he was unaware that giving a child preferential treatment and gifts might cause her to be seen as an American sympathizer by criminal insurgent elements in Iraq, then does ignorance of it totally absolve any of his actions?

Of course, if he had been given some training about it, or warned by his superiors that being PERCEIVED to be fraternizing with some Iraqis might put those Iraqis at risk of being sympathizers (real or not), then maybe this wouldn't have happened.

Considering it happens all the time, I'm kind of surprised he wasn't informed about it. So I guess I'm saying no, he's not fully to blame for that poor child's death. The blame lies on the terrible people who actually killed her.

But SOMEONE should have told either him or HER, or her family, or SOMEONE, that this innocent little gesture might actually inflame the sentiments of some sick f*cks around there.

Do you think that if the Soviets had invaded the US way back when, and you were seen to be a Soviet sympathizer in your home town, and your were being militarily occupied, that your fellow citizens would be understanding? That they would give you the benefit of the doubt? That they would check to make sure the information they had that you were a sympathizer was 100% correct before they did anything?

Or would one of them show up at your door and blow you away, thinking he was being the ultimate patriot?

Things are effed up, but everything needs perspective.

I hope your son is alright and that he realizes that the SITUATION that he was put in was beyond his control, and he has absolutely no blame for the actions of the people who used HIS actions for their own personal murderous purposes.

WHY do soldiers give candy to children? What kind of silly little PR photo op BS is that anyway?

Do you like your children taking candy from strangers? Even if they are strangers in uniform? If they are soldiers occupying your country is that better? Worse?

You don't win peoples' hearts and minds by giving candy to their kids. You win it by talking to them on the same level and making compromises and SHOWING them you care about them even if they totally disagree with you sometimes.


jako

When i was a 4 Years old , i accepted Candy from a Russian soldier , They where guests in our country ofcource.

But i didn't consider him as anything but a grown up.

You may try to buy out little todlers with candy, and think that iraqi people love you.

But the fact is, as those children grow, they realise the truth, Alot of them have already grown up too soon.

Fallujah

Graphic Image


---------------------------------------------------------------------


VIETNAM MY-LAI

Graphic Image


IRAQ FALLUJAH

Graphic Image

If history repeated, Would we notice?

[edit on 23-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Mod Edit: Removed Graphic Images. Replaced with link and warning.

Please do not post gratuitous images of gore, or images that members may find offensive, a link with a warning will suffice. Let the members decide if they wish to view them.

[edit on 23/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]

hey Syrian Sister maybe u and i should post pictures of the people killed by the "resistance" fighters and people mourning, that should help even things up.

12m8keall2c

What was that quote you posted from vietnamn? HEH. I guess the same old lies are being recycled.

The coalition forces did not see one of the terrorists pick up a small child as he was fleeing the safe house.

If he didn't actually SEE any of it happen, then how can you say that it actually did happen.

YOu have no photograph, and now you don't even have any witnesses.

So we can only conclude it's a complete fabrication, Kind of like th propoganda we heard from World War ONe.

"THe huns eat babies." A story the allies told in World war one about germany, saying that german soldiers roasted a belgian baby on their battons and ate it

A complete fabrication, but atleast the liars at the time never said that the germans ate their own german babies. While demonising their enemy, they atleast spared that small part of humanity. One which you do not.

The situation originated somewhat in this manner: Allied
and Associated powers all built wonderfully effective propaganda
machines to keep up the home morale during the war. For if
you could persuade people that the Germans ate Belgian babies,
it was much easier to get people to hate the Germans. And then,
with everybody hating the Germanls, the Governments would have
unanimous support for carrying on the war. The fact that Ger-
mans positively did not eat Belgian babies had absolutely nothing
to do with the question. The propaganda worked.

deltaboy

The resistance never kill innocent civilians, why would they kill their own people , their own families? The people whom they are dying for.



[edit on 23-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

hey Syrian Sister maybe u and i should post pictures of the people killed by the "resistance" fighters and people mourning, that should help even things up.

Now that's a constructive thought . . . NOT!

. . . by the way, just what is it that needs to be "evened up"?

The thread is about the use of children as human shields.

If you wish to start an image gallery thread displaying the atrocities of war, feel free to do so.

That last pic IS NOT from Fallujah, those are Kurds gased by Saddam more than a decade ago. That picture has been floating around for many years, looong before Fallujah. Syrian Sister: lies do not help your argument.

Talk about spin and propaganda...

THEY are from fallujah

Graphic Image

Graphic Image

Graphic Image

Graphic Image

[edit on 23-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

Mod Edit: Removed Grahic Images. Replaced with link and a warning... Again.

[edit on 23/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
deltaboy

The resistance never kill innocent civilians.

[edit on 23-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]

u make me laugh. here is a couple of examples right now killed by the "resistance".

link

link

link


www.dailystar.com.lb...

The resistance didn't kill those people, as i have always said they where killed by British/American Psy-ops team trying to spark civil war in iraq.


They where caught in the act. Read all about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The resistance never kill their own people


Back to the topic, i await your response mk8 guy. You have photograph, and you admit, now witness.

[edit on 23-9-2005 by Syrian Sister]