Terrorists Use Children as Shields; Child Dies in Firefight

SS

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,

Did you even read the story Skippy linked to?

Based on tips from concerned citizens and multiple intelligence sources, coalition forces raided two suspected safe houses to capture known terrorists operating in Mosul...

...When coalition forces entered the first terrorist safe house, three terrorists attacked with small-arms fire. Coalition forces returned fire, killing two terrorists and wounding another.

During the firefight, one of the terrorists used a small child to shield himself as he fired on coalition forces. The child was slightly wounded during the exchange of gunfire. The child and wounded terrorist were evacuated and are being treated at a local field hospital
...

...Coalition forces then moved to a second suspected terrorist safe house, where they were again met with small-arms fire. They killed one terrorist, and several other terrorists fled the safe house into a third house nearby, where coalition forces killed four more terrorists, officials reported.

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...

What part of this do you find so hard to grasp?

When the soldiers were firing upon those fleeing the second house THEY DID NOT SEE the individual pick up the child, therefore as they were firing upon the fleeing individual THEY DID NOT KNOW he was carrying a child.

All death is sad especially that of innocent children.

The story title seems to focus more on the use of a child as a shield in the first house. The unfortunate death of the other child resulted from the troops firing on those fleeing the second house, NOT KNOWING that the individual was carrying a child.

If the insurgents/terrorists/whatever are using the homes of family, friends, and supporters as strongholds/hideouts/etc. then, IMO, they are the ones to be held accountable for the welfare of "the innocents" within these homes.

Would you allow "friends" into your home under these circumstances . . .

Weapons, ammunition, grenades and rocket-propelled-grenade rounds were found in the second terrorist safe house

. . . knowing full well there was a high probability that your family's safety would be placed at risk!?

From skippy's story.

A man hears shooting in the other house where a child and father was wounded.

He is so affraid that he grabs his baby and runs for it it.

A soldier claims to not have seen the baby when he shot him. I guess that means he shot the father and baby in the back.

I guess that means the man whome you call a terrorist, was not holding up the baby saying "Don't shoot i have a baby hostage."

Sounds like your covering up a war crime.

When the soldiers were firing upon those fleeing the second house THEY DID NOT SEE the individual pick up the child, therefore as they were firing upon the fleeing individual THEY DID NOT KNOW he was carrying a child.

Doesn't sound like a hostage situation to me.

You just killed a father and child. And the most disgusting part is, your inventing these lies about them. I'm not going to give you the benefit of saying that it was out of guilt.

This is what a Human Shield looks like.

It's an israeli tactic, i guess you learn from your allies.





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

So let me get this straight.

From skippy's story.

A man hears shooting in the other house where a child and father was wounded.

He is so affraid that he grabs his baby and runs for it it.

A soldier claims to not have seen the baby when he shot him. I guess that means he shot the father and baby in the back.

I guess that means the man whome you call a terrorist, was not holding up the baby saying "Don't shoot i have a baby hostage."

WOW . . . where did you surmise all that from? Definitely not from Skippy's link.

I know some folks tend to read between the lines, but hell you like to rewrite the entire story.

I would gladly offer a wider range of colors to use in your optical palette but alas, you would probably just pick and choose those that best suit your views.



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

12m8keall2c

I know some folks tend to read between the lines, but hell you like to rewrite the entire story.

The hypocracy. Wheren't you the one claiming a possibility to what happened in my photograph was that those kids where worshiping the americans?

You have as much evidence that iraqies where using their children as human shields as the british had that the germans ate belgian babies.

We have a man and child wounded in one house.
We have a man running with a baby, both shot dead.

We have no photographic evidence to say any human shields where used in this insident. We have The word of "jihadWatch" and some who would like to cover up warcrimes.
You jump to beliving this story because it Suits YOUR needs. How about you interview the man and child, the ones who where wounded, and get their side of the story? I'm sure it would be vastly different.


AND i note, you never answered my questions. If those two boys where still a threat and needed to be searched, then why wasn't the soldier looking at them, why does he look so relaxed sitting above the humvee, as if no RPG would ever hit him?

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

The hypocracy. Wheren't you the one claiming a possibility to what happened in my photograph was that those kids where worshiping the americans?

Actually it was you who used the word "worshipping". I was simply suggesting there may be other reasons for the boys being there.

AND i note, you never answered my questions. If those two boys where still a threat and needed to be searched, then why wasn't the soldier looking at them, why does he look so relaxed sitting above the humvee, as if no RPG would ever hit him?

Can you prove they were being used as human shields? can you prove why they were there at all?

We have no photographic evidence to say any human shields where used in this insident. We have The word of "jihadWatch" and some who would like to cover up warcrimes.

The story linked to in the original post was NOT from jihadwatch.

How about you interview the man and child, the ones who where wounded, and get their side of the story? I'm sure it would be vastly different.

No, you ASSUME! Just to clarify that it is your ASSUMPTION it would be vastly different.

Again, would you allow people with [as quoted previosly] weapons, ammunition, grenades and rocket-propelled-grenade rounds into your home knowing full well your family's safety would be placed in jeopardy?

If so . . . then IMO you have to ASSUME* the responsibility for any harm that may come to them.

*since you seem to have a propensity for doing so.

by Syrian Sister
assumptions are where most mistakes are born.

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

Again, would you allow people with [as quoted previosly] weapons, ammunition, grenades and rocket-propelled-grenade rounds into your home

how do you know it wasn't their home, and they where not just defending it from the aggressive US occupation?

Aren't you supposed to fight for your home when your occupied, that's what they did in STALINGRAD! isn't that the purest form of resistance?

Indeed assumptions are where most mistakes are born.

AND i note, you never answered my questions. If those two boys where still a threat and needed to be searched, then why wasn't the soldier looking at them, why does he look so relaxed sitting above the humvee, as if no RPG would ever hit him?

Can you prove they were being used as human shields? can you prove why they were there at all?

That's not an answer , that's a quetion. YOu just Answered a question with question.

The hypocracy. Wheren't you the one claiming a possibility to what happened in my photograph was that those kids where worshiping the americans?

Actually it was you who used the word "worshipping". I was simply suggesting there may be other reasons for the boys being there

If you know something about islam, you know that muslims aren't allowed to prostrate to anything or anyone but god. If you say the following
"Iraqi youth show appreciation through prayer and blessings for US troops and their efforts"
In islam, that would mean their worshping them. LIke i said, you don't seem to respect the religion of those you have supposedly "liberated".

Anyway that's beside my point, my point is exposing your hypocracy, you where saying that I was rewriting the story, when you where doing the same thing.

The original link is from American Forces Press Service, defencelink.
independent HAH!

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

how do you know it wasn't their home, and they where not just defending it from the aggressive US occupation?

With weapons, ammunition, grenades and rocket-propelled-grenade rounds? . . . uhmmm Okay?!

That's not an answer , that's a quetion. YOu just Answered a question with question.

That's because there is no answer. Neither you, nor I know the actual reason those boys are there. Any speculation otherwise is simply that . . . speculation.

In islam, that would mean their worshping them. LIke i said, you don't seem to respect the religion of those you have supposedly "liberated".

Actually I respect the fact that every human being has the right to their own religious beliefs. Again, I was simply trying to demonstrate the FACT that there are many possible reasons for the boys being there. Is that so hard to comprehend, or would you like to shed some FACTUAL light as to the REAL reason they are there?

Anyway that's beside my point, my point is exposing your hypocracy, you where saying that I was rewriting the story, when you where doing the same thing.

Wrong, there is a big difference between ASSUMPTION and SUGGESTION!

You were ASSUMING while I was SUGGESTING. You assumed to know the reasons while I was merely suggesting other possible explanations.

Now that I've answered your question would you be so kind as to answer mine?

Even if you were personally involved in the resistance/insurgency . . . would you allow "people" with weapons, ammunition, grenades and rocket-propelled-grenade rounds into your home knowing that by doing so you would be placing your family's safety in jeopardy?

It's a simple and valid question. Would you place your loved ones in harm's way for your own beliefs? Even if they did not feel the same or were too young to have a formed opinion?

IF it's all just speculation and assumptions, then you should also admit, that this story posted by skippy, is the also Speculation and assumption?

Well, Do you?

It seems to me what your saying is, like when i say the US is using children as human shields, it's just speculation and assumption.

Where as when Skippy says the iraqi resistance, whome he calls terrorist, are using children as human shields, then it's fact.

Even though i have images to support my claim where as he does not. Images which you couldn't explain or answer quesitons about.

Certainly At the begining of this thread, you seemed to belive FULLY belive this story.

Is it all just assumption and speculation now?

With weapons, ammunition, grenades and rocket-propelled-grenade rounds? . . . uhmmm Okay?!

Yeah, what do you want them to defend their homes with, Chopsticks?

Can't you see when you fight back against occupation, your actually defend your loved ones.

If someone invaded your home, with guns firing, wouldn't you too defend your homes and loved ones?


The resistance are fighting for their people and their family. Just as the russian people fought inside their homes in stalingrad.

Where as when Skippy says the iraqi resistance, whome he calls terrorist, are using children as human shields, then it's fact.

I have tried to base all responses upon the original linked story. Whether it was posted by Skippy, Jane Doe, or even yourself has no pertinence whatsoever as to it's validity.

Even though i have images to support my claim where as he does not.

What images are you referring to? The photo of the Iraqi youths next to the Humvee does not support your claim in the least. The rest of the photos you posted are completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Images which you couldn't explain or answer quesitons about.

Can you absolutely/positively answer either your question or mine concerning the actual situation surrounding this photo? NO!

If someone invaded your home, with guns firing, wouldn't you too defend your homes and loved ones?

The troops did not invade a damn thing. They were acting upon "tips from concerned citizens and multiple intelligence sources".

When coalition forces entered the first terrorist safe house, three terrorists attacked with small-arms fire. Coalition forces returned fire, killing two terrorists and wounding another.

Again, did you even read the linked story!?

Certainly At the begining of this thread, you seemed to belive FULLY belive this story.
Is it all just assumption and speculation now?

Again . . I have attempted to base all responses to this discussion thread upon the linked story.

Yes, I have put forth suggestions of alterior explanations for the photo you posted. Is it wrong to question, what you state as fact, the purported circumstances surrounding your posted photo?

You, on the other hand, have made numerous ASSUMPTIONS and SPECULATIONS, which you wish to put forth as fact. In fact they are nothing more then your own twisted interpretations hell-bent with a hatred towards the American troops. If I'm not mistaken the current "occupying" troops in Iraq are "Coalition" troops consisting of members of a multi-national force.

So what is it Syberian Sister? Are all of the Coalition, or as you put it occupying, troops BAD, or is it just the Americans?

My best friend serves in Iraq (camp speicher) and had to shoot through a woman and her child because they were being used as human sheilds. The scumbag was ready to fire an rpg at him and his brothers. He was deeply distraught about this when he phoned me and I told him he did the right thing. Do you risk your life and your brothers when these lowlifes use tactics like this? Hell no!

Originally posted by I See You
My best friend serves in Iraq (camp speicher) and had to shoot through a woman and her child because they were being used as human sheilds. The scumbag was ready to fire an rpg at him and his brothers. He was deeply distraught about this when he phoned me and I told him he did the right thing. Do you risk your life and your brothers when these lowlifes use tactics like this? Hell no!

Your buddy didnt kill that woman and child, the asshat who used them as cover did. Thats how he needs to think of the situation. Its too bad these animals put your buddy in that situation, he will live with that for the rest of his life.

for Syrian Sister:

My best friend serves in Iraq (camp speicher) and had to shoot through a woman and her child because they were being used as human sheilds. The scumbag was ready to fire an rpg at him and his brothers. He was deeply distraught about this when he phoned me and I told him he did the right thing. Do you risk your life and your brothers when these lowlifes use tactics like this? Hell no!

For one iota . . . for one second of your life . . . could you at least put yourself into these shoes?

Would you LIVE or DIE?!

Regardless of how it might affect you on an emotional basis after the fact....

Would you LIVE or DIE?!

The clock's ticking . . . no time for rational thought . . . 3 - 2 - 1 ?!

Human instinct prevails . . . hopefully?!

I value human life as much as anyone but, under the circumstances, what would your response be?!

I might not agree with WHY AM I THERE . . .

I might not agree with WHY WE ARE THERE . . .

I might not agree with WHAT I AM ABOUT TO DO . . .

BUT, when presented with the aforementioned scenario . . .

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?!

Survive, I hope!

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I agree the insurgents are savages.

Don't you think the troops should have pulled back and stop firing at the Shields? Didn't like three kids die? I heard the story on the radio this morning, but stories change minute to minute.
[edit on 22-9-2005 by SpittinCobra]

Im going to sound like a bastard , but no. We should fire until its no longer a viable tactic to hide behind little kids. Save more that way in the long run.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
From skippy's story.

A man hears shooting in the other house where a child and father was wounded.

He is so affraid that he grabs his baby and runs for it it.

A soldier claims to not have seen the baby when he shot him. I guess that means he shot the father and baby in the back.

I guess that means the man whome you call a terrorist, was not holding up the baby saying "Don't shoot i have a baby hostage."

Sounds like your covering up a war crime.

Yeah just as we can claim that he was a terrorist holding the baby as a hostage while he prepared to kill the soldiers?
Isnt this guessing fun?

Doesn't sound like a hostage situation to me.

Holding a child as a shield doesnt count as a hostage situation?
Hmm must only count if they show it on national TV huh? Or anyone that is part of a military force with rules...

You just killed a father and child. And the most disgusting part is, your inventing these lies about them. I'm not going to give you the benefit of saying that it was out of guilt.

Exscuse me?
How the F can you even begin to try and say that this soldier is guitly of anything other than fighting a terrorist using a shield?
Mabye before you try and cry baby killer you should put yourself in the same situation...mabye if Co-Alition forces used the Quran as a shield that would make it fair?

This is what a Human Shield looks like.

It's an israeli tactic, i guess you learn from your allies.





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

So your now tangenting off to the isrealis again?

I have tried to base all responses upon the original linked story. Whether it was posted by Skippy, Jane Doe, or even yourself has no pertinence whatsoever as to it's validity

Uhuh, so your conclusion is that the Defence departement story is valid?
Where as mine is just assumption and blur?

Well why this double standard?

The troops did not invade a damn thing. They were acting upon "tips from concerned citizens and multiple intelligence sources".

AND YOU BELIVE THAT? Now who's assuming things? They invaded the entire country, they didn't invade a damn thing? I thought you had an analytical mind, that thought of all the possibilities. I guess that's only when the other side is reporting.

The photo of the Iraqi youths next to the Humvee does not support your claim in the least.

OH really? well you don't even have any photos to support your claim that the resistance is using people as human shields, full STOP.

Can you absolutely/positively answer either your question or mine concerning the actual situation surrounding this photo? NO!

Can you absolutely be possitive that the Defence link version of the event is accurate?
The photo concurs with the resistance version of the events, did you even bother to read THEM.

Are all of the Coalition, or as you put it occupying, troops BAD

ARE all the resistance fighters BAD?

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


I See You


In the story above, a US soldier shoots and wounds a child he can clearly see.

Another Shoots a man carrying a baby and running for his life in the back.

Yur best friend, puts a bullet through a mother and child.

and to top it all off, you invent these heinous story about human shields when it has been in fact YOU all along who have been using human shields. Just to cover up your war crimes.

Let me put this to you, if your best friend cares so deeply about iraqi people, why did he choose to shoot through the mother and child?

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

12m8keall2c

THe answer to your questions are simple. I would rather die than kill innocent civilians. That's because i'm not a coward.

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

DevilSwamp

Holding a child as a shield doesnt count as a hostage situation?

LEts examine the evidence your own soldier said he never saw the baby, all he saw was the back of a running man, and thats why he shot, not knowing the baby was ther. So no one was holding up a baby hostage.

He shot a man in the back as he was running away, which is by itself a cowardly act.

From the story, a man sees US soldiers come into the house, and shoot everyone around him, including a Child. He chooses not to fight back, the first thing he thinks of was to grab the baby and run.

The US soldier shoots him in the back killing them both.

Why didn't he shoot him in the leg atleast? Why would you shoot someone who is running away in a last desperate bid to save their baby?

Did you ever think of those two? Did you ever imagine him running , did you imagine that bullet as in entered both their bodies. For me, i feel as though time stopped at that momment.
As if in recognition of the shere horror of it. The injustice,

It seems to me the ones who fought back had a better chance at survival.

You asked what i would do in a similar situation, The Iraqi resistance has already been in that situation. As i have shown the US has used children as human shields.
All the iraqi resistance could do, was weep. And i weep with them, in memory of that man and the baby, i promice you, that i will never forget.



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

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
DevilSwamp

If your going to use personel insults go ahead, you only show your real colours..

Holding a child as a shield doesnt count as a hostage situation?

LEts examine the evidence your own soldier said he never saw the baby, all he saw was the back of a running man, and thats why he shot, not knowing the baby was ther. So no one was holding up a baby hostage.

Lets examine the 2 incidents shall we?
1 a terrorist used a human shield but the baby survived, this time another picked one up and was going to use it as a hostage.

He shot a man in the back as he was running away, which is by itself a cowardly act.

Oh really?
Since when was anything in war "honourable"?
Are those "brave" resistance snipers honourable?
Are those terrorists hideing in mosques honourable?

From the story, a man sees US soldiers come into the house, and shoot everyone around him, including a Child. He chooses not to fight back, the first thing he thinks of was to grab the baby and run.

Thats a nice theory, pity 0 evidence to prove it etheir way.

The US soldier shoots him in the back killing them both.

If a man had just shot at you , would you not shoot hi8m?
Or do you wait until he kills another one of your friends?

Why didn't he shoot him in the leg atleast?

You ever tried to hit a target from a decent distance with a standard assault rifle?
They are designed to hit the taret, not for marksmenship.

Why would you shoot someone who is running away in a last desperate bid to save their baby?

You nor I know he was trying to save the baby, if he wanted to save it he would have stayed and surrendered....
Also as the report says, he didnt see the child.

Did you ever think of those two? Did you ever imagine him running , did you imagine that bullet as in entered both their bodies. For me, i feel as though time stopped at that momment.
As if in recognition of the shere horror of it. The injustice,

The injustice? The horror of it?
Why dont you ask the child from the first attack? Or mabye why dont you imagine yourself defending your family and a man who has been killing your family runs away, would you stop him or let him get away and kill again?

It seems to me the ones who fought back had a better chance at survival.

Bs, those who surrender survive.

You asked what i would do in a similar situation, The Iraqi resistance has already been in that situation. As i have shown the US has used children as human shields.

No you showed isrealis, dont even TRY to say that Co-Alition forces use human shields and get your mind off the ANTI US fanaticism and back onto topic.
Its been in the situation where a US soldier holds a baby infront of him to defend himself?

All the iraqi resistance could do, was weep. And i weep with them, in memory of that man and the baby, i promice you, that i will never forget.

So it couldnt put down the baby?
It couldnt declare that human shields are wrong?
It couldnt say that it wouldnt hide amongst civilians?
We will never forget the tactics you use, even the IRA where not this bad...mabye this what seperates terrorists and savages...

from you: I See You


In the story above, a US soldier shoots and wounds a child he can clearly see.

Another Shoots a man carrying a baby and running for his life in the back.

Yur best friend, puts a bullet through a mother and child.

and to top it all off, you invent these heinous story about human shields when it has been in fact YOU all along who have been using human shields. Just to cover up your war crimes.

Let me put this to you, if your best friend cares so deeply about iraqi people, why did he choose to shoot through the mother and child?

First off this is Fact and True unlike all you speak of.
He shot through them to protect his life and the lives of his brothers in arms. He did the right thing and I would have done the same. Why should he sacrifice his life and his brothers because they are using people as human sheilds? Is his life not as important as the woman or childs? You think that men and women in the armed forces are bred killers. The killers are the pussies that use people for sheilds, and continue to kill their own people with bombs everyday. Their own people! F'n pussies. Their are rules of enganment and the pussies as I stated don't have to follow them.

If we were to pull out of Iraq right now do you think that the bombing of innocent iraqi civilians will cease? Hell no, they will continue to kill kill kill the innocent people because that is what those freaks do. I wish we would leave because the people of that country won't change. If they like to live in filth and death daily then so be it but it can be better for them if we can be allowed to help them and they help themselves.

Check out this link and tell me how US is aNy different.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 24-9-2005 by I See You]

[edit on 24-9-2005 by I See You]

SS:

AND YOU BELIVE THAT? Now who's assuming things? They invaded the entire country, they didn't invade a damn thing? I thought you had an analytical mind, that thought of all the possibilities. I guess that's only when the other side is reporting.

The topic at hand is that the troops were responding to tips by concerned citizens about the three "safe" houses in question. If you wish to bring up the whole invasion of the country issue there are more than enough threads already discussing that. Could you please attempt to constrain your responses to the issue addressed in the original post. As such, NO the troops did not invade anything. Once again, they were responding to tips by concerned citizens.

Read the story linked to in the original post and respond accordingly. Yea or nea . . . point out or address what you either agree with or disagree with. If you feel that paragraph one, line one is an incorrect representation, then say so and provide documentationor links to support your claims. Otherwise YES you are making assumptions and being speculative.

Whilst the topic may be comparing apples and oranges you, often times, want to brings grapes into the picture?! They're irrelevant to the discussion.

OH really? well you don't even have any photos to support your claim that the resistance is using people as human shields, full STOP.

And your photo of two Iraqi youths next to a humvee is absolute proof of your claims!? NOT!

ARE all the resistance fighters BAD?

Now who's answering a question with a question!? Neither I nor you can positively answer that, though it is known that many of your so-called resistance fighters are not even Iraqi citizens but actually foreigners who've come to take up arms against the coalition troops.

THe answer to your questions are simple. I would rather die than kill innocent civilians. That's because i'm not a coward.

Since when does defending one's own life make one a coward? [scenario] I have a gun pointed at my head with mere milliseconds to decide my response/reaction [/scenario] . . . the one holding that gun is definitely not an innocent civilian and if they choose to place said innocents between themselves and I so be it. You cannot control the actions of others no matter how heinous those actions may be. You can only control your own actions and in this case mine would be for self preservation, in other words I CHOOSE TO LIVE! If you choose otherwise, that is your right and I would not interfere with that right.

I will quote Father of Yassin al-Sammerai, second grade schoolboy that was Run over by an American Bradley IFV:

"You have killed the innocent and such things will lead the people to destroy you and the people will make a revolution against you. You said you had come to liberate us from the previous regime. But you are destroying our walls and doors."

And Destroying "Bridges" between Tribes and Nations.

From Independant.

You also Might want to see the REAL Face of Iraq War:

Iraq: The Unseen War

Images are Not Pretty...

Originally posted by Jakomo


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

I cant give an answer to your question as to why soldiers give Iraqi children sweets etc.

I can answer why my son gave the little girl things. He took pity on her, and the hardship she was having to endure. As i mentioned in the story, it brought a small bit of happiness to her. Even her parents were grateful that he took the time to be friendly with her.
My son didn't kill her. It was the sick minded individuals that did that.

I agree that you don't win hearts and minds by giving sweets to children, The comments you stated make a bit of sense, but if you have not been in that kind of situation, then i would find it very hard to comment as to what is right and wrong. But, as i have already stated, it brings some kind of happiness to them.
What is so wrong with that?

[edit on 24-9-2005 by Bikereddie]