Terrorists Use Children as Shields; Child Dies in Firefight

Originally posted by koji_K
I could not disagree more. Because you can't see the child (or 10 children, or 100 children) this makes it better? Because you just have to press a button, and children die, this makes it better? At least the terrorist is openly accepting the brutality of war, instead of hiding behind technology and buzzwords like "shock and awe."

Killing innocents is wrong in any way or form, but if you openly try to protect your own life by putting a child in front of you to stop the bullet, then that is just pure down right cowardice. PERIOD. Now tell me that is the same as carpet bombing innocents? It isn't and never will be!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A terrorist openly accepting the brutality of War by putting a child in front of him to take the bullet? how is this accepting the brutality of War??????????

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Bikereddie]

[edit on 22-9-2005 by Bikereddie]

Originally posted by dgtempe
I AM very sorry your son had to endure this. My husband who was in VietNam was ORDERED to shoot a baby in its crib.

War is insanity.

Bloody hell.
I honestly dont know what to say to that, except that the poor guy has to live with that for the rest of his life.

I wont ask you all the whys and whats about it. The fact he had do it under orders must have been hard, real hard.

It's accepting the brutality of war because the terrorist is not lying to himself. No one who holds a child up to protect himself from bullets can tell himself that he was morally justified to do so. On the other hand, people who kill children from altitudes of 30,000 feet can easily tell themselves that they were morally justified to do so.

No, I don't think it's the same as carpet bombing innocents. I think carpet bombing innocents is worse, because more of them die. It may be easier to stomach the carpet bombing, but morally- it's worse.

Again, I think it's *easier* to carpet bomb, or tomahawk a neighbourhood. You don't have to ask the difficult question, "why would a human being do this thing?" Because the human being in question is anonymous, and so are the victims. I don't think it's somehow morally better.

BTW- I don't want you to think that I am some kind of inhuman monster. I believe I saw your story posted in another thread and it did bring a tear to my eye. Nothing can justify the killing of children, period, as far as I am concerned.

-koji K.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by koji_K]

~~

if you read further on
in the link you provided
you will find this Quizzical news blurb!

............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...

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

[.......]

let's see.
there was a firefight, the insurgent (supposedly) had a child hostage as a shield in front of him???

how could the bullet penetrate the insurgent first? if the child was his shield?
it would seem that the child was behind the person returning fire at the coalition forces...and that is how a single bullet first killed the insurgent and then killed the child.

isn't it amazing that forensic specialist were there at the firefight...
and made that accurate determination of "how it all went down"

just food for thought, mon ami

Originally posted by koji_K
It's accepting the brutality of war because the terrorist is not lying to himself. No one who holds a child up to protect himself from bullets can tell himself that he was morally justified to do so. On the other hand, people who kill children from altitudes of 30,000 feet can easily tell themselves that they were morally justified to do so.

No, I don't think it's the same as carpet bombing innocents. I think carpet bombing innocents is worse, because more of them die. It may be easier to stomach the carpet bombing, but morally- it's worse.

Again, I think it's *easier* to carpet bomb, or tomahawk a neighbourhood. You don't have to ask the difficult question, "why would a human being do this thing?" Because the human being in question is anonymous, and so are the victims. I don't think it's somehow morally better.

BTW- I don't want you to think that I am some kind of inhuman monster. I believe I saw your story posted in another thread and it did bring a tear to my eye. Nothing can justify the killing of children, period, as far as I am concerned.

-koji K.

[edit on 22-9-2005 by koji_K]

We can go on for ever discussing this issue, but as far as i am concerned, the holding of a child to protect you is total different than carpet bombing a mass of people.

The regrets the carpet bombers must have, must be indescribable. (check out the Enola Gay bomber's comments on google) but the fact still remains that these terrorist/insurgents/suspects/whatever, actually put a child's life before their own.

Could you do that? I certainly could'nt...........

Originally posted by St Udio
how could the bullet penetrate the insurgent first? if the child was his shield?

You are being to litteral, the mere act of holding a child in a firefight is using that child as a shield. They are not using the kids to defflect bullets like an actual shield, they are using them to deter being shot at in the first place. Please look a little deeper than the litteral.

Originally posted by St Udio
how could the bullet penetrate the insurgent first? if the child was his shield?
it would seem that the child was behind the person returning fire at the coalition forces...and that is how a single bullet first killed the insurgent and then killed the child.

A bullet that is shot at you and hits, can exit just about anywhere. If you are shot in the mouth, then the bullet can exit out through the stomach. Basically, the bullet ricochets off the bones in your body.

If the person holding the child was hit in the head first, then the bullet killed the child last, then it could have ricocheted through the mans body.

The fact still remains, why was he holding a child?

Well according to the majority here, I'm guessing that the Terrorist detailed in this story was actually not a terrorist, it was an American dressed up as a terrorist who then referred to himself as a freedom fighter before he picked up the child and then shot at his fellow Americans and sacrificed his life to the cause of oil. Then after the news story the child was reportedly not actually a child at all, but a american midget who was dressed as a child. Nothing to see here people...move along.

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by St Udio
how could the bullet penetrate the insurgent first? if the child was his shield?

You are being to litteral, the mere act of holding a child in a firefight is using that child as a shield. They are not using the kids to defflect bullets like an actual shield, they are using them to deter being shot at in the first place. Please look a little deeper than the litteral.

ahem... as the article discloses...
the coalition forces did not notice any child or 'hostage'...

now, IF the insurgent/terrorist/ or even a family member or relative
was actually using the child as a hostage or shield....[official version]

wouldn't the perp. go all out
to make the 'hostage-situation' known to those who were firing at him??? so as to have no bullets fired at him??

Or, perhaps,
the person tried to take the child out of the situation...

as he may have felt that it was only a short time until coalition forces would launch tank fire, mortars or RPGs on the 'safe house'
and thus kill everyone left behind in the building??

PS: I'll bow, and give the 'swami' salute (ala Johnny Carson) to you for the
"litter''al pun humor

How does one get ordered to shoot a baby in a crib? I mean, at which point does a "ping" go off in your head and say "Shoot a baby? In a crib? Um....how does NO sound?".

For me, it would be right after the order was issued. And if my refusal was not accepted, then the barrel of my gun would have to be levelled against the head of the commanding officer.

I would rather die or go to prison, than shoot a baby. And don't give me anything about not knowing what it is like in a warzone. Its a baby.

Did he actually carry out the order or what??

[edit on 22-9-2005 by cargo]

As human shields.

Yes terrorists are using children as human shields.

And unlike your story, i have photographs to prove mine. This was taken in fallujah.





You see the idea is that, the iraqies won't fire on their own people so the humvee is safe, no wonder that US brute looks so relaxed.

The resistance said, it broke their heart to see this, and couldn't do anything about it.

portland.indymedia.org...

US Forces Using Iraqi Children as Human Shields
author: IM
Resistance field commander saw American troops use women and children as human shields atop their tanks.
A field commander in the Iraqi Resistance disclosed to a correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam in al-Fallujah what he called the "tragedy of the street fighting" by which he meant the way that the invading American troops were using Iraqi women and children as human shields.

The commander said that the tragedy began last Tuesday. Before that he had never seen it before, where the Americans were using women and children to shield their tanks. The commander commented: "this state is living through a type of savagery that history has never known before."

The Resistance field commander said "we could hear the cries of the children and the women's calls for help from atop a column of tanks that was driving along ath-Tharthar street last Tuesday. Some of our fighters closed their eyes in pain and wept at the sight."

It also happend in Al Qaim.

American troops use Iraqi children as human shields.



As Iraqi Resistance attacks in the city of al-Qa’im on the border with Syria increase, American troops in the city have taken to using Iraqi children as human shields. As a result, local people are keeping their children home from school.



The correspondent of Mafkarat al-Islam in the city reported that every time American troops want to go on patrol in downtown al-Qa’im – something they are obliged to do by the orders they receive – the soldiers attract children to them using candy and presents. When the children approach to take the trinkets, the soldiers grab dozens of them and put them on the backs of their tanks and armored vehicles to prevent the Resistance from attacking them.

It's an israeli tactic, i suppose the US learns from their allies.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Mohammed Badwan, 13, was apparently grabbed by Israeli officers and tied by one arm to a screen covering the windshield of their armored vehicle. A photographer snapped a picture of the incident

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

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

Syrian Sister,

Your twisted propaganda has become so unreal that it no longer upsets me, just makes me laugh...thanks for the change

which side is propoganda?

Which side as images to support their claim.

Which side just shot a baby in a crib?

Skippy

I guess its this type of thing that seperates us from these terrorist savages.

how ironic.

your side are the terrorist savages.

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

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
As human shields.

Yes terrorists are using children as human shields.

And unlike your story, i have photographs to prove mine. This was taken in fallujah.

Man if those are human shields then they need to rethink it. I mean the guy on top is totaly uncovered. :shk:

More likely they are being held to be searched.

And based on evidence we have seen, the Bathist and Jihadist have no qualms about killing children or other Iraqi's so I doubt any sort of human shield would be effective there.

I returned from Iraq a few months ago. The Iraqi people were very pleasent. I can tell you this if I were ordered to shoot a child I would have defied that order. The insurgents in Iraq generally are not Iraqi's. The people of Iraq don't want them there anymore than I wanted to go. I would go back in a minute if I thought I could save one child.


Cowards, thats what people who use a child like that are. PERIOD. The terrorists are cowards.

The more an iraqi smiles at you, the more likely he or she is in the resistance.

Your own government admits it, 80% of the forces that are supposed to be Pro-US are actually resistance infiltrators. Isn't that right everybody, you are the people that posted that statistic.

The resistance is iraqi, out of the thousands of people in abugharib only 92 are non-iraqi. The only foreign fighters in iraq are the coallition.

"major general Lazem, said, “they are currently 7443 prisoners, suspects and convicted, including 92 of the Arabs and foreigners,

www.almendhar.com..."

And abu gharib is not just a sample space, abu gharib is 60% of the prisoners in iraq.


The iraqi people love the resistance, and i know because i have Iraqi relatives and they report to me all the time, ofcource they won't tell the enemy to that to their face or else they may be sent to abu gharib.

But the iraqi resistance could not exist without the support of the iraqi people, who provide logistics , food, shelter. INdeed no gorrilla army could exist without a support base.

By: Jackie Spinner, Washington Post Staff Writer on: 09.01.2005 [21:25 ] (724 reads)
Farhan Ali, 52, a shepherd from the village, said insurgents told him to clear out of the area on a busy dirt road from Abu Ghraib to Smailat because they had planted a bomb in a cardboard carton set to blow up next to the foot patrol.

"All the people in the area knew about it," he said. "The insurgents asked us to stay out of the road."

The incident, if accurate the way Ali described it, shows just how entrenched the insurgents are in local communities, where they target American forces in broad daylight and with multiple witnesses they apparently do not fear will turn them in.

"All of us were just watching," he said. "There were a bunch of kids standing away from the road expecting and watching to see an explosion."

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

IT's the american terrists who are using children

As human shields.

Yes terrorists are using children as human shields.

And unlike your story, i have photographs to prove mine. This was taken in fallujah.


You see the idea is that, the iraqies won't fire on their own people so the humvee is safe, no wonder that US brute looks so relaxed.

SS:

A fine example of a picture being worth a thousand words...

...but just what thousand words is it???

Is it the thousand words that support your view, yet are completely out of context with the actual story surrounding said picture?



From the photo you posted I could easily come to several conclusions . . .

1. Iraqi youth show appreciation through prayer and blessings for US troops and their efforts.

2. Iraqi youths detained by US troops.

3. [insert wild accusations here]

4. ???

Let's suppose that your depiction is accurate. It seems you're saying what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, huh?!

From what I can see the photo doesn't depict the scenario of an active gunfight/battle zone.

Unlike . . .

Iraqi fighters use women, children as human shields
Iraqi mujahedin are using women and children as human shields against American soldiers. They do this, of course, because they know that the Americans are scrupulous about civillian casualties. And if one of their human shields does get hit, of course, then the Left can claim that the U.S. is ruthlessly and callously targeting civilians. From the New York Post, with thanks to Ted Robertson:

April 19, 2004 -- Bloody fighting in Iraq over the weekend killed at least 10 U.S. soldiers, including five Marines slain in the first 90 minutes of a brutal battle with guerrillas on the Syrian border.

...Marine officials said the rebels were so desperate at one point during the fighting that they grabbed women and children to use as human shields around their gunners.

"We're trying to get the snipers in position for a shot . . . [But] some are using children to shield themselves!" one commander could be heard warning other officers via radio, according to Harris.

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

But I guess if it can be construed to support your views or fuel your fires, then so be it... whether it's a truthful depiction or not . . .


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

" I mean the guy on top is totaly uncovered."

He is relaxed and uncovered because he knows the resistance would never hit a truck with those iraqi boys on it. He probably considers those boys resistance fighters and figured the resistance wouldn't shoot their own comrades. I know that in fallujah, the US troops shot anything that moved, and any boy over the age of 10 years old, was considered a resistance fighter.

But the fact is, the resistance would never hurt their own families, the iraqi people, the very people they are fighting for.

All the civilian deaths caused by boming where psy-ops done, they have ben caught in the act recently www.abovetopsecret.com... .

You Said:
"More likely they are being held to be searched."

Then answer me this.

What where they being searched for? Weapons? if they had weapons wouldn't that soldier atleast LOOK at them, and not turn away as if they are absolutely no threat?

If they may have weapons then why isn't he even looking at them? He looks really relaxed.

Why does it look as though they have been there for a long time? You yourselves say they are waiting to be searched. They look like they have been waiting for hours. Why would someone WAIT to search something that may be threatening? WOuldn't they hold them down and search them first minute they grab them?

No one is holding them down, their heads are slumped and submissive.

It looks like someone said to them, you move, and we'll shoot you.

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

SO your saying those boys are worshiping your troops ay?

Shows how much respect you have for the religion of those you are supposedly "liberating".

YOu expose what you are.

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.

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

Then why is that baby shot?

You know what i think, i think your gunho trigger happy troops opened fire, and wounded a baby, and then they made up this crazy story just to lay the blame elsewhere.

YOu shoot at civlians all the time.

www.kirkbytimes.co.uk...

Ali al-Khatib, 18 March 2004, al-Arabiya TV channel journalist in Iraq; shot dead by US troops in central Baghdad. His colleague Ali Abdul Aziz, a cameraman with the same station, was shot dead in the incident, which occurred near the Burj al-Hayat hotel in central Baghdad, the target of a rocket attack Thursday night. "My brother had asked US forces if they could film the Burj al-Hayat hotel and they told him it was fine. Moments later, a Volvo did not stop at the checkpoint and the soldiers opened fire," said the cameraman's brother Haidar Abdel Aziz. "My brother and his colleague wanted to leave, they ran to their car and an armoured vehicle opened fire on them." Both Abdul Aziz and Khatib were Iraqi nationals. RIP.

SO your saying those boys are worshiping your troops ay?

I said nothing of the sort . . . I simply proposed the plausibility of alternative depictions of the photo you posted.
(i.e. the possibility that Iraqi youth could show appreciation through prayer and blessings for US troops and their efforts)
How this equates to "worshipping" is a good example, once again, of your desire to paint a picture to best suit your views.

As for the baby incident [from the VietNam war mind you] . . . that was simply a reference made by another member citing atrocities of war.

YOu shoot at civlians all the time.

Now that is an absolutely assinine comment which is completely void of foundation.

IMO comments such as this clearly demonstrate an extremely narrow-minded and fanatically biased view.

You know what i think, i think your gunho trigger happy troops opened fire, and wounded a baby, and then they made up this crazy story just to lay the blame elsewhere.

Again, nothing but total conjecture.

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

Then why is that baby shot?

uhmmm.

quote:
............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...

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

Guess you missed that . . .

When considering the following photo:


It wouldn't surprise me in the least for you to twist it around, so as to show the troops do so knowing that harm may come to the children for accepting gifts from the infidels.

NO, I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth, but you sure do have a way of painting a given picture/situation to support your views.

I'm guessing your color palette has a VERY limited selection.


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