Human shields leaving Iraq because it's "unsafe"

[Guest MD2020]

Some British "human Shields" Flee Iraq, Cite Safety Fears

The Associated Press

Published: Mar 2, 2003

 

 

 

 

LONDON (AP) - Some of the peace activists who went to Iraq to serve as human shields in the event of war returned home, fearing for their safety, a spokesman said Sunday.

The human shields are mostly European activists who drove from London to Baghdad in two double-decker buses last month, intending to guard civilian sites from a U.S.-led military attack.

 

Those who returned home had safety or financial concerns, spokesman Christiaan Briggs said.

 

"The aim was always a mass migration and if we had had five to ten thousand people here there would never be a war," he said. "We do not have those numbers."

 

The Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported that nine of the 11 British human shields in the bus convoy had left Baghdad. Briggs said about a dozen Britons remained in Iraq alongside several dozens from other countries.

 

He told Britain's Press Association news agency that Iraq limited the sites that human shields could visit. "Now we are being told we cannot go to certain sites, such as hospitals, so we are reassessing our strategy," he said.

 

U.S. officials have said that it is a war crime to use civilians as human shields and that there's no way of guaranteeing their safety.

 

On Friday, the head of Sweden's largest peace organization urged human shields to leave Iraq, saying they were being used for propaganda purposes by Saddam Hussein.

 

Maria Ermanno, chairwoman of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, cited reports that Iraqi officials were arranging transportation, accommodations and news conferences for the human shields.

 

"To go down to Iraq and live and act there on the regime's expense, then you're supporting a terrible dictator. I think that method is entirely wrong," Ermanno told Swedish Radio.

 

AP-ES-03-02-03 1131EST

 

and

 

Human shield Britons quit Baghdad

By Charlotte Edwardes in Baghdad

(Filed: 02/03/2003)

 

 

Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home last night after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous.

 

 

Godfrey Meynell [centre] with other human shields at Baghdad South power station

Two red double-decker buses, which symbolised the hopes of anti-war activists when they arrived to a fanfare of publicity a fortnight ago, slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain.

 

Nine of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country. Among those departing last night was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, a former High Sheriff of Derbyshire, who admitted that he was leaving out of "cold fear". He had been summoned, along with 200 other shields from all over the world, to a meeting at a Baghdad hotel yesterday morning.

 

Abdul Hashimi, the head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organisation that is hosting the protesters, told the shields to choose between nine so-called "strategic sites" by today or quit the country.

 

The Iraqi warning follows frustration among Saddam Hussein's officials that only about 65 of the shields had so far agreed to take up positions at the oil refineries, power plants and water-purification sites selected by their hosts.

 

It heightened fears among some peace activists that they could be stationed at non-civilian sites. Mr Meynell and fellow protesters who moved into the power station in south Baghdad last weekend were dismayed to find it stood immediately next to an army base and the strategically crucial main road south to Basra. Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding what they considered to be low-risk targets.

 

Iraq's decision to force the pace was welcomed by some of the 20 Britons remaining in Baghdad. "It's only fair," said Uzma Bashir, 32, a college lecturer who is one of the team leaders.

 

"We've come here as shields to defend sites and now the Iraqis are asking us to make our choice

 

A couple articles I found over the weekend. One's from the AP, the other from the Telegraph.

 

Thoughts??

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

I was thinking of posting a subject like this myself -- strange.

 

I laughed when I read it. Reminds me of that M*A*S*H* episode when a general shouts out (Paraphrase) "I agreed to do this press conference. The last thing I wanted to do is answer a bunch of questions!"

 

Who thought there would be any danger in becoming a human shield? It is too bad Iraqi soldiers didn’t capture those people and hold them hostage. (Of course it would have been Tony Blair's fault) I would have howled for days...

[cawthon777 0]

I was under the impression some Americans were in that group as well, might be wrong.

 

What's the first word that comes to mind when I think of these people? Morons. But that doesn't do them justice - they're much more dumb than the typical moron.

[Guest Mad Dog]

I think these people are on PETA levels of stupidity.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Pussies.

 

I have worlds more respect for the ones that are willing to stay and get blown up than the chickenshits that claimed they were soooo altruistic, then tucked tail and ran before the bombs started dropping.

 

They're still fucking retards, but at least they've got some balls.

[cawthon777 0]

And as we all know, if it weren't for retards with balls then 'Fear Factor' would never have contestants.

[Guest Some Guy]

Nine of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country.

 

To me that means that the Iraqis know what the rest of the world refuses to admit. AMERICA DOES NOT INTENTIONALLY BOMB CIVILLIANS!!!!!!!! We don't just drop bombs at random anymore. We are amongst teh only countries who even make an attempt not to kill civillians.

 

These "human shield" retards are just fucking stupid.

[Guest phoenixrising]

Good that they're leaving. That is pretty funny though. "Too dangerous?" Yes, I know it is foreign to these human shields, but the term shield implies being a barrier, and human means that barrier would be human - in other words, them. What, did they think sitting outside a restaurant would deter any kind of attack? And of course Saddam wants them near military targets. Those are the targets that are going to get hit. Then he can point to bodies in the street and say America is deliberately targeting civilians.

 

One of the reasons smart bombs were developed was in order to reduce civilian casualties. Instead of plastering a city with bombs dropped from massed bomber formations like in WWII, now it is possible to send in a couple fighters with PGM's (precision guided munitions) to hit targets with pinpoint accuracy. That way there isn't the need to drop bombs indiscriminately all over a city. Sure, PGM's don't always work, and there will be civilian casualties in any attack on Baghdad because of faulty guidance systems, debris, etc., but the United States does not go out of its way to blast civilian targets.

[Guest hardyz1]

It's a shame they couldn't stay and die.

[Guest Silence]

Saddam does a good enough job of using his own people for human shields. These dimwits from England and such did not need to take a trip to Iraq.

It's just plain stupid.