Skins24 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030302-81084523.htm Anti-war 'shields' in Iraq go home By Philip Sherwell LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH BAGHDAD — Almost all the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home yesterday after deciding that their much-heralded task is now too dangerous. Two red double-decker buses, which symbolized the hopes of anti-war activists when they arrived to a fanfare of publicity two weeks ago, slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain, carrying most of the 11 protesters with them. Nine out of the 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials yesterday to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country. Two left immediately by taxi, and six more were on the buses last night, bound initially for Syria. Among those departing yesterday was 68-year-old Godfrey Meynell, who received an emotional farewell from workers at the Baghdad power plant where he has slept for the past week. Mr. Meynell, a former high sheriff of Derbyshire,said 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 organization that is officially host to the protesters, told the shields to choose between nine so-called "strategic sites" by today or leave the country. The Iraqi warning follows frustration among Saddam's officials that about 65 of the volunteers 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 that it stood next to an army base and the strategically crucial road south to Basra. Many shields had earlier asked to be stationed at sites such as schools, hospitals or orphanages, but Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding low-risk targets in any aerial assault. Iraq's decision to force the pace was welcomed by some of those remaining in Baghdad. "It's only fair," said Uzma Bashir, 32, a British college teacher 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." Pentagon officials have said that in the event of war the United States could not be deterred from attacking militarily significant sites by the presence of human shields. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday that the deliberate use of human shields by Iraqi officials would be grounds for war-crimes prosecution. (there was another article yesterday in the Times about the shields leaving. idiots should have known) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 They left because being a "human shield" was too dangerous? Did any of them know what being a human shield meant before they went? Idiocy! At least they got to see Baghdad while it was still standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 I'm suffering from ridicule overload! Somebody punch my Reset button. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Words fail me. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Im upset actually. I wish they had stayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Im upset actually. I wish they had stayed. No kidding, it would have been a service to humanity to remove those morons from the gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Since they wanted to "shield" hospitals, orphanages and schools, the implication is that these would be targets for us. This is the lunacy: that we would purposely target such places over legitimate military/political assests. Any American citizen doing this is attempting to hamper US military operations and is placing US soldiers in more danger. If they survive the war, they should be tried for treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 They will be. Lindsey Graham (Sen SC) has already stated he will initiated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 hmmmmm......it does appear that common sense won out over political conviction.....maybe there is hope.......something to build on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Blazers- some of the human shields were reportedly "shocked" to find that the civilian hospitals that they were shielding were direcly adjacent to . . . drumroll please . . . military bases. Coincidence? I think not. It would appear that the Iraqis already have a well-stocked inventory of human shields, thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Half the hospital roooms are probably packed with ammo. The sooner this guy is finished, the better. We've dragged our feet way too long with the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.