Tim Blair

The 'Giant Beavers' are in Kabul right now ... well, at least 2RCR, whose "Collar Badge has the Canadian Beaver mounted on a scroll inscribed with The Regiment’s motto "Pro Patria" in relief. "Pro Patria" means ‘For Country’. "

Cheers

One must also point out that the shields truly believed the Americans would not kill them. They most certainly do not believe this of those currently setting bombs.

"One must also point out that the shields truly believed the Americans would not kill them. They most certainly do not believe this of those currently setting bombs."

Which goes to show just how gutless a choice liberalism is...

Faith Fippinger. Giant beaver.

I love that comment.

It exposes 2 things:

1) That the dozens of human shields who went to Iraq during the war were not brave and noble, but rather cold and calculating. Despite the fact that they would screech about America bombing Iraqi civilians, they knew that they weren't going to be targetted. If they went to Iraq today as human shields, they would make an excellent target for jihadists.

2) That they were not motivated by concern for Iraqis, but by anti-American rage.

Hell I didn't even know you had beaver in Australia. Hmmmm, guess I have to go to Australia on vacation and go on a beaver hunt. 'Cause nothing, and I mean nothing, tastes like fresh beaver.

"'Cause nothing, and I mean nothing, tastes like fresh beaver."

Tastes like tuna, er, chicken!

"One must also point out that the shields truly believed the Americans would not kill them." "

Yep, nice to see someone with trust in US targeting technology. The Brit forces should be so confident.

They most certainly do not believe this of those currently setting bombs."

Yep, another bunch of fanatics trying to scare off a different occupying power

"Which goes to show just how gutless a choice liberalism is..."

And this comment was "Dateline: Baghdad"?

"That they were not motivated by concern for Iraqis, but by anti-American rage."

Exactly.

I would have had respect for the 'shields', but not agreed with them, had they shown their willingness to be 'shields' protecting the Iraqis from everyone, especially Saddam. They were tools used by Saddam and didn't seem to care.

I'd like to see the 'shields' deploy themselves in various places around the globe to prove they really do care about people getting killed. They should go and protect both sides. The fact that they don't only reinforces my conviction their motivation is purely political, not humanitarian.

Perhaps they think people are stupid and don't see through their charade? Do they believe many people view them as great humanitarians? If so, they are very deluded.

Lily white westerners staked to humanitarian targets would lead to *more* humanitarian targets attacked by baathist and/or islamist guerillas.

Would this help the Iraqi people? Not at all. Would this help America achieve its objectives? Not at all. And there I thought the prowar camp was all growed up and pragmatic and outcome-oriented.

Did the Shields ever get their stinkin' old bus back from the Lebanese? What a comic bunch they were. I loved it when even the Iraqis didn't want that nitwit "ex marine" loudmouth bag of scum.

Best 'Shield' moment? Has to be the intrepid leader destroying his passport and replacing it with a home-made 'World Citizen' jobbie. Result- stinkin' old bus stopped & searched at almost every border in Europe and mucho entertainment for right-thinkers everywhere.

Giant Beaver?? Too many VB's for that person

The human shield movement could prove useful.

The movement could provide a good cover for any intelligence operatives we want to send in just before a war.

read this

"Would this help the Iraqi people? Not at all. Would this help America achieve its objectives? Not at all. And there I thought the prowar camp was all growed up and pragmatic and outcome-oriented"

I am not too sure you understand, Bliarsquad, we already know that the US will achieve the objective, its just a matter of time. We right wing death prowar beasts, just like seeing the hypocrasy of the "human shields" because it further proves that we were right to begin with.

Besides, it means that we can have another beer-a-thon each time one of the peurile fucks gets their head blown up or run over by a very slow moving dozer.

Cheers all and make mine a double.

"Would this help the Iraqi people? Not at all. Would this help America achieve its objectives? Not at all. And there I thought the prowar camp was all growed up and pragmatic and outcome-oriented"

I am not too sure you understand, Bliarsquad, we already know that the US will achieve the objective, its just a matter of time. We right wing death prowar beasts, just like seeing the hypocrasy of the "human shields" because it further proves that we were right to begin with.

Besides, it means that we can have another beer-a-thon each time one of the peurile fucks gets their head blown off or run over by a very slow moving dozer.

Cheers all and make mine a double.

Hey Todd,

How do you react when one of our lot gets their heads blown off? Beer-a-thon?

That Nemesis, surely depends on whether they were a complete screaming wanker who were for all intents and purposes supporting a vile left-wing totalitarian government. Otherwise, I would probably feel remorse for their families and them. Unfortunately, no country is immune from this type of repugnant creature, so them being "one of ours" as you so aptly put it, would not mitigate from me feeling the least sorry that they were no longer pushing their hate-filled agitprop.

Funny isn't it, I can still call a human shield 'one of ours' but the ABC couldn't do that with our own soldiers. Guess it isn't really, the left has always been a barren wasteland for morality and decency.

No, no, you don't understand. Surely the lesson is that Saddam's liberal, humane regime let the human shields in but the vicious American conquerors are keeping them out.

"Lily white westerners staked to humanitarian targets would lead to *more* humanitarian targets attacked by baathist and/or islamist guerillas."

Yes. The 'shields' know this and it's why they are hypocrites. They will only be a 'shield' when there is minimal chance of actually being used/needed as a 'shield'.

If they cared about anything other than their 'cause', like the people, they'd actually become 'shields' when the chance of being needed/used as one is very high.

Why pretend to be a 'shield' when a 'shield' isn't needed? Perhaps it makes them feel good, but they look pretty silly.

The assumption of the shields (right or wrong) is that their presence would make the US military LESS likely to bomb a given humanitarian target.

It is a fair assumption that the presence of the same white western human shields would make baathist/islamists MORE likely to bomb a given humanitarian target.

Is that such a challenging logic puzzle? knowingly acting to increase the chance a target would be attacked isn't in fact very "shield-like". It would provide no (admittedly pissweak) "shielding" to the target.

If they were to go in regardless I would understand you accusing them of grandstanding and hypocrisy. As it is you just sound shrill and whiny.

As for being hopeful that the "puerile fucks get their heads blown off", I thought it was only suicide terror cells that beat the meat over the idea of people 'on their own side' dying. I guess Todd bars up too.

Yes, bliarsquad, I get it: The Human shields are protecting targets by staying away. Too bad - they are robbing themselves of the chance to become powerful symbols in the global struggle against terrorism.

Of course, if they really agree that peaceful resistance is now pointless, they can always 'make a difference' by guarding humanitarian targets with a rifle.

I'm curious what it says about the baathists that they would bomb targets protected, in bliarsquad's opinion, by unarmed people who are trying to make the point that INNOCENT LIVES will be lost if they were to attack it.

It would appear that bliarsquad acknowledges, with no sense of irony, the idea that these people could care less about killing innocent folks---a trait that presumably also applied back when they were in charge.

One wonders where b-squad stood when it came to the idea of getting rid of the baathists in the first place?

"The assumption of the shields (right or wrong) is that their presence would make the US military LESS likely to bomb a given humanitarian target."

I've always considered this assumption, that the US bombs humanitarian targets on purpose, to be based in anti-Americanism. What I've never understood is why they assume, if we are so intent on bombing innocents, we'd care if they were there or not.

It wouldn't make a bit of difference to me if they were there or not, if I was pulling the trigger. Why should it bother anyone else? Why do they assume they're 'special' and an Iraqi is not? (Oh, I know ... because we're also supposed to be racists as well!!)

I'd be willing to bet good money your average soldier would care more about harming an innocent Iraqi than he would the 'shield' idiots. These people don't inhabit the real world if they believe just because they are Western it automatically makes what they 'guard' off limits.

They are legends in their own minds. What have they achieved beyond a few news stories and a source of amusement to many?

"One wonders where b-squad stood when it came to the idea of getting rid of the baathists in the first place?"

Hussein was a viscious c_nt and a criminal dictator who should never have been supported and armed by the US in the first place. He was a known quantity long ago. One wonders where Dean stood when it came to supporting the Baathists in the first place?

"What I've never understood is why they assume, if we are so intent on bombing innocents, we'd care if they were there or not."

Presumably their assumption is that the US news media, and public opinion, would take more interest in the death of one person from the US than it would of a dozen Iraqis.

You could come to have this assumption from watching any news service in any country in the world: 1 dead hometown person = 5 dead people from the next state = 10 dead people from the country next door = 500 dead people from a country we've only heard mentioned twice this decade. It demonstrates an appreciation of the priorities of the news media, rather than necessarily being anti-American.

B-squad:

Glad to see you didn't like Saddam. Now, what about his acolytes?

Evidently, B-squad, you didn't care enough to know that the US did NOT arm Iraq. That most of that arming was by the Soviets, followed by the Chinese and the French. Which might explain why all of Hussein's forces are armed with Soviet-type weapons, leavened with a few French systems.

As befits a conservative, I will answer your question that, as a student of realpolitik, I believed that in the 1980s, Iran was more of a threat than Iraq, and that the limited support the US did provide (primarily intelligence information) was worth it in order to keep the Iranians tied down.

As befits one who believes in American national interest, I would also answer that the collapse of the USSR shifted the fundamental underpinnings of what we HAD to accept, and that 9-11 shifted the parameters of what we WOULD accept.

C Josephson:

I think there is an assumption on the part of many of these shields that the US is fundamentally racist, and that while we would blithely bomb brown-, yellow-, or black-skinned folks, white Americans (and Europeans) are somehow off-limits. I'm sure there were probably some SS-troopers, Wehrmacht soldiers, Italian bersaglieri who might disagree w/ that, but what the hell.

Count on bliarsquad to spew the anti-American falsehoods:

"Hussein was a viscious c_nt and a criminal dictator who should never have been supported and armed by the US in the first place."

Hussein came to power and held on to power with no material assistance from the US at all. His primary supporters were the Soviets. US support amounted to some pretty incidential intelligence and whatnot when he was fighting the nutters in Iran.

However, even if bliarsquad were describing events in this dimension, how would that have any impact at all on the question of whether we should have gone in and kicked him out when and how we did?

Former Big Brother contestant Gordon Sloan last night said he was determined to stay on in Iraq as a human shield, despite some volunteers leaving.

"You find people are here for their own agendas but, if you are getting nervous now when there's no soldiers with their fingers on the triggers, I'm not sure why you came really," he said, referring to the departure of some British peace activists who, according to Britain's Daily Telegraph lasted seven days as human shields at a power station.

"So some British people got scared and went home," he said. "Some of those people had planned to leave anyway." He said the political situation in Baghdad was so relaxed it was "kinda like a Club Med war zone really".

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/03/1046540133376.html