Talk:Human shield action to Iraq

INTERNATIONAL LEFTISM IS GO
This piece is biased in favor of International Leftism. 24.4.63.233 23:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)I've now added extensive citations, external links, see also and categories. —Christiaan 13:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, this page conveniently left out this article, written by a human shield on the ground. I think this should be added to the external links section. -sbf2009 (sb2009@hotmail.com) 19:05, 2 September 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.30.208 (talk)

This article seems to be very biased in favour of the human shields and appears to have been written by one of them. However there is a criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.190.122 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1 May 2006 changes
'''Broke the article into sections for easier navigation & reading. Most of my edits were: - re-organization, - spelling/grammar, and - added a small or moderate amount of info, as opposed to editing the actual *meaning* of what was already written in 99% of the cases... but have a look at the article, and old vs. new versions if you were a past contributor.'''

Most notable things (quick guide for past contributors): 1. edited and moved a sentence re: Geneva Conventions. In the paragraph: "Eventually volunteers deployed to Al Daura Electrical Plant, Baghdad South Electrical Plant, 7th April Water Treatment Plant, Al Daura Water Treatment Plant, Tejio Food Silo, Al Daura Oil Refinery and Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility. [7] All these sites were targeted and bombed in the 1991 Gulf War. 'Articles 52 and 54 of the Geneva Conventions forbid attacking...' " 2. You'll probably notice any info which I added, or if you don't, then go do a 'history' to compare new vs. old. 3. Aside from the sentence about GC's, above, I didn't move any sentences *significantly* far from where they originally were. I haven't deleted any entire sentences nor links, so don't worry if you see part of your contribution "missing": I just moved it, so keep reading until you find it. I've only deleted a few words at a time, usually to condense the wordiness of one poster (or at least what appears to be one individual's writing style).
 * This reference to the Geneva Conventions is analysis, which interrupts the simple chronology of the first few paragraphs, so I moved it to the section where the rest of the analysis is (including *other* analysis of the GC’s).
 * I also expanded the sentence to reflect what Articles 52 and 54 actually say on the UN’s webpage: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm (which I linked to from section "10.3" at UN.ORG: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp210.htm), and added the counter-point of Art. 51.

Other stuff: - I needed to correct a ref that was placed on the wrong sentence (the reference supported only what was in a different sentence). - Also, if anyone thinks my first sentence is as hencky as I do, please re-word it and/or add more to that 'general info' section at the top of the page. (It was the last thing I did and I was too tired to do any better.) - Other things are far from complete. e.g. citations: I've noted some spots where we need citations, and I'm sure I didn't even do a very complete job.

Seems the following was a legacy from the contributor(s) who Christiaan called "international leftism," since the article seemed pretty balanced when I got it, aside from hard-to-notice factual errors such as: - "over 80" shields in Baghdad was written into the article, but the writer’s own source, Z-mag, doesn't support that. Z-mag said the number was exactly 80 shields, not "over 80".

--J.Robb

Warning of bombing telecommunications facility
I've moved the part in italics here for discussion:

Of all the sites only one was eventually bombed—the Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility—a day after the human shields pulled out of it, after the coalition took care to warn them through the media that communication facilities were a legitimate military target.

Silverback can you provide a source for this warning? Can you also provide a source backing up the claim that the Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility was a legitimate target in regard to Protocol 1, Article 52 of the Geneva Conventions —Christiaan 22:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Mr Sloan, who quit as a Sydney architect to join the shield, said members were spread over six sites, which he described as "UN-endorsed", but some "Italian subversives" had insisted on placing themselves at a Baghdad communications site that almost certainly would be a target."  This testifies that the shields knew that communications facilities would be targeted.  Any search on google for "Iraq communications target" will turn up a lot of reports in the press from defense briefings on what would be targeted.  BTW, also of interest is this report of Saddam's appreciation of human shields, voluntary or not. . --Silverback 07:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not a source for the invading force "... took care to warn them through the media ..." This is only a source for "Paul McGeough of The Age considered that it almost certainly would be a target."


 * You also haven't provided a source backing up the claim that the Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility was a legitimate target in regard to Protocol 1, Article 52 of the Geneva Conventions. —Christiaan 15:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that the public pronouncements of the coalition officials qualify as the invading force using the media, did you have some more technical definition of "invading force"?  I am not the one claiming that it wasn't a legitimate target.  However, I am willing to job the "legitimate" and leave it as just "target" or "intended target".  Based on the Sloan statement, the shields were obviously aware that the communications facility was in a different catorgory than the other sites and was far more likely to be targeted, what ever the "legality".--Silverback 16:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, Gordon may have said they were UN endorsed, but this was not in any official capacity; it was based on an informal meeting on an anonymous basis, for obvious reasons. The telecommunications site was a part of this endorsement. You'll notice earlier in the paragraph it states, 'Sloan ... said members were spread over six sites.' The telecommunications site was the seventh site. When he says some "subversives" had insisted on placing themselves there he is alluding to a situation whereby he, as the person in charge of vetting the sites, along with others, had concluded that the shields were too spread out and needed to consolidate under six sites. He is being taken cleverly out of context—not an abnormal event—in that it is implied that the telecommunications site was not one of the sites we had decided to protect, when in fact it was simply that a decision had been made to consolidate and some people had decided to ignore this.


 * Your statement that the invading force "... took care to warn them through the media ..." (my emphasis) implies that they actually tried to warn the human shields, by name, that they were going to bomb telecommunications facilities. This simply isn't the case. And it certainly isn't the case that the remaining human shields at Al Mamun Telecommunications Facility left on the basis that they thought it was about to be bombed. They left because they eventually agreed to the earlier decision.
 * —Christiaan 17:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The "almost certainly would be a target" does not seem like a "spread out" issue. Is this misquotation out of context issue properly quoted anyplace?  I think it is OK for shields to go someplace that is targeted if they want to, however, the DOD site I referenced above argues that they may lose civilian status in some instances.  On the issue of legitimacy of communications facilities as targets, search this document for "civilian communications. .  It doesn't discuss the particular Geneva protocol you mention, but appears to be discussing general principles.--Silverback 18:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's take a closer look at Art 52, #2, which says, "...military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage." That has always included communications.  It has never not included communications.


 * Says who? Cite your sources please. —Christiaan 08:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Read my excerpt again and consider whether a communications facility "offers a definite military advantage.". Past examples would include every previous war since U.S. Civil War (and later Apache) attacks on telegraph lines.  This isn't a questionable "dual use" strategic asset like a water treatment plant that may also have a strategic value.  At best, the loss of a communications facility weighs far more heavily on the enemy military than civilian population.  To fail to target such facilities would risk prolonging a war without sufficient justification.  Randy 17:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know who you are and I'm not all that interested in your opinion on the matter. Please cite sources that could be quoted. —Christiaan 22:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't an opinion that communications is a military target. I thought that was self-evident.  If you really doubt that then ask yourself why they spend millions on jamming and e-bomb research.
 * It might also be worth thinking about the source for the statement that this was in "contravention of the Geneva Conventions." I can't find anything saying that Amnesty thought it was, and even that would only be their opinion until it was settled in court.
 * You could argue that a warning should have been given, but that would be an opinion too.
 * Randy 00:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's good point, I'll have a hunt around. In the mean time I've adjusted that passage. —Christiaan 08:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any proof this way either: "most in clear contravention of the Geneva Conventions"


 * As Silverback said, the protections of Geneva are lost when the civilian status of a site is compromised. I'll add that the Saddam regime was so notorious for its acts of perfidy that it's unlikely that the bombing of any of those sites was in contravention of Geneva.  The U.S. military has lawyers who vet those sites, and the critics are quick to document transgressions, even slanderous claims like this one may be.  If any group claims a violation then you should identify who that is.  It would be educational to know whether they filed formal charges.  Like I said, I can't find anything from Amnesty, but you might have better luck.
 * Randy 20:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about. What do you mean by "compromised"? Is this a word in the Geneva Conventions? —Christiaan 21:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * By "compromised" I meant that when an area is used for military purposes then it is no longer considered a civilian one. Building a school on a missile site doesn't mean that the missile site becomes protected.  And moving artillery into a water treatment plant turns that into a military site.  Saddam did that kind of thing a lot. -- Randy 02:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And what's this got to do with the sites the human shields were stationed at? Saddam did that kind of thing a lot did he? Who told you that, Mr. Bush? —Christiaan 03:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The defense department briefings already cited above document that Saddam used unwitting proximity shields a lot, by positioning military targets in civilian areas, next to mosques and next to archeological sites. The communication facility that the shields knew was a likely target was a dual use facility of the kind which is also discussed in the documents, telephone switching facilities like roads and bridges can serve both military and civilian purposes.--Silverback 05:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is even an external link to a CIA report on this. Part of it shows where he installed military facilities adjacent to schools and cultural sites.  He did that kind of thing a lot. -- Randy 05:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I couldn't give a flying rats arse what the Propaganda Division of the U.S. Defense Department or the CIA have to say Saddam. It's certainly not related to the sites the shields were stationed at. In regard to the communications facility the article has obviously been modified. In regard to how Silverback "knows" that the shields "probably knew" I'll never know, so I've modifed his edit. —Christiaan 11:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And who are you the propaganda division for? It's interesting that you'd take Saddam Hussein at his word but not Bush, nor even CNN, and it's especially funny when we consider that the subject is about Saddam's use of human shields.  That's really beside the point but it illustrates the absurdity here.


 * Let's keep in mind that you were quick to insist on documentation for any statements you disagree with. It's hard to say anything about the alleged "clear contravention of the Geneva Conventions" because we haven't seen any official or reliable NGO documentation.  All we have is the word Saddam Hussein, and of advocates who have clearly taken sides.


 * Regardless of how you feel about Saddam or Bush, the onus still on you. If there were no military facilities at the sites that were bombed then it should have been reported to the UN, Amnesty and HRW.  If you can't find anything then grant the same benefit of the doubt that you did for Saddam.


 * There is one reason to leave it as is. Anyone who reads this article will instantly know that it's biased.  Some will come away from it nodding, and the rest will be laughing.


 * Randy 23:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * As per usual of your elk all you can do is fall back on straw man arguments; at no point have I "taken Saddam's word" for anything. CNN, Bush, Saddam, they're all the last I would trust when it comes to political information. You maybe happy to trust others simply because they have power but I'm afraid I'm not. There is no onus to prove a negative. If you'd read the the Geneva Conventions you'd know full well that bombing those sites is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and if you knew your military history you'd know that there's no effort by the U.S. to deny that they bombed electrical plants and the like. I suggest you have a read of Victor's justice to gain a little understanding of why some nations get prosecuted for international crimes while others don't. —Christiaan 00:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no "clear violation" when a site has military facilities, or can be used for a military purpose. Victor's justice doesn't apply here.  Amnesty and HRW are quick to blame the U.S. for any deviation, even when it's not deserved.


 * I am not asking you to prove a negative. It is you who is asking us to disprove a fantasy.  The alleged U.S. attacks on those facilities happened in 1991, and the only information I see on it is from your sources.  There's every reason to believe that it was compiled by Saddam Hussein's government.  They appear to be the ones who chose the sites.  While I can believe that these sites were indeed bombed in 1991 (and perhaps a few in 1998), it is not likely that it was without a military objective.


 * But I'll leave it up to you. Most of the people who read this article will recognize it as propaganda.  Republicans will show it to their friends and have a good laugh over it.
 * Randy 16:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the Geneva Conventions before rattling off something one of your Neocon buddies told you. I also suggest you take your star spangled blindfold off and wake up to the realities of war and especially the realities of war forged by the U.S. government and its allied corporations.


 * Being a "military objective" does not legitimise the bombing of infrastructure indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Article 52 states "Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals ... Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives ... In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used." And we all know how useless U.S. "intelligence" is. But even, in your world of fantasy, even if Iraq's electrical and water plants did have military facilities Article 54 specifically prohibits attacks on "drinking water installations…for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population…whatever the motive…"


 * Try as much as you like to sooth your conscience by pretending that sites critical to human survival were bombed because they "had military facilities". Unlike yourself and the psychopathic Chickenhawk ideologues that have wrested control of the U.S. at least some in the U.S. military machine openly admit the real reasons for bombing such sites. Richard D. Davis, of the Air Force History Support Office explains, in an Airforce Doctrine Document that, "The electrical attacks proved extremely effective ... The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River. It further disrupted the commercially dependent Kari system, forcing its defenders to resort to backup generators. Fluctuating output, the air planners knew, would play hob [cause mischief] with sensitive electronic equipment and computers. The loss of electricity further hampered daily government functions and literally put Iraq’s leaders “in the dark.” In the following week, Tomahawk land attack missiles and coalition aircraft reduced every major city in Iraq to the same unhappy situation."


 * What lovely people.


 * And the Air Force is well aware of the devastating health effects of destroying Iraq's electrical system. The May 2001 Contributor's Corner of the U.S. Air Force’s Air and Space Power Chronicles, p. 1, par. 2, says: "A key example of such dual-use targeting was the destruction of Iraqi electrical power facilities in Desert Storm…destruction of these facilities shut down water purification and sewage plants. As a result, epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, lead to perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian deaths and a doubling of the infant mortality rate."


 * You see, the problem with the world according to the U.S. is that the ends justifies any means because the sun shines out of its ass and it has some kind of calling from god to help bring about apocalyptic rapture.


 * Torture and prison abuse doesn't even scratch the surface of U.S. war crimes, not even recent ones. It's no wonder the Bush admin asked the UN Security Council for another year extension on its war crimes exemption for peace-keepers. A closer inspection could send Bush Jr., Bush Sr., not to mention Bill Clinton, straight to the courtroom docks. And it's no wonder Bush sought to insulate his administration from ICC prosecutions when he took the step of trying to remove the United States' signature from the Court's treaty.


 * At least 375 tons of depleted uranium weaponry dumped on Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, despite foreknowledge its radioactivity would make food and water in the bombed regions unsafe for consumption on an indefinite basis, the same in Afghanistan... another violation of the Geneva Conventions. Article 35 prohibits the employment of weapons "of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Cluster bombs fall into this category too. But, you see, you only need not be psychopathic to realise that you don't need written laws to know that this sort of thing is just wrong.


 * Bill Clinton, far from heeding the dangers of radioactive weaponry, contributed to the estimated 11 tons of depleted uranium weaponry used by NATO forces in the 1999 Balkan conflict. He also strongly supported the brutal economic sanctions against Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And do you remember what Madeleine Albright in 1996, then the US secretary of state, had to say about this fact when she was asked on national television? She replied that it was 'a very hard choice,' but that, all things considered, 'we think the price is worth it.'


 * But hey, it's all for a good cause ay? Remember that infamous remark by a soldier after a U.S. attack which killed a bunch of Vietnamese civilians in Vietnam? "We had to destroy the village to save it." What lovely people.


 * —Christiaan 01:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My Reply to that is the Iraq War is comparable to the Civil War not Vietnam. Everyone in Iraq were slaves of Saddam and his cronies. Just like dutring Reconstruction, you have no reward for removing a horrid dicatator, you have Democrats and other Liberals demanding you pull out of the war zone, you have terrorist groups running around (unless you don't call the KKK terrorists), people being killed for voting, complete chaos, and the American National Guard trying to keep the peace.

--69.234.213.189 16:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Someone who realizes history repeats itself.

I did not write "probably knew", I wrote "knew it was a probable target", and the source is the Sloan quote we've already discussed. How could you forget? Do you still think it was a misquote? Do you have a citation for the "correct" version?--Silverback 03:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You would have to make a number of assumptions to come to the conclusion you have from Sloan's statements Silverback. I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on. Sloan is not quoted calling them a probable target, the journalist makes that comment. I responded to explain what the situation was not for the article but for your personal information. —Christiaan 08:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Christiaan,
 * I didn't really want to get into a long message war over this but you've written such a long post that I feel I'd better respond. I appreciate your going through the trouble of looking this up.  Those sources may even help round out some details elsewhere.  Unfortunately for you, it doesn't make your case as much as it makes mine.


 * First of all, look at this excerpt from your own source #6:
 * "Several aspects of the Geneva Conventions require comment. One is the use of the word 'willful' in regards to killing or causing suffering. In order to violate this article, one must deliberately intend to kill or cause suffering to civilians. In other words, if one really intends to destroy a military target that resides in an urban area, and civilians happen to die or be hurt as a result of poor aiming, mistaken target coordinates, inaccurate bombs, etc., this isn’t technically a violation as it isn’t a willful attack upon the civilians. If the destruction is avoidable however, presumably through better weapon selection, tactics, etc., then the commander could still be held liable under Article 2 of the 1907 Hague Conventions (see above)." 6


 * That paragraph was in response to the "dual-use" issue. Note that you've cited Article 54, "for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population".  So yes, we would be in violation of the Geneva Conventions if the only reason we attacked a site was to harm the civilian population.  On the other hand, if we attacked a site because it would hurt the Saddam regime's military or government, then that could be allowable (depending on the other factors they've mentioned) even if it hurts civilians too.


 * You seem to be thinking that if a site is useful for both military and civilians then that site should be immune from destruction. You'd better understand that the people who wrote the Conventions did so with guidance from their militaries, and they'd never have allowed it the way you think.


 * This document is also relevant to my position in another way. It shows very clearly that the U.S. military is formulating tactics and rules of engagement with respect to international law.  I've said previously that the military has lawyers vetting the target sites.  Just look at the caption of the first section:  "International Law and Dual-Use Targets."  Your source confirms my view.


 * Randy 04:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, it looks like you still haven't read the Conventions. For one so keen to argue about them you'd think you would have at least read the relevant sections. In fact Article 54 goes on to to say "the civilian population or to the adverse Party". I think it's you that "better understand". As my sources indicate the U.S. military was well aware they were denying both civilians and the adverse Party the sustenance value of these infrastructures. But wait, there's more. It then goes on to say "that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement." Please, stop making a fool of yourself and read the Conventions. You know it never ceases to amaze me to what lengths people like yourself will go to to justify the crimes of their masters. What you don't seem to be aware of is that such people belong to a long political lineage of German, Russian, Israeli and British apologists, and many more. What a nice club to belong to. —Christiaan 08:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many of the attacks on civilian infrastructure in the UN/Iraq gulf war and the Nato/Serbia wars were war crimes, water and power systems are not legitimate targets, well possibly the power systems are, but an attempt must be made to minimize the damage, such as cutting the power lines and not destroying infrastructure that will take years to repair and replace. Fortunately, W waged a much more legal war actually exceeding Geneva requirements, with violations being isolated unauthorized incidents. The telecommunications facility was a legitimate target. It is obvious that once military lines are taken out, civilian communications will be used if available. Significant measures were taken, not only to preserve civilian infrastructure, but to prevent Saddam's regime from destroying it, and even to avoid conflict if possible with the regular conscript Iraqi army. Cluster bombs were only used against the entrenched Republican Guard units and not against civilian centers.--Silverback 09:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Article 54 goes on to say, "3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party: ... (b) if not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."


 * This is clarified in the commentary for Article 54:
 * 2105 Even if the wording is not perfect, the meaning is clear: the objects indicated must be respected in order to guarantee the survival of the population, unless -- following paragraphs 3 and 5 -- military necessity requires that they be attacked, destroyed, removed or rendered useless. On this subject the examples given by the Rapporteur are meaningful. (15) The restrictions laid down in Article 57 ' (Precautions in attack) ' must of course be respected.


 * The document leaves room to claim that the U.S. bombings were against the Conventions, but it also leaves room to say they were legal. I don't know what the "military necessity" was, and neither do you.  Nor do we know that the amount of damage caused by those particular attacks is what led to any of the post-war civilian deaths.


 * Let's not forget that we still don't have the full story on these specific targets. We only see one side at this point, and it's a side I believe was crafted by Saddam's propaganda goons.  That's why I'd prefer to see something from Amnesty or HRW even if they're also hostile to the U.S.  The rationale for those attacks could be completely different than what I'm thinking, but those who really know had packed up their notes and moved on to other business years ago.  They're not here to defend against these charges.


 * Randy 16:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV notice
The following sentence (or a close variant) has been removed from the article by at least 4 different editors, who state that it's speculative, thus part of a political essay and not encyclopedic. Each time it has been reverted by a single editor who apparently was also part of the human shield action. The "conclusion" in question:


 * Had the human shield action not taken place, and had the world not had such a laser focus on Iraq at the time of invasion, the U.S. government might have attacked civilian infrastructure as they did in 1991.

Any objective person should see that this "summation" amounts to self-serving speculation. If we're going to enter to realm of speculation for a conclusion, what about balancing out the bias with this addition:


 * However, it is also possible that the presence of American and British "human shield" collaborators with Saddam's oppressive regime emboldened the subsequent insurgency, causing the deaths of many more civilians than would have otherwise occurred.

As long as we're indulging in editorial speculation, we might as well entertain more than one view, n'est-ce pas? --Kevin Myers 00:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

All attempts at neutralizing this are once again being frustrated, so I've replaced the NPOV. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You've gotta be kidding? You seriously think your edits were attempts at neutralising? I mean just read one of your attempted changes:
 * ''It is difficult to say whether the human shield action to Iraq stopped the U.S. government from bombing civilian infrastructure as they did in 1991.
 * to:
 * ''Though the planners of the action would like to think the human shield action to Iraq stopped the U.S. government from bombing civilian infrastructure as they did in 1991, there is no evidence it had any significant effects.
 * This is an example of introducing POV, not neutralising it. —Christiaan 22:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it attributes the "difficulty" to those who are having it. - Nunh-huh 22:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It does nothing of the sort. And not only does it add a POV about what the human shields might be thinking but it also introduces original research by stating that there is no evidence of any effect. It's just really bad editing. —Christiaan 22:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As it is, the article is a propaganda piece over which you, directly involved in the subject of the article, are standing guard. The article is unlikely to become balanced as long as you remain so poised. - Nunh-huh 22:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm standing guard all right. With U.S. government lackeys like TDC around there is no other option. This article was laughable before I got involved in it. —Christiaan 22:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The other option would be to work out a version you and TDC could agree on. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No I don't believe that is an option; TDC is not here to collaborate, he's here to push the U.S. government line. In his own words on my talk page, "I am going to laugh as I watch this article burn." —Christiaan 23:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A difficult option perhaps, that might require the assistance of a mediator. But in terms of being here to push a point of view, you might take a look at your own intransigence. - Nunh-huh 23:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I'd ask you to refrain from such unsubstantiated accusations and return to my comments regarding your NPOV dispute.—Christiaan 23:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No need to waste time with that silly introspection stuff, then. The objection is to unattributed speculation about the effect of the "action". Perhaps you'd care to phrase the attribution? "It is difficult to say whether the human shield action to Iraq stopped the U.S. government from bombing civilian infrastructure as they did in 1991" was your last effort. Who is having the difficulty? What evidence is there that the human shield action to Iraq stopped anything? If there is no evidence, why would anyone have difficulty saying so? If there is evidence, perhaps you could enumerate it. And perhaps tacking on an unattributed attack at the end of your sentence is not the best way to achieve neutrality?  - Nunh-huh 00:18, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no conclusive evidence either way
I bet there is plenty of evidence that the coalition had every intention of preserving as much civilian infrastructure as possible this time. They knew they were going to be occupiers and would have to rebuild everything they broke. Some of the sources already cited here, show that targeting procedures carefully considered possible damage to civilian sites, but there are probably higher level statements re: the infrastructure intentions.--Silverback 11:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur. There was adequate reason for the military to safeguard those sites, rather than bomb them.  It's costing billions to rebuild as it is.


 * Let's not forget that the coalition didn't even want to bomb the electrical system. One of the oddities of that war was how the city stayed lit during the airstrikes.  The idea that these "human shields" prevented had any effect is a pathetic fantasy.


 * I think I understand the rationale here, though. The human shields were treated as a joke before the war started.  There's one particular passage in this article on "negative reporting in the media" that reads like a defense against the ridicule they received.  In that light, the conclusion under dispute sounds like a desperate attempt to save face.


 * I can accept a little moral vanity, but the slander is going too far. It adds to the propaganistic nature of this article.


 * If we want to add some "speculation" we might want to address the ties to extremist groups. We could note that no human shields turned out to protect the Iraqi people during the election.  There were several Shi'ite Holy days where human shields might have demonstrated in support of the people who were at risk.  But there was no support of the people then.


 * Randy 00:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yeah right. It may be costing billions but it isn't costing the fascists, it's costing their minions, commonly known as the deluded U.S. taxpayer. The fascists are in fact making billions! Silverback, I thought you'd know better than to wave this built-to-backfire argument in front of me. —Christiaan 11:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fascists, ie the Baath Party, are hardly making millions now. What an ignorant thing for you to say.
 * That's because I'm talking about the corporate fascists of America ignoramus. —Christiaan 22:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I knew that you pompous ass, but as usual your ignorance betrays you. You can't even define "zionist" without using the term "anti-zionist". The perfect example of a circular definition - what a mental giant you are.
 * Heh, do stamp your feet when you write stuff like that? Too cowardly to sign your verbiage I see. —Christiaan 23:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not cowardly - just forgetful. I found a quote you will like: "They removed us from the sites we had chosen because we were critical of the integrity and the autonomy of the Iraqi authorities," said O'Keefe, 33. "I was escorted by Iraqi intelligence officers to the border, because I say what I believe and the Iraqi government wants submissive easy robots." www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/863945/posts The accompanying commentary is especially pertinent to a ridiculous "human shill" like you. You and your ilk are a reliable source of amusement - just like the Chimps at the Zoo throwing poop. 155/12 Apr 05


 * I don't think he (Christiaan) can define "corporate fascist" correctly either. If anything, the Fascists were more in line with socialist thinking for government control and opposition to free markets.  Even the common usage as a repressive government fits Saddam's government perfectly, and our republic not at all.  Whether he likes it or not, the invasion of Iraq was supported by the majority of the U.S. congress.  Say what you like about no WMDs, but the congressional resolution didn't claim they existed.
 * -- Randy 17:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course we can define "corporate fascist". Wiki's article on corporatism is quite good, although it may not live up to the preconceived expectation of certain Marxist interpretations of the word. TDC 18:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

intent to bomb civilian infrastructure
I think I see what you mean now."There is no conclusive evidence either way as to whether the human shield action to Iraq stopped the U.S. government from bombing civilian infrastructure as they did in 1991," you believe partially implies that there was intent to bomb civilian infrastructure in the 2003 invasion. I'm not sure it does, at worse it implies that bombing of civilian infrastructure was not off the agenda.

And any case your alternative, "There is no conclusive evidence as to whether the human shield action to Iraq had any effect on U.S. government actions," completely contradicts the next sentence, "... on February 26, 2003, Senior CNN Pentagon Correspondent, Jamie McIntyre commented that the "Pentagon says they will try to work around human shields" as long as they were not deployed to military sites."

So here's an alternative: "There is no conclusive evidence either way as to whether the human shield action to Iraq was a factor in the decision not to bomb much of the civilian infrastructure that was bombed in 1991." —Christiaan 16:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It still appears to be a way of slipping in material to bad-mouth prior U.S. actions. And there's no contradiction: someone can say the Pentagon will be affected, and the Pentagon nonetheless may be unaffected. So we'll try again. - Nunh-huh 16:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * ??? The whole basis of the strategy to shield these sites was the fact that they had been bombed before! What appears more likely is that there is an effort here to sanitise U.S. actions. —Christiaan 17:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet your edit summary contends the article isn't about bombing? You seem very confused. - Nunh-huh 18:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes my edit summary contends that this article isn't about the bombing of Iraq, which is decribed elsewhere on Wikipedia. You may or may not be aware that this article is in fact about the human shield action to Iraq, of which some strategy was based on the fact that civilian infrastructure had previously being bombed, not how it was bombed, just that it was bombed. —Christiaan 19:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yet the fact that "this article" isn't about the bombing of Iraq somehow only prevents mentioning it when it's not phrased the way you insist upon? Your changed sentence doesn't eliminate "bombing" from this article. - Nunh-huh 19:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the significance of bombing in this article is that it happened and didn't happen. That's it. This is not an article about bombing. —Christiaan 20:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's my fault, but that doesn't make anything clearer to me. - Nunh-huh 20:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is the shields looked to protect sites that were attacked in 1991. That's the reason the 1991 bombing is mentioned. I'm not sure how this can be made any clearer. —Christiaan 20:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And most sites that were bombed in 1991 weren't in 2003, but to conclude that that is a result of "human shield action" is an error in logic. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And of course no such conclusion is made. —Christiaan 21:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1991 Human Shields
A buddy of mine was kidnapped by the Iraqi Army and held as a human shield in 1991. Why is there no mention of this incident in the article? I would propose one of you Smart People adding a few lines, or alternately just changing the title. Paul, in Saudi 15:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is about the voluntary human shields; for those kidnapped, see en.wikipedia.com/wiki/human_shield

Why do they complain about what our military is doing when the Iraqi Army is the one with problems? The Iraqi Army even kidnap other Muslims and take them as slaves! What is wrong with America??

Were these targets in fact bombed?
(A shame nobody wants to mention the 1991 Humans Shields, but I will defer to you Smart People.)

Everyone has done a nifty job using cites for this article. But I do not see any cite as to the sites being bombed. I seem the recall the Americans hit the power grid with some sort of mylar filaments that took out the system, but could quickly be repaired. (If true, that would make sense. Why blast something you expect to own in a few days?) So is there a cite for the sites being bombed? Paul, in Saudi 10:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro
As per the MOS, I think the introduction should start with the name of the article in bold type- any comments?

EvocativeIntrigue 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing style
Am I the only one who thinks the writing here is too one-sided? It starts off good, but after a while it seems to deteriorate into a travel story or something:


 * None of the eighty shields who stayed in Baghdad throughout the war were killed or injured. None of the sites where they were residing were destroyed. They were afforded freedom of movement by the government and treated with great warmth by the Iraqi people but largely ignored by the media. This impression that all the shields had fled not only undermined the effectiveness of the action but led to a widespread ridicule. Rather than being portrayed as brave and selfless, a beacon to the world, the shields were instead caricatured as naive and cowardly peaceniks.

I'm not sure if "brave and selfless, a beacon to the world" is an appropriate expression in an NPOV article. (Also, if they were indeed "caricatured as naive and cowardly peaceniks", I think a few references or examples would be in order.)

and later:


 * [...] In Basra where there were no human shields, water and power were hit in the first days of the war. Coincidence or an indication that the human shields had some effect?

This sounds like more like an essay than an encyclopedic article to me. -Sesse 10:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an essay, and not a disinterested one: it was written by someone who actually organized the "action". All efforts to bring the article into compliance with WP:NPOV have been met with determined resistance. - Nunh-huh 17:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe?
What ever happened to the page on Kenneth O'Keefe? Now it just redirects here. The guy is certainly deserving of an entry. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Don't know why his entry was removed. Had a little dig and found this: http://alohapalestine.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.36.2 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

this entry is WAY too bias this is why I hate wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.186.107 (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Aloha, This is Ken O'Keefe once again. Let me state for the record that I will continue to post content to the Human Shields Iraq article and that this content will be verifiable. It should be acknowledged that there are people within Wikipedia who commit regular affronts to the truth. The fact that my picture, the page about me, content about me that is positive is continually removed says more about the flaws of Wikipedia then it does about injustice to me. But the Human Shield Action I founded was in truth called the 'TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq'. The TJP standing for Truth, Justice & Peace. I do not care what attacks occur on me, I have been slammed in many ways and I honestly can say that I take this as confirmation that what I have done, what I continue to do, has merit. I am by no means perfect but I am an ally of truth, justice and peace and my actions make this clear. I have decided however that enough is enough with this article; I will continue to contribute and if Wikipedia authorities wish to call my content into question then it is not me they must address, it is the references I will cite. But I will not be surprised if all dialogue and content I add is erased without a trace because our world is far from just and the truth is all too often sacrificed at the behest of those with ulterior motives. Case in point it seems, Nancy. Now the fact that the picture of me was removed by her under the false impression that I have nothing to do with the article/action is irrelevant. Now she is happy to keep the image removed, knowing I am the founder of the action, and furthermore she wishes to call my integrity into question and make thinly veiled attempts to discredit my content submissions.

One point of fact; previous to my content submission to this article on March 5th, 2010, I have never submitted content nor asked others to do so. I have had nothing to do with this article and only now, seven years later, do I feel the desire to see this article accurately reflect historical facts, facts which are consistent with my opinions, and which are supported by references that cannot be disputed. Why people have tried to remove me from this history I will not say, but thinking people might wonder if there is indeed agendas at work that are injurious to the intent of Wikipedia. Tjpworldcitizen (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If my integrity is to be called into question so be it, I am happy to lay bare my actions and contributions for all to see. As my integrity is questioned I ask those watching if Nancy appears to be acting in the best interest of an accurate Human Shield Iraq article and the stated purposes of Wikipedia? Tjpworldcitizen (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest
I note that his edit has already been reverted but it should be noted that User:Tjpworldcitizen (who added info about Ken O'Keefe) has self-identified as Ken O'Keefe. Nancy talk  10:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Tjpworldcitizen is me, and I am Ken O'Keefe. And after years of ignoring the untruths, lack of truth and malicious attacks on myself and those that participated in this action I now fully intend to add content to this article; and I will back up everything I add within the rules. Yes I do have strong opinions of this action, based on personal experience. And I do have some views that are relevant, important, accurate and truthful that would shed greater light on all that happened within the action, but I will not share those that I cannot support within the rules of Wikipedia.

If I can within the rules venture to voice my opinion about this subject, with the intent of fostering genuine understanding a user knowledge, then I will. If the opinion of the founder is welcome within the purposes of Wikipedia you will soon see my opinion. In the meantime I am adding verifiable facts, supported with references.

Nancy, I have repeatedly asked you to replace the photo and you keep ignoring the request. You have abandoned the initial reason you removed it, changing the reasons as you go along, and otherwise refuse to address my valid and objectively verifiable position. What can I conclude at this point other than you are not capable of acknowledging a personal mistake, or you have other unknown agendas that you cannot possibly reveal? I can only guess, but a cursory look at the history of this page and the repeated attempts to remove me make my concern about your objectivity very valid. TJP ∼∼∼∼ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjpworldcitizen (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia - 'Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.' end

I once again state for the record that I (Ken O'Keefe) have added content that meets all of Wikipedia's requirements. My motivation is truth and fairness and everything I have written is supported 'by reliable sources'. I have done this to correct the inaccuracies and political agendas that have largely ruled over the content of this article from day one. My input now comes after 7 years of ignoring the abuse of this article and the truth about my role within it. Whatever anybody thinks of me is irrelevant, I challenge anyone to refute the truth and relevance of the one paragraph I have written for this article. Thus far I have supplied 11 references to back up the one paragraph of content I added. These sources include BBC, CNN, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and even good ole FOX News among others, included is one of the original (but not the first) 'Call to Action' notices I posted on IndyMedia (Dec. 26, 2002). Nothing predates this, whether people like it or not I did indeed initiate the action. The fact that this is an issue for some people is irrational at best, devious and malicious at worst. If anyone removes the content I added without a detailed reasoning, it should be seen as yet another politically motivated act that is injurious to truth.

If possible, I will eventually share limited but important a relevant opinions that would shed valuable light on the action. If this goes beyond the scope of Wikipedia then it is the truth that will suffer; nonetheless I will abide by the rules. Tjpworldcitizen (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Source for Tom Hurndall
"One 21-year-old human shield, Tom Hurndall, left Baghdad for reasons of safety. He went to Palestine where he was shot in the head by an Israeli sniper while working with the International Solidarity Movement."

This part of the article is lacking a source.

Also, I'm somewhat new to begin involved in Wikipedia. While I read the talk page guidelines, I would appreciate any feedback regarding how to participate in article discussions.

85.159.160.205 (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

strange naming
The "to" is awkward, can we come up with a better name?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Human shield action to Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613065419/http://sandiego.indymedia.org:80/en/2002/12/3533.shtml to http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/12/3533.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060427023532/http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com:80/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/26/mlld.00.html to http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/26/mlld.00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030702201251/http://sf.indymedia.org:80/news/2003/03/1579215.php to http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/1579215.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)