Syria: Western Activists Volunteer to Become 'Human Shields'...

[Indi Guy]

Source: The Telegraph



Hundreds of western peace activists, including from Britain and from the US, have volunteered to become "human shields" in government-held parts of Syria, the Daily Telegraph has learned. The 'International Human Shields' movement, started by a group of activists in Britain and the US, plans to bring to Syria civilians from countries around the globe, who will try to deter US strikes on the country by staking out potential military targets.

Franklin Lamb, a lawyer recently appointed as the legal adviser for the group said he had been "inundated" with requests from activists including from Canada, France, Italy, the US, and Britain.

The Syrian regime has not yet indicated whether it will allow the group to enter the country, but it raises the prospect of hundreds of pacifists descending on Damascus, as happened in Baghdad before the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Many of those volunteering to go to Syria also took part in the 'Human Shields' movement that travelled to Baghdad, initially to protect hospitals and schools, and later, key government infrastructure sites.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10292367/Syria-western-activists-volunteer-to-become-human-shields.html

[another_liberal]

1. I'd reconsider that move.

Even if the United States comes to its senses and decides not to attack, Assad won't necessarily be able to protect these people from hostile elements in the rebel ranks.

[leftynyc]

2. They're more likely

to be killed by those rebels who are aligned with Islamists than killed by Americans.

[think_critically]

3. just wow

I really don't see the wisdom in sacrificing yourself for a brutal dictator who gasses people. Don't even know what to say about this one.

[Indi Guy]

5. I doubt that the volunteers are interested in protecting Assad...

...but are quite interested in stopping a needless war.

[geek tragedy]

7. Why don't they position themselves in rebel-held villages? nt

[Indi Guy]

9. My guess is that they won't be able to stop a war by...

...positioning themselves where the US is unlikely to strike.

Should they have considered doing what you suggest earlier on? ...I think that idea has merit.

[geek tragedy]

10. There's already a war going on. They're not preventing a war by going, they're trying

to create an advantage for one side.

[Indi Guy]

16. I'm not saying that theirs is a brilliant strategy.

Misguided or not -- I believe they are trying to thwart a US strike, rather than protect Assad. I could be wrong.

I any case, it's clear that they're going to have a difficult time explaining their actions.

[geek tragedy]

18. I'm not sure the head-choppers and face-eaters in the rebel ranks

will buy that story.

[SunSeeker]

48. You have a way with words.

[David__77]

30. The terrorists already have enough human shields there...

...

[Marrah_G]

51. They aren't there for Assad

They are there to try and stop a war.

[frazzled]

4. Huh? Shielding Assad's military installations, for "peace"?

Too bad they didn't think of shielding Syrians from Assad, or from each other. This is getting so irrational I don't know what to think any more.

[think_critically]

8. people have lost their minds

It's crazy. I honestly think that all of these medications that get passed in to the water system are starting to seriously impact our collective cognitive abilities.

[geek tragedy]

6. Fucking idiots and collaborators with Assad.

They weren't out there volunteering to be human shields against Assad's artillery, but they'll go out and try to protect his ability to lob chemical warheads?

These assholes aren't against intervening in the Syrian civil war, they're intervening on Assad's behalf.

[azurnoir]

15. yup just like they intervened on Saddam's behalf 10 years ago, right?

or was that somehow different

[geek tragedy]

17. There was no civil war in Iraq seeking to topple Saddam at the time, nt

[azurnoir]

20. oh I see the volunteers are wrong to intervene against an attack by outside forces

because it's a civil war, really is that the best you can do?

[geek tragedy]

34. They're seeking to protect the military assets that Assad uses to butcher

civilians.

Creeps.

[azurnoir]

35. oh you mean like they did in Iraq? hospitals, schools and oh infrastructure

like water, electricity stuff like that? so your standard is anything that could conceivably be used by Assad is up for bombing?

[geek tragedy]

37. Reading is fundamental

The 'International Human Shields' movement, started by a group of activists in Britain and the US, plans to bring to Syria civilians from countries around the globe, who will try to deter US strikes on the country by staking out potential military targets.

You were saying?

[azurnoir]

39. Making pies with those cherries?

right in the clip

Many of those volunteering to go to Syria also took part in the 'Human Shields' movement that travelled to Baghdad, initially to protect hospitals and schools, and later, key government infrastructure sites.

now infrastructure can be considered a military target

weapons depots are not generally considered infrastructure

[geek tragedy]

40. According to my understanding of the space-time continuum,

what they plan to do in Syria =! what they did in Iraq.

[azurnoir]

42. yes and here's more from the article

The 'human shield' strategy has also been taken up by some Damascenes. A group calling itself 'Over Our Dead Bodies' has established a sit-in at Qassioun, a mountain overlooking Damascus that is home to both a large military base and state television centre.

"We think the first target might be Syrian state media," said Ozgret Dandashi, the founder of the group. "Even if the American's attack we will stay here."

In the past week some high profile Syrian actors, actresses, and sports personalities have joined the stakeout at Qassioun. Video footage showed Omar al-Hassano, a Syrian basketball player standing on the mountainside with the protesters.

you must have booed at Control Room-right?

[geek tragedy]

45. Syrians doing that in their own country, I got no problem with it.

It's their country

[blkmusclmachine]

11. !

[bunnies]

12. Idiots.

[Crimson76]

13. I hate the mess in Syria as much as the next person......

But if you go to Syria to become a human shield, tough break for you.

[Iliyah]

14. LOL, Assad is so paranoid

he would likely believe majority of them as actual spies.

[kenfrequed]

19. What are they going to shield?

Are they going to position themselves at the mobile chemical launchers or maybe the storehouses for chemical shells and missles?

This is misguided to the point of being unintelligable.

[Cali_Democrat]

21. As someone mentioned upthread...

the war is going on RIGHT NOW.

Why aren't they positioning themselves in rebel held areas that are under attack from Assad's forces?

[frazzled]

22. This is the problem with calls for "peace"

in this situation. Peace for whom? Whatever you can say about the civil war that has been going on in Syria for the past two years, you can't ignore that it has led to much devastation. On the moderate side, we know that 100,000 are dead and at least 2 million refugees have been created. We also know that outside foreign influences (Iran, Hezbollah, Russia) have been supporting Assad in his suppression of rebel forces and related populations. We also know that outside jihadist forces have come to join the more moderate rebels to fight against Assad. Without taking any sides here, let's at least acknowledge that there is NO PEACE in Syria.

So when I hear of people holding peace vigils and asking for peace, it makes the hair stand up on my neck a little bit. Because I know they don't mean peace for everyone. Only peace for themselves. What they really mean is simply, "let's not get involved." That's a legitimate position to take, but it's not legitimate to hide it under the banner of "peace." It is what it is: a call to an isolationist, or at least non-interventionist stance. Let's call it that.

[deurbano]

23. Or let's call it, "Don't make things worse than they already are."

Those (in the OP) willing to offer themselves as "human shields" (even if that is as misguided as some have mentioned) are not just seeking "peace for themselves"... and that is not the motivation for (many/most?) others who oppose intervention, either. Some are actually worried it could lead to a much worse (less peaceful) situation in Syria and/or the entire region. If you saw the Christian Science Monitor article, Syrian Christians also oppose intervention, believing it will result in a worse outcome for them. (I wouldn't call them "isolationist"; I'd call them realistic.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014587556

[frazzled]

25. Protecting Assad's military equipment is not ...

maintaining peace. It's protecting his ability to kill people. You don't have to be for or against any party in this conflict to accept that proposition. The "human shields" are proposing to intervene in this conflict themselves, aiding and abetting one of the sides. That is not going to make things better for the people of Syria, and could make them considerably worse.

If you're calling for non-intervention, then you should not be in favor of intervening.

[deurbano]

28. I didn't say I was in favor of the peace activists acting as human shields.

I didn't say they would be "maintaining peace." I provided an alternative explanation for being opposed to intervention that doesn't involve isolationism... and noted that these particular peace activists (willing to act as human shields) surely cannot be said to want "only peace for themselves." The choice is not between peace and war (since the war is already ongoing); the choice is about which approach will lead to the least terrible outcome for the Syrians, for the people of the region and for the people of the world (including the people of the U.S.).

<<So when I hear of people holding peace vigils and asking for peace, it makes the hair stand up on my neck a little bit. Because I know they don't mean peace for everyone. Only peace for themselves. What they really mean is simply, "let's not get involved." That's a legitimate position to take, but it's not legitimate to hide it under the banner of "peace." It is what it is: a call to an isolationist, or at least non-interventionist stance. Let's call it that.>>

[frazzled]

41. Since you are quoting me ...

Note that I was speaking about those, in general, who are making arguments in the name of "peace." I was not directly addressing these activists.

That said, I still disagree with your premise: that their actions might lead to "the least terrible outcome or the Syrians, for the people of the region, and for the people of the world." Indeed, we do not know that in the least. They might be contributing to a worse outcome for all of the above. You have to admit that protecting a dictator's military arsenal—including the rocket launchers that catapulted heavy sarin gas into a Damascus suburb, killing hundreds of ordinary residents and sickening thousands more—is not likely to lead to a better outcome for many Syrians or people in the region.

Imagine if activists from the "America First" anti-interventionist movement in the runup to World War II (who were making many of the same arguments as are being made today) decided to place themselves as human shields in front of the Reich's military installations ... in order to prevent outside intervention. They may have had reasons to have opposed intervention at the time they did, but had they done this after Roosevelt decided the US would intervene, it would have led to decidedly WORSE results for everyone.

[deurbano]

44. Sorry if I am not making myself clear, but you are misunderstanding me.

Originally, I thought it was inaccurate (and unfair) when you said this:

<<So when I hear of people holding peace vigils and asking for peace, it makes the hair stand up on my neck a little bit. Because I know they don't mean peace for everyone. Only peace for themselves.>>

I don't think wanting "only peace for themselves" is true of most peace activists, and is demonstrably untrue in terms of those willing to act as human shields... but again, I don't think it is an accurate portrayal of other peace activists, either.

This does not mean I support the human shield strategy. I doubt it would have any effect on US intervention.... and that would seem to be the point, so again, I'm not endorsing the strategy, especially without knowing more about its potential for success.

I'm not saying the human shield strategy "might lead to "the least terrible outcome for the Syrians, for the people of the region, and for the people of the world." I'm saying that is the position of many who do not want the US to intervene (including me). I was offering that perspective as an alternative to "isolationism" or wanting "peace only for themselves"... and suggesting that "peace activists" (and only a few of those are offering to be human shields) and many others (who may not identify as "peace activists," but do not want the US to intervene in this civil war) are not making a choice "between peace and war (since the war is already ongoing); the choice is about which approach will lead to the least terrible outcome for the Syrians, for the people of the region and for the people of the world." (Sometimes peace isn't an immediate option, but it is still necessary to look for the least bad option.)

Again, I'm talking about a reason for opposing US intervention, not the possible actions of human shields.

[frazzled]

46. I think we are perhaps misunderstanding each other

I don't particularly want intervention either (mostly out of fear of what might happen), though I am torn this time, because I am weighing the costs of inaction as well, which might possibly lead to even worse outcomes for the Syrians. There's no clear answer to me, as there was in Iraq.

I wasn't accusing peace activists of having the intention of wanting peace only for themselves. I'm sure they don't think that at all. But frankly, intentions don't really matter. The only thing that counts is what actually ensues, and it may well be the case that a call for non-intervention in the name of peace ignores the possibility that less peace might be the result.

You know, Ghandi argued for non-intervention in World War II, and I'm sure his intentions were noble. But honestly, he was wrong. Really wrong.

[Hekate]

33. What frazzled said

So when I hear of people holding peace vigils and asking for peace, it makes the hair stand up on my neck a little bit. Because I know they don't mean peace for everyone. Only peace for themselves. What they really mean is simply, "let's not get involved." That's a legitimate position to take, but it's not legitimate to hide it under the banner of "peace." It is what it is: a call to an isolationist, or at least non-interventionist stance. Let's call it that.

Which is why I'm not showing up at any candlelight vigils this time.

[tabasco]

24. duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. These activists have made me completely change my position on bombing Syria

...

[WatermelonRat]

27. I'm speechless

I hope these idiots are aware that in the unlikely event that Assad allows them to mingle around his military bases, it would be a war crime.

[Sunlei]

29. Even the humanitarian group 'Doctors without Borders' has to do their work outside of Syria.

It's not safe in Syria even at the hospitals. I suggest they read the reports and ask for advice-

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

8/24- http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release

9/3- http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7042&cat=press-release

[Hekate]

31. A bit of a splashy way to commit suicide

Which was what I thought of the same idea before "Shock & Awe." Given current conditions in Syria, they're more likely to be kidnapped by any of a number of groups, including the government.

Ten (no, eleven now!) I knew a young woman who was planning to go become a human shield. She was in a state of exaltation at the prospect. Every time she spoke about it she was more exalted. The only thing stopping her was the cost of getting from California to Baghdad, so she was trying to raise funds.

[jessie04]

32. I want to see how many anti-war posters here go over there?

that will really impress me.

Bueller ? Bueller ?

[phleshdef]

36. I'm pretty sure civilians being used as human shields is yet another war crime.

Willing or not willing.

[Turbineguy]

38. Assad won't give a fuck if they get killed

but the US will. So in that sense it will help hopefully to prevent a cruise missile attack.

[florida08]

43. can you get a tickey to Syria right now?

[Peace Patriot]

47. Peace activists are committing a "war crime" by standing under U.S. missiles??!!

I was going to comment on the naivete of the above discussion. (The CIA has been creating wars for the "military-industrial complex" for more than half a century and they have been, without question, arming and funding the "rebels" in Syria as they armed, funded and virtually created Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and armed, funded and virtually created the South Vietnamese government and army.)

But instead I see that I need to comment on the inside out, upside down & backward ALICE IN WONDERLAND nature of this discussion, in which peace activists are accused of committing a "war crime" by trying to stop the U.S. from turning the disaster in Syria into a worse and wider disaster.

This is deja vu Iraq all over again. Saddam is bad; ergo, we must slaughter a hundred thousand innocent people with "shock and awe bombing" and slaughter, torture, impoverish and displace hundreds of thousands more. Assad is bad (though he has yet to surpass U.S. badness, when you add up recent U.S. carnage); ergo, we must drop cruise missiles on Syria!

THAT "logic" is like THIS "logic": PEACE ACTIVISTS trying to prevent a wider war are the BAD GUYS.

???? !!!!

If we want to understand the situation we are in, we have got to start with Vietnam.

Recommended: "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," by James Douglass.

We are in a BA-A-A-AD situation, with OUT-OF-CONTROL war profiteers.

[florida08]

50. Couldn't agree more. Well said

[daleo]

49. I hope the advocates of U.S. military action are just as keen to help out

There is bound to be an occupation force somewhere that they can sign up for.

[jessie04]

52. Has any anti-war activists here gone over there ?

That would really impress me.