Woman being used as 'human shield' shot by U.S. forces

[sabra]

http://www.kare11.com/news/national/national_article.aspx?storyid=141214

Woman being used as 'human shield' shot by U.S. forces

American forces conducted several raids in and around Baghdad on Friday, killing two insurgents and wounding an Iraqi woman the militants were using as a "human shield," the U.S. command said.

Sectarian violence also killed at least 13 Iraqis and wounded more than 70 on the Muslim day of worship, police said, and a Sunni mosque was attacked by men armed with rocket-propelled grenades.

The U.S. military also said an American soldier was killed Thursday during combat operations in Baghdad. At least 2,886 members of the U.S. military have died since the war began in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

[90-percent]

1. damn!!

It's just SO HARD to get a good human shield these days!

-85% Jimmy

[danalytical]

2. I would do the same if I were in their position

Either die or kill. I'll choose kill, it's a terrible position we are putting our soldiers in.

[atreides1]

4. That's great to know

Would you be willing to kill if the "shield" were someone you knew or a family member? It's real easy to shoot someone when you don't know them or have any connection to them, isn't it?

By the way, "we" didn't put them in those positions, the politicians and their commanders put them there, and are keeping them there!!!!

When you point a finger, at least point it in the right direction, okay?

[danalytical]

5. Yes WE did put them there

The USA is responsible for putting those soldiers in Iraq. If you are a citizen of this country you can be included in WE, as in the USA. I know we (you and me) didn't vote to go to war, but never the less we are there.

But back to the topic at hand.

You are in a war.

An enemy soldier is trying to KILL you. He and his comrades are using a woman to tryu to stop you from shooting back. You're watching bullets fly by your head, the soldier next to you is shot. You can't run away.

Do you

A. Shoot back

B. Get shot

[noamnety]

That's not directly what atreides1 asked.

You are in a war.

An enemy soldier is shooting at you. He and his comrades are holding YOUR DAUGHTER in front of them to try to stop you from shooting back.

Do you shoot at them, knowing you are likely to shoot your own daughter?

At the heart of the question, as I understood it, was whether you place a lower value on that woman's life, knowing she is someone else's daughter, than you would place on your own daughter's life. It gets to the question of whether you've dehumanized the woman.

(not that I have any particular reason to believe the human shield story, but anyway the question you answered doesn't seem to be the one that was asked.)

[Casablanca]

25. His unstated, politically inexpedient answer is ...

Yes, the value of a person's life is solely based on whether you know them, and what you think you know about them.

If you don't know them, or they are likely to think differently from the crowd you belong to, they are just pixels in an imaginary first-person-shooter video game.

This is the reason that pacifists are considered _weak_, precisely because they want to avoid games that necessitate the evil abstraction of other lives that are part and parcel of warfare. Having to distinguish friend from foe, or to think about the karmic consequences of trading one life for another, is just hesitation at the moment of truth.

I usually don't presume to speak for others, but in my experience, people who believe the above will never admit it to themselves or others - but the truth has to be said.

[danalytical]

28. The truth has to be said

And the great wise one has spoken. Should we bow to you now that you know other peoples' minds?

Kill or be killed. Having to choose between dying or shooting at the enemy knowing you may well hit the human shield is a horrible situation to be in. You have likely never been in that situation, and yet you judge the soldier who has. Words on the internet, that's all these, are. But the soldier, he had to actually choose in that situation. Who are you to judge?

I'm saying I would never shoot anyone, but being a soldier and having o choose in a foreign land between life and death. I would choose life. Extrapolate from that that you must. Hypothetical situations including family members are both absurd and irrelevant.

[4morewars]

6. Oh, yes "we" did.

Sorry, "we" don't get a pass on this war. I'm sure you are just as dead set against this war as anyone here, myself included. I'm sure that you did everything that you could to stop this madness, as have many on this board, and indeed, across the world.

But, the truth is, "we" did not stop these war pigs. And, "we" are continuing to not stop them.

Again, I apologize, but "we" are indeed guilty as charged.

[One_Life_To_Give]

19. If person behind shield is spraying death

If the person behind shield is spraying death (lead/RPG's) then it's a whole lot easier to take out the shooter and their shield. Then if they are only trying to get away.

[The Stranger]

12. So you actually believe this "human shield" story?

[IA_Seth]

3. Soldiers aren't police officers...

This is the sad reality that will always take place when our military is used in policing actions.

[Tempest]

7. In other words

She was in the house and the only way the U.S. can justify her shooting is to claim she was being held against her will.

How many times have we heard this?

[hughee99]

8. I was wondering how long it would take

for someone to read it this way. It seems the woman is going to be okay, I'm sure someone will ask her what happened.

[Tempest]

9. Yeah, it's not like our military has ever lied before

That Iraqi man wasn't really dragged from his house, thrown in a ditch, shot to death and then had a rifle placed by his body by U.S. troops in an attempt to make it look like he was shooting at the soldiers.

Naw, never happened.

[hughee99]

14. As I said...

it looks like the woman is going to be okay, they can ask her.

[VegasWolf]

21. Yes, but it will be the military who asks. The answer will come from the mouthpiece

of the military, unless the military allows unfettered access to the woman by the press. We'll see.

[hughee99]

23. If the military already knows that they were in the wrong...

they won't ask her, nor will they allow unfettered access to the woman by the press. I'm interested to see what's going to happen.

[SOS]

10. Interesting Google search:

Google the US statement:

"Terrorists continue to deliberately place innocent Iraqi women and children in danger by their actions and presence"

Pages and pages of various killings in Iraq, all with the exact same sentence.

[Occulus]

11. This Google News result has been brought to you by GE and KBR n/t

[The Stranger]

13. So did they kill the woman and then later decide she was a "human shield"?

That "human shield" term sure has a long Neocon history. Hmmmmmm.

[hughee99]

15. I don't think so,

since it seems they didn't kill her, just shot her (according to the article, anyway)

"The woman, whose name and age were not given, was hospitalized in stable condition, the U.S. military said."

[Tempest]

16. So the fact that she wasn't killed makes a difference?

It doesn't change the fact that the military is probably lying about the circumstances of her getting shot.

And if you expect to have her come out and say that she was there against her will, you're naive. All it takes is a visit from the military, ours or thiers, with the inference that her family will be in danger if she claims otherwise.

[hughee99]

17. If someone asks if they killed the woman

and decided later that she was a human shield, then IT ABSOLUTELY DOES, since they didn't kill her!

You seem, to me anyway, to believe that that the military shot her and two other innocent civilians and will go to any lengths to cover it up the fact that they are either incompetent or outright murderers. If this is the case, why wouldn't they just kill her and be done with it? It would certainly seem more efficient. At the very least, you'd think they'd be able to prevent the Minneapolis St. Paul news from reporting such acts.

It it a FACT that the military is probably lying about it, or is it just your opinion? I didn't really see enough information here to make the determination one way or another.

[The Stranger]

18. Was there a reporter from the Minneapolis St. Paul news present?

Or did the military report it? The same military that did the shooting?

If she were a "human shield," they wouldn't have shot in the first place, right? Unless they didn't mind killing the hostage. But she was shot. And just because someone is shot and lives doesn't mean that the shooter intended that they live. Quite the contrary.

"Terrorists continue to deliberately place innocent Iraqi women and children in danger by their actions and presence," the statement said.

That is neoconspeak for, "We shot (and killed) some women who were there too."

It was the third time in less than a week that Iraqi women have been killed or wounded during U.S. raids.

On Wednesday, two women died when U.S. forces backed by aircraft killed eight al-Qaida in Iraq insurgents during a raid near Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

Sure looks like a pattern of women killed by "U.S. forces backed by aircraft." The pattern therefore necessitates a cover, such as the neoconspeak "They were using these women as 'human shields,' and that is why they keep getting shot (and most killed)."

[hughee99]

20. You lost me here...

"If she were a "human shield," they wouldn't have shot in the first place, right? Unless they didn't mind killing the hostage. But she was shot. And just because someone is shot and lives doesn't mean that the shooter intended that they live. Quite the contrary."

If she were a human shield, and the US soldier's choice was to shoot her or get shot, then they would have shot her. Sometimes people are in a situation where they do things out of necessity (survival) that they do not want to do. Certainly if their intention was to kill her, then they probably would have been able to accomplish that. They did kill several people there already, who was going to stop them?

If the reporter from the Minneapolis St. Paul News was there at the time of the shooting, then he must be in on the cover up. If he wasn't, then why would the military mention this to reporters AT ALL. It seems like quite a few people died that day, I'm sure they could have successfully covered up 3 deaths, at least for a few days.

I'm not saying I trust the "official" story, and the further up the chain of command you get, the less inclined I am to believe the "official" version, but I don't tend to infer that anytime someone gets shot in Iraq it's necessarily because of incompetence or some nefarious plan.

[The Stranger]

26. It is undisputed that at least three women have been shot.

The most simple explanation is that someone shot at these women. To leave that very reasonable explanation requires buying into a series of very popular constructions created about the war.

If she were a human shield, and the US soldier's choice was to shoot her or get shot, then they would have shot her.

Even assuming that she were being used as a "human shield," then she would be protecting someone from attack. Therefore, the U.S. soldier would have the choice not to engage the target in the first place. Instead, the U.S. soldier shot the woman.

Sometimes people are in a situation where they do things out of necessity (survival) that they do not want to do.

This is your own editorial, not even supported by the military's statement, which you failed to address. Apparently, there is a pattern of U.S. soldiers shooting women, and that is why there would be a need for them to fabricate something like the "human shields" neoconspeak. U.S. media outlets continually revisit the construction of a "human shield" to explain away the fact that an innocent non-combatant was killed (and possibly murdered) by U.S. troops.

If the reporter from the Minneapolis St. Paul News was there at the time of the shooting, then he must be in on the cover up.

Let me make this real easy for you: there was no reporter present. What is being reported is solely and exclusively the shooters' version of events. So it would take far, far less than what you seem to expect for there to be a cover up.

[hughee99]

27. Yes, three women have been shot...

"The most simple explanation is that someone shot at these women".
I agree. Even the military doesn't seem to be claiming that they were accidentally shot in a crossfire. Rather, they're claiming that they were being used as human shields. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

"Even assuming that she were being used as a "human shield," then she would be protecting someone from attack. Therefore, the U.S. soldier would have the choice not to engage the target in the first place. Instead, the U.S. soldier shot the woman."
Well, if you assume that they were being used as human shields, nothing would encourage this practice more than for military policy to be not to engage the enemy if they're using human shields. It's a bad situation either way for the soldiers on the ground.

"This is your own editorial, not even supported by the military's statement, which you failed to address. Apparently, there is a pattern of U.S. soldiers shooting women, and that is why there would be a need for them to fabricate something like the "human shields" neoconspeak. U.S. media outlets continually revisit the construction of a "human shield" to explain away the fact that an innocent non-combatant was killed (and possibly murdered) by U.S. troops."
So during war, people are not put in a position where they must do things for survival that they wouldn't not normally do. Are those who kill during war murderers, cowards, or incompetent, or is it possible that they do something they don't want to do because of the situation they find themselves in? If you're going to suggest that they didn't mind killing the hostage (your own editorial), I think this particular "opinion" addresses that, even if it doesn't directly address the military's statement. Yes, there does seem to be a patter of U.S soldiers shooting women, and the military certainly may have fabricated the "human shield" talking point. Of course, if the people they were fighting were actually using human shields, this would also explain it.

"Let me make this real easy for you: there was no reporter present. What is being reported is solely and exclusively the shooters' version of events. So it would take far, far less than what you seem to expect for there to be a cover up."

Since YOU asked ME if there was a reporter present, I though I would include that possibility in my response, though I didn't believe it was the case. If the military really wanted to cover this up, why would they tell the reporter ANYTHING AT ALL.

[justfred]

22. This is what happens when you use an Army against criminals

Soldiers are not trained in the preservation of life (other than their own), only the taking thereof.

Using soldiers in the GWOT is like killing flies with a .357 - you might get one (and when you do, you REALLY get one), but the collateral damage is hardly worth it.

My heart goes out to the family of the woman. My heart goes out to the soldier who had to make a choice and who chose to shoot the 'shield'.

My anger goes out to the CinC and his minions who put both the soldier and the woman in this place to begin with.

[ianwood]

24. ooops soory

it is a terrorist who was in womens cloth