Human Shields and Choice

[Rhydderch Hael]

There are reportedly 150 citizens of Western Civ nations who have voluntarily made their way to Iraq for the express purpose of becoming human shields, adding their political implications into the potential of collateral damage from a U.S. offensive against the Iraqi.

Two points that sparked across my mind are the true scope of the "fog of war" concerning civilian vs military objectives, and the validity of volunteering to become a 'hostage' of sorts.

I have heard the statement of at least one of these persons that they are willing to become human shields in the defense of Iraqi civilians, but would refuse to participate in placing themselves in harm's way of the Iraqi military components. A reasonably noble purpose, one can easily admit, but I feel one made with a naivete to both the credo of the U.S. military in action as well as the Iraqi government's willingness to apply those standards to the human shields.

The United States has not within recent memory, nor in the cultured mindset of the American people, go hell-bent on striking civilian targets. The trend in recent times is to shirk from total war and engage only the war machine of an enemy nation, sparing the civilian populace the full brunt of American ordanance. Such a mindset stems from both the aversion to the full savagery of wars (burning babies and shooting women are as morally objectionable to the American fighting person as it would be to the American civilian) and the tacit belief the purpose of the American force in war is to liberate the civilian populace from a corrupt government/military rule (extermination of a people? Not since the 19th century!).

So, the professed intent of these human shields to guard only the Iraqi civilians is a noble design, but in the larger scope of things, not a very pressing or paramount objective given the United States' own intentions. Then again, once the shooting war starts, how easy or difficult would it be for the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to detain these civilians are press them to purposes these human shields did not want in the first place?


As to the second point that came across my mind, how far goes the moral responsibility these human shields are trying to impress when they willingly step into the line of fire? Are they honestly believing that they present themselves as wholly innocent bystanders whose death/injury would constitute a grievous human tragedy and a grave injustice? The weight of such tragedy must be offset by the acknowledgement that if any harm befalls them, not all of the responsibility can be borne by the ones doing the shooting! These human shields made their choice, a free decision that cannot exempt themselves from the responsibility of their own fates. How powerful is a hostage when they willingly attach themselves to the front of a shooting gunman?

[WarBlade]

There are reportedly 150 citizens of Western Civ nations who have voluntarily made their way to Iraq for the express purpose of becoming human shields, adding their political implications into the potential of collateral damage from a U.S. offensive against the Iraqi.

Two points that sparked across my mind are the true scope of the "fog of war" concerning civilian vs military objectives, and the validity of volunteering to become a 'hostage' of sorts.

Hostage? WTF?

The United States has not within recent memory, nor in the cultured mindset of the American people, go hell-bent on striking civilian targets.

Ooooh, there lies the can of worms. <_< There is no doubt in my mind that the modus operandi of American armed forces in action is in stark contrast with that of other developed 'free' nations. A kind of MO that some might even describe as reckless. Recent history is full of incidents such as the 400 Iraqi civilian casualties in one bomb shelter in the last Gulf War to the bombing of Canadian troops in Afganistan. Tacit belief or no, it looks statistically more likely that unnecessary casualty will result from American firepower that from most other UN partners.

So America has managed to get on the bad side of the "colateral damage" debate. Not a good position to be IMO. It tends to upset the moral high ground somewhat.

Now I see you were referring to intended targets up there, while I responded with reference to accidental targets. Well, does it really matter what the intended target was to someone who has lost friends/family to American military action? Consider also how emotionally charged some Americans have become after September 11 (particularly evidenced by violence against Arab immigrants shortly after) and consider how one of those people with vengeance in mind, uniform on and gun in hand might be one angry SOB too many.

Increased collateral damage?

Then again, once the shooting war starts, how easy or difficult would it be for the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to detain these civilians are press them to purposes these human shields did not want in the first place?

I would say "doubtful". To him they are free publicity that helps to keep the demands of other nations firmly directed at Bush his cronies. To upset those other nations by interferring with their citizens is pure stupidity. Do something to incur the wrath of the very thing that might be holding America back? I doubt it.

As to the second point that came across my mind, how far goes the moral responsibility these human shields are trying to impress when they willingly step into the line of fire? Are they honestly believing that they present themselves as wholly innocent bystanders whose death/injury would constitute a grievous human tragedy and a grave injustice? The weight of such tragedy must be offset by the acknowledgement that if any harm befalls them, not all of the responsibility can be borne by the ones doing the shooting! These human shields made their choice, a free decision that cannot exempt themselves from the responsibility of their own fates. How powerful is a hostage when they willingly attach themselves to the front of a shooting gunman?

They are standing up for their convictions. They are making a bold statement that they think Bush & Co. are wrong. And why shouldn't the people doing the shooting take full responsibility? To hit the "Human Shields" they'd have to hit civilian targets in the first place! :angry:

What makes a "Human Shield" any more different than an innocent Iraqi civilian? :angry:

[Faragon]

The point which it comes down to:

If the people there are knowingly and willingly providing themselves as hostages, they're no hostages, they're on the side of your enemy. Being a meatshield for saddam is like stepping in front of a speeding train. You know there's a very good chance you'll get splattered all over the place :D

[Rhydderch Hael]

What makes a "Human Shield" any more different than an innocent Iraqi civilian?&nbsp; :angry:

The only infuriating difference, from my viewpoint, are that these Human Shields believe that their own worth is greater than that of an innocent Iraqi civilian. That they think that if they become endangered, it becomes a greater tragedy than that of an Iraqi citizen being killed by warfare.

They think themselves are a better character of tragedy in this real-life drama than an Iraqi would fill in the role. They neglect to note that when an Iraqi falls in this conflict, they do so in the defense of their home, their soil, their family. That is a greater tragedy. But apparently the Human Shields believe that their personal (and voluntary) endangerment is more powerful, more meaningful. Hence, they think it will make a bigger political statement. But that is a falsehood on the human condition: contrasting the defense of one's home against a tantamount to suicide and declaring the suicide the more nobler act.

In reality, all that the Human Shields are going for is a bigger news story on CNN. That's what sucks.

[WarBlade]

The only infuriating difference, from my viewpoint, are that these Human Shields believe that their own worth is greater than that of an innocent Iraqi civilian.

Your viewpoint appears to have a complete lack of having taken into account any of the interviews that have been appearing in recent weeks. I've seen about three or four live interviews from when they were gathering in England and their opinions match nothing you've posted.

If you'd been watching/reading you might have learned that they believe Iraqis matter little to the American war machine. They think that Saddam Hussein has dominated the American military's thinking to the point where innocent lives become a greater expense than can be tolerated. They believe that their protest might make an impact - NOT that they themselves feel they are more important than Iraqis.

In reality, all that the Human Shields are going for is a bigger news story on CNN. That's what sucks.

ROFL! A sound bite as well thought out as "No blood for oil!" BRAVO! *Snort* <_<

[Chaerophon]

extermination of a people? Not since the 19th century

Well, not necessarily an ENTIRE people...

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, DRESDEN

That's not a comment on current policy, (nor on just Americans, I must admit), just a sad reminder of past "glories".

Recently I've been looking deeper into what went on in Europe and it seems that the more details of the Second World War I unearth, the more I wish that I had been left with my former conceptions. The men who fought and died still command as much of my respect as before, but some of the atrocities... I had always believed in our complete moral superiority in that conflict. Some of the things that were done in the name of 'justice' or 'tactics' were unbelievable. The calculated destruction of Dresden so as to absolutely maximise the loss of civilian life is merely one example.

[Nystul]

There is no doubt in my mind that the modus operandi of American armed forces in action is in stark contrast with that of other developed 'free' nations.

The U.S. forces see by far the most action, so it should be no surprise that they have the most unfortunate incidents. The other 'free' nations are more than happy to see the U.S. forces in action as long as it coincides with their own interests...

Now I see you were referring to intended targets up there, while I responded with reference to accidental targets. Well, does it really matter what the intended target was to someone who has lost friends/family to American military action?

I think it would matter a great deal. It's the difference between sorrow and outrage. Say a couple of my friends go out hunting and one of them gets shot by the other. My reaction to the shooter will be a heck of a lot different depending on whether or not it was an accident.

More to the point, accidental vs. intended matters to this extent: If the collateral damage is accidental, then these people are accomplishing absolutely nothing by going over there except to waste their own lives. Once conflict starts, the targets picked will have military significance (at least, according to the intelligence availabe), and if western protesters are sitting on those military targets it is going to be their tough luck. If a wrong target is picked or there is a communications fubar, having westerners on the ground can't do anything to deter it, and it's still going to be their tough luck.

The only way they could have any impact on the affair at all is in determining whether a conflict happens at all. Since their presence in Iraq does nothing to solve the real issues involved in this affair, what they are doing is not much more than a publicity stunt. I respect their right to drum up support for peace even at such risk, but if they die the responsibility will be entirely their own.

[Chaerophon]

I respect their right to drum up support for peace even at such risk, but if they die the responsibility will be entirely their own.

Absolutely, but you have to commend them on their dedication to their cause. If others choose to take their example and more people flock to Baghdad, particularly those from Europe, it could create a somewhat more sticky situation, don't you think? Like it or not, I would have to think that western nations would be more hesitant to bomb several thousand of their own citizens than they are the citizens of Iraq, particularly given the recent protests in Europe and elsewhere. I don't think that they will be able to completely deter an attack, but if protesters such as these were killed in any sort of numbers, I would think that it would be, whether justifiably so or not, an absolute public relations nightmare for the Bush administration. As soon as a human face is put on war, it always becomes much less popular... if that human, civilian, face has family back home... Of course, even given their evident bravery, I would doubt if many of them are out for martyrdom.

Edit: damnit! wrong post, sorry guys, response to Nystul.

[Moldran]

Well, not necessarily an ENTIRE people...
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, DRESDEN
That's not a comment on current policy, (nor on just Americans, I must admit), just a sad reminder of past "glories".
Recently I've been looking deeper into what went on in Europe and it seems that the more details of the Second World War I unearth, the more I wish that I had been left with my former conceptions. The men who fought and died still command as much of my respect as before, but some of the atrocities... I had always believed in our complete moral superiority in that conflict. Some of the things that were done in the name of 'justice' or 'tactics' were unbelievable. The calculated destruction of Dresden so as to absolutely maximise the loss of civilian life is merely one example.

The attacks you mention were done with the intent to achieve military victory in a long and brutal war. That has nothing to do with "extermination of a people". Had the US wanted to exterminate the German/Japanase people, they could have done so.

And please remember that the vast majority of the civilians killed in Dresden actively supported the most criminal regime the earth has ever seen. Morally condemning the allied forces for their bombing of Dresden does not seem appropriate to me. It were the Germans (not just the Nazi leadership!) who chose that war. They got what they wanted.

Moldran

[Moldran]

More to the point, accidental vs. intended matters to this extent: If the collateral damage is accidental, then these people are accomplishing absolutely nothing by going over there except to waste their own lives. Once conflict starts, the targets picked will have military significance (at least, according to the intelligence availabe), and if western protesters are sitting on those military targets it is going to be their tough luck. If a wrong target is picked or there is a communications fubar, having westerners on the ground can't do anything to deter it, and it's still going to be their tough luck.

You are making it a bit too easy.
What you don´t take into account is that the US forces know quite well which type of attack has which probability to miss its target and cause "collateral damage". In general, air attacks have a greater risk of causing collateral damage than ground attacks for example, but a smaller risk for your own soldiers.

Now, if there is a relevant number of western civilians in Baghdad for example, the US might simply decide to use attacks which are less likely to go wrong (use more of the expensive high-precision bombs, use ground forces earlier than they would otherwise). While the presence of the protesters cannot do anything when a wrong target is picked or a communication problem happened, it can maybe lessen the probability of such errors.

Moldran

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

And please remember that the vast majority of the civilians killed in Dresden actively supported the most criminal regime the earth has ever seen. Morally condemning the allied forces for their bombing of Dresden does not seem appropriate to me. It were the Germans (not just the Nazi leadership!) who chose that war. They got what they wanted.

That is, perhaps, the scariest and most callous statement I've seen in a long time.

Dresden was overflowing with war refugees. Grandfathers, mothers and children... none of whom had ever lifted a weapon or actively sought open conflict.

The Allies' causing the firestorm from an unbelievable release of tonnage was a calculated political maneouver, and had little to do with any actual war goal. The result that the British and Americans wanted was two-fold: They were showing the Russians that they were equally pushing towards Germany's defeat, and they were making sure that Russia was left with a burnt husk of a city once they got there.

Dresden was a cultural center... not a military target. The fact that it had been ignored completely by Allied Strategic Command up 'til that point is telling.

Now then... you're asserting that the burning to death of the elderly, women and children is appropriate? Because they were GERMAN and WANTED THE WAR??!

I sincerely hope you don't truly feel that way... for that is the same reasoning why the terrorists cells in this world seek to kill American citizens. You're American, after all... and as guilty as your government is of all the crimes that it does, worldwide. Following through on this train of morality and thought... it could be equally said that 9/11 was America's "They got what they wanted".

Limited thinking is a dangerous thing. Limited thinking paired with misplaced morality is far, far worse.

[Moldran]

Dresden was overflowing with war refugees. Grandfathers, mothers and children... none of whom had ever lifted a weapon or actively sought open conflict.

The very same grandfathers who elected NSDAP. The very same mothers who educated their children to become good Nazis. All those "innocent" German civilians that made WW2 and the Holocaust possible, motivated by their Nationalist Antisemitic ideology.

I sincerely hope you don't truly feel that way... for that is the same reasoning why the terrorists cells in this world seek to kill American citizens.

Today, America does not wage war upon a whole continent. America does not run elimination camps. Germany did, and most of the people who died in Dresden supported that. It were not only the people carrying a weapon who committed the Holocaust.
You are not per se responsible for the actions of the government you happen to be under. But if you support a regime as terrible as the NSDAP, you are fully responsible for the crimes it committs.
The bombing of Dresden was a direct result of the war Germany had started, in which it made little difference between civilian and military targets. Remember the attacks on English cities. Remember the murder units that followed the Wehrmacht on the eastern front.
The Germans must have known that their own brutal logic would turn against them should they lose the war.
Wether it was militarily necessary or more politically motivated - the Germans who died in the bombing of Dresden were not innocent victims.

Moldran

[Occhidiangela]

1. Martyrdom is a tried and true way of making a point. A man called Jesus used it, and others before him. It has been used to good effect by Islamics for centuries, and I am sure the historians here could come up with more examples of the effect martyrdom can have in other cultures. If the Human Shields want to be martyrs, so be it. It is a calculated political risk they are willing to take, and whether or not their bluff is called depends on how much political risk the Allied forces are willing to accept. We shall see. War being a child of politics, the media being a feature of war, and martyrdom being best used on screen these days, it is simply part of the environment of conflict. Anyone remember the Bhuddist monk who set himself on fire back in the 1960's in Viet Nam? That act spoke volumes, as it got captured by the international media, which I believe was his objective.

2. About fratricide. The blue on blue engagements, such as the British armored vehicles in 1991, the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan recently, the American Bradley Fighting Vehicle that got waxed by an Apache Hellfire Missile in 1991, and for that matter, the two US Blackhawks that got shot down by US F-15's over NOrthern Iraq a few years later, are all evidence of the fact that war, and the application of deadly force, is a human endeavour and subject to error. Warblade can try to attribute malice to a case of error, and will be mistaken.

To understand fratricide, one should look at the B-24 raid in Normandy in 1944 that killed over 200 American soldiers, including three star General Wesley McNair. An error in flight path, a little wind, a non doctrinal approach to the lines, a high altitude bombing raid planned as CLose Air Support, and a spotting error all contributed to tons of bombs falling on the wrong side of the line.

If anyone expects zero defects when dropping bombs, they are asking for a measure of perfection not yet attainable in a human endeavour. Most of the recent fratricide events are directly traceable to explicit procedural errors, and most importantly to failures in communication. The Canadians in Afghanistan is a good example of that. Errors in communication is a human norm.

Soldiers go in harms way: it comes with th badge. Until anyone can come up with an effective method to guarantee zero defects, some will occasionally die to "friendly fire" when the shooting starts. The modern battlefield, as lethal as it is, has a remarkably low Friendly Fire incidence rate. Of course, if you happen to the guy who gets hit, it sucks royally.

3. Collateral damage. The American Media and the US Air Force did a great job of selling precision weapons as some silver bullet during the GUlf War II (1991). As far as I am concerned, it was one of the worst snow jobs in history. When things blow up, stuff flies everywhere. When things blow up in a city where people live, things and people who are not primary targets will often get hit. That is the nature of warfare conducted with modern weapons. What has changed is that in order to hit a particular target, like a commmand center, it takes one or two bombs, whereas even as recently as Viet Nam, it would take plane loads of bombs to cover a few city blocks in hopes of hitting a particular building. That sort of collateral damage is a thing of the past.

4. Pure error. The bombed French Embassy in 1986, Lybia and the bombed Chinese Embassy Belgrade 1999. Here are errors in targeting that perplex me, particularly the 1999 bombing when precision weapons made up a huge majority of ordnance in the air attacks. It still boils down to errors in either intelligence, as in the grid coordinates of proper targets, or errors in application of the armed aircraft. However, if you look at the Operation Dorado canyon in 1986 and the 71 day bombing of Belgrade in 1999, you will still find that, per sortie flown, the error rate is well below 1%. Try duplicating that in most any other endeavour. And with such a low real error rate, it is inane to ask that one not undertake a course of action for fear that some one might make a mistake. Try applying that logic to any other human endeavour, and one might find out how ludicrous that is. "I ought not drive to the grocery store, as someone might run the red light and T-bone me." Bah.

The emotional foaming at the mouth about civilian casualties in Iraq 1991 is preposterous: placing civilians in command centers makes them a target, and oh by the way, violates the Geneva accords in regards to non-combatants. The US, and every NATO nation's doctrine and explicit political goal is to minimize avoidbale casualties of non-combatants. Considering how far we have come from 1945 to present, that goal has been achieved in spades.

For all of the zero defects mavens out there, (not you Rhydd): go find a Utopia somewhere to apply your logic in. The rest of us will continue to live here on planet Earth, that home to human imperfection.

[Dani]

The very same grandfathers who elected NSDAP. The very same mothers who educated their children to become good Nazis. All those "innocent" German civilians that made WW2 and the Holocaust possible, motivated by their Nationalist Antisemitic ideology.

First of all, I don't think, that any attrocities done by your opposition legitimizes attrocities done by yourself. So basically talk about the guilt or innocense of the German civilians should not even be relevant.

As for the nazi-quotient of the German population. We don't have very reliable sources to estimate it. It is likely, that once the nazis got into power, people went with the flow for fear as much as any support. Also the (most) civilians weren't aware of how far the nazi attrocities went. Finally, IIRC in the last (legit) elections, the nsdap got less than 40% of the vote, thus further invalidating your laying of blame/guilt unto the entire German civilian population.

WW2 is erroneusly considered largely to be the last "good war". Yes the cause was good, but there are stains of such deep shame also in the western allied camp, that one would hope such consideration would finally come to an end.

[ShadowHM]

Dear Moldran,

The logic you showed in justifying the fire-bombing of Dresden has me appalled, and I am regretting having opened this thread at all, but........

The civilians who were there helped elect a government that did nasty things, so it is ok that they were killed deliberately?

You are not per se responsible for the actions of the government you happen to be under. But if you support a regime as terrible as the NSDAP, you are fully responsible for the crimes it committs.
The bombing of Dresden was a direct result of the war Germany had started, in which it made little difference between civilian and military targets. Remember the attacks on English cities. Remember the murder units that followed the Wehrmacht on the eastern front.


By that logic, it would have been ok for the Nicaraguans to have sent terrorist attacks to University Town, U.S.A. because the goverment they elected encouraged, funded and equipped the Contras who terrorized and murdered innocent civilians there.

Or did you forget about that?

[Occhidiangela]

But the reality is that once you elect, or are served by, political leaders of a country, one of the prices of that is that when they make an error, or pursue a lousy course of action, you, the citizen, pay the price. That is not news to anyone, or it should not be. Which is why open and representative government, where the leadership is accountable to the people, is the best of the imperfect governmental forms available as a choice.

Now, should it be that way? I am not yet sure if there is a better set up that is practically implementable.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't think, that any attrocities done by your opposition legitimizes attrocities done by yourself.

Yes! "They did it first" is an excuse that is never valid.

However, there is the question of just what an "atrocity" is. The death camps, the extermination squads, the Bataan death march, the POW camps that were slave camps, those were clear examples of atrocities. The bombing of cities in what was a total war? That is more problematic.

Sometimes people forget that war is *supposed* to be harsh, it is supposed to be cruel, Yeah, a nice world, where there are no Saddam's, no Hitler's, no Stalin's, no Idi Amin's, no YouNameIt would be a nice world where there would be no need for war. But, as has been shown, every time the pacifists were in power people like those I mentioned took advantage of the opportunity to grab what they wanted. And the small effort and loss of life that would have been necessary to stop the situation at the start became a huge cost in lives by the time the pacifists acted (or, more often where thrown out and people with balls put in charge).

In my opinion, the pacifists throughout history have caused more grief and killed more people from their inability to act than have all the warmongers. So, yeah, there is no "good" war. Never was, never will be. But there are necessary ones, and procrastinating on those kills more people in the long run. But it seldom kills the pacifist, and that's a pity. They let others fight and die for their mistakes.

--Pete

[ShadowHM]

But the reality is that once you elect, or are served by, political leaders of a country, one of the prices of that is that when they make an error, or pursue a lousy course of action, you, the citizen, pay the price.&nbsp; That is not news to anyone, or it should not be.

Quite right, Occhi

Once a government is in power, whether *you* elected them or not, you are impacted by the decisions they make.

I was revolted by the notion that this made the citizens of Dresden somehow 'deserving' of being fire-bombed.

[Moldran]

Dani:

First of all, I don't think, that any attrocities done by your opposition legitimizes attrocities done by yourself.

The point is not so much what legitimizes what, but that it is important to remember what was the cause and what was the result.
Maybe the act of the carpet bombing of Dresden was not militarily justified (although I think it had alot more justification than is commonly believed - breaking the morale of the German population was a legitimate goal in WW2, seeing how stubborn they kept supporting NS).
When you naively condemn the bombing as an unjustified attack on civilians, you twist the historical facts.
You cannot properly judge this attack without keeping in mind what type of society Germany was, and what type of war WW2 was.

As for the nazi-quotient of the German population. We don't have very reliable sources to estimate it. It is likely, that once the nazis got into power, people went with the flow for fear as much as any support. Also the (most) civilians weren't aware of how far the nazi attrocities went. Finally, IIRC in the last (legit) elections, the nsdap got less than 40% of the vote, thus further invalidating your laying of blame/guilt unto the entire German civilian population.

First of all, going with the flow of such a society is a crime. Wether you agree with their ideology or not, if you don´t do anything against them, you make yourself guilty. The Nazis did not try to keep their goals secret. "Mein Kampf" was widely distributed before 1933, and Hitler made very clear in his speeches what he was going to do should he get power. Everyone knew. That "we did not know how far the nazi attrocities went" excuse does not count. They should have known.
Second, it is safe to say that the vast majority of Germans agreed with the goals of NS in principle. The fact that they kept supporting NS even after it was clear to the biggest idiot that the war was lost speaks for itself. The small part of the German population that did the only right thing you could do - active resistance - was hardly in Dresden when the bombs fell. By that time, anyone who really was in opposition to the Nazis was either dead, in a concentration camp, or emigrated.

W2 is erroneusly considered largely to be the last "good war". Yes the cause was good, but there are stains of such deep shame also in the western allied camp, that one would hope such consideration would finally come to an end.

In war, all sides usually do bad things. The Germans knew that when they started it. There is no "good war". But there is necessary war. The alternative to the military defeat of Germany was a Europe, and possibly even a world, under Nazi leadership. Luckily, the allied forces prevented that.

Shadow:

The logic you showed in justifying the fire-bombing of Dresden has me appalled, and I am regretting having opened this thread at all, but........
The civilians who were there helped elect a government that did nasty things, so it is ok that they were killed deliberately?

It was not "ok", but it was their own fault. They started all the bloodshed. When Hitler asked them if they wanted total war, they happily screamed "yes". So they got total war.

By that logic, it would have been ok for the Nicaraguans to have sent terrorist attacks to University Town, U.S.A. because the goverment they elected encouraged, funded and equipped the Contras who terrorized and murdered innocent civilians there.

US support for brutal para-military organizations, as terrible as it may be, is a whole different story than what Germany did between 1933 and 1945, don´t you think ? And the support the US have for these things in their own population is also very different.

Moldran

[kandrathe]

I was revolted by the notion that this made the citizens of Dresden somehow 'deserving' of being fire-bombed.

Me too. They didn't deserve it. It was horrible, as was Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the Blitz of London. But, it was determined by the leaders at that time to be neccesary to "break the will" of the people and their leaders. Those other things, like those Pete mentioned (I would throw in the rape of Nanking), are war crimes which cry out for justice.

As for those misnamed willing human shields in Baghdad, IMHO they are what I would call "useful idiots". I respect their conviction, and willingness to walk their talk reminiscient of the ancient Mo-ist philosophy, which is a far cry better than most of the fashionable "peace protesters". However, I think they are on the wrong side of the conflict, which unfortunately makes them the enemy. It is one thing to believe that your government is wrong, and work to change the minds of your elected officials or vote in new ones, but quite another to actively work against your own government. I call that sedition or treason. Take the recent skirmish during the protests in San Francisco, some call smashing police cars, and store windows civil disobedience, I call it crime.