Porphyrogenitus has a good question:
Ok, so I've been reading the news accounts of the latest round of bombings in Iraq. I figured that if anything was deserving of such protection as having a ring of human shields to prevent bombing, it might be a Red Cross facility dedicated to succoring the Iraqi people. But no mention of any human shields.
I guess it's a question of sincerity. It's a whole lot easier to stand in front of buildings you know aren't going to be targeted.
Presented on the off chance that somebody who reads me doesn't read Instapundit
Posted by Rich at October 28, 2003 12:37 PM | TrackBackThe hoped-for outcome of the human shields was to make American commanders, pilots, and soldiers think twice before ordering off the cruise missile, bombing, or shooting whatever since it would potentially kill an American citizen. However misguided that hope may have been ...
How, exactly, does an American human shield give an Iraqi terrorist even a moment's pause?
Posted by: Mike on October 28, 2003 2:54 PMOK, some progress has been made. At least we can agree now that Americans don't intentionally target innocents, while terrorists do.
Posted by: rich on October 29, 2003 9:23 AMInsta-who?
Posted by: Barry on October 29, 2003 4:00 PM