Osama bin Laden 'used a human shield,' quote unquote.

9:35 AM 5/4/11

'He used a human shield.' Propaganda.

What is a human shield? Does it mean you grabbed someone and pulled them in front of you, and held them there, by force? 'Shield' makes it sound as though you are physically holding someone in place with your hands, and not letting them escape.

What if, instead, you said 'My buddy jumped in front of me and took a bullet for me.' Does that have a totally different meaning? Or is that a 'human shield?'

Every member of the military is a 'human shield,' on my behalf, without my consent - they are all 'taking bullets for me' in a faraway country. They are just very far away from the person they are shielding. Am I evil for using a 'human shield?'

Why don't they say Osama bin Laden was 'cowering fearfully behind someone else?' Because if he was fearful and cowering, that might make him seem pathetic, or fragile, or, worst of all, HUMAN. He mustn't show any 'fear' or any other human emotion. That might make people feel SORRY for him. Instead, he must be portrayed as an evil, manipulative person who uses other people as objects - therefore, 'human shield.' He cannot possibly have any emotions such as fear.

But I imagine bin Laden might have been cowering fearfully behind someone else. Or one of his buddies jumped in front of him to take a bullet. In fact, the radio talk show I was listening to said that it was one of his wives who was in front of him. We wouldn't want to portray the females as being strong and protective people who voluntarily jump in front of him to protect him. The females are weak, helpless, unconsenting 'human shields' who are physically lifted and physically held in place to act as a shield, in front of a larger, stronger man who won't let them run away.

What are they talking about when they say that people are using 'human shields' and that this is unethical and cowardly behavior that we disapprove of? Why is that 'fighting dirty?' Why is 'trying to survive' a dirty thing to do?

Does it WORK? Does it actually prevent the soldiers from shooting them?

Fighting dirty? You want to talk about fighting dirty? I know. I have an idea. Let's take this big PRINTING PRESS, and let's print off billions and billions of dollars on it, and then give those dollars to ourselves. Then, let's go out and buy billions and billions of dollars worth of guns and helicopters and bombs and planes. Then, let's fly to a foreign country where they're not allowed to print billions of dollars and hand it to themselves. Then, let's kill all those people. Is that a 'clean' method of fighting?

Is he supposed to just LET THEM shoot him? Is that what 'clean fighting' means?

Not long now... the radio will stop talking about it... the internet news articles will stop appearing... everyone will just casually go back to invading their foreign countries without a scapegoat anymore... because they can. They can do whatever they want. We can't stop them.

They wanted to make sure that the killing of bin Laden was a 'show' that they would put on to make sure everybody knew he was dead. They had to choose the 'right moment in time' to do it. Somebody decided that, for whatever reason, now is the politically correct moment to make a big show out of killing someone who they could have killed discreetly a long time ago. It's not so much just about merely killing bin Laden, it's about MAKING SURE *EVERYBODY KNOWS* bin Laden has been killed. Just KNOWING it happened is important. If he were killed discreetly, we wouldn't KNOW, and so we would still be running around scared of the supernatural demon. He doesn't even have to actually EXIST to cause problems. We merely have to BELIEVE that bin Laden is alive, in order to have an excuse to do stupid things.

Why am I ranting so much?