• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it wrong for the IDF to use human shields?

Is it wrong for the IDF to use human shields?

  • Yes. It is wrong.

    Votes: 11 78.6%
  • No. It is not wrong.

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Total voters
    14
You got a lot of nerve saying it was these were isolated incidents coming from a nation that is currently in violation of 63 UN resolutions, has illegally maintained a blockade of goods and services from going into Gaza for the last 18 months, which is a war crime, held on to land they seized in a war in violation of international law for the last 42 years and has basically took a **** on the very organization that gave them their nationhood. They constantly target civilians, they refused letting in doctors to Gaza, they've destroyed civilian infrastructure while they irresponsibly blamed Hamas and you say these were isolated events!

Excuse me, I have to throw up!

But I'm not surprised coming from you. You're one of the ones that inferred I was talking about all troops being murderer's, when I spoke about a few isolated incidents.

Funny how that door doesn't swing boths ways, doesn't it?


Damn billo you didnt know all Militaries use such practices?
Jeez its in Cover101 right next to "How to kill children for fun".
 
As I said, in your other poll, Onion Eater. Disingenous, skewed, misrepresenting, with the sole intention of vilifying Israel. Little or no substance.
I still don't see how it is "debunked". They're are doing enough of it to be a concern with human rights groups. So you can't say it is an "isolated incident". And judging from all the other war crimes they are doing, it looks like standard practice to me. They've been starving Gaza for 18 months due to their blockade, another war crime.

You're saying its an isolated incident coming from a nation that practices collective punishment? Get real!
 
Damn billo you didnt know all Militaries use such practices?
Jeez its in Cover101 right next to "How to kill children for fun".
And TEVO it for halftime later.
 
At least Israeli soldier's get punished by their own government when they use human shields. Does the Hamas?

Excellent point!

Plus Isreal citizens don't get radical and lob rockets over!

Plus Isreal citizens don't brainwash their women and children to go and suicide bomb Palistinian food markets.

Doesn't Hamas already use their fellow citizens for human shields anyways?
 
Why do you consider every anti-israeli post is ridiculous, must your opinion the one who only exist ?

There is a difference between a ridiculous anti-Israel post and a legitimate, debatable anti-Israel post. The one I commented on was the former.
 
You got a lot of nerve saying it was these were isolated incidents coming from a nation that is currently in violation of 63 UN resolutions, has illegally maintained a blockade of goods and services from going into Gaza for the last 18 months, which is a war crime, held on to land they seized in a war in violation of international law for the last 42 years and has basically took a **** on the very organization that gave them their nationhood. They constantly target civilians, they refused letting in doctors to Gaza, they've destroyed civilian infrastructure while they irresponsibly blamed Hamas and you say these were isolated events!

Excuse me, I have to throw up!

But I'm not surprised coming from you. You're one of the ones that inferred I was talking about all troops being murderer's, when I spoke about a few isolated incidents.

Funny how that door doesn't swing boths ways, doesn't it?

Completely contradictory statements. You seem to be attaching yourself to a position when it suits you and distancing yourself when it does not. Not a very solid debating tactic at all.
 
I still don't see how it is "debunked". They're are doing enough of it to be a concern with human rights groups. So you can't say it is an "isolated incident". And judging from all the other war crimes they are doing, it looks like standard practice to me. They've been starving Gaza for 18 months due to their blockade, another war crime.

You're saying its an isolated incident coming from a nation that practices collective punishment? Get real!

Which is it, Billo, isolated or not? You've adhered to each position and flip flopped so often you don't know which side you're on. :roll:

Further, my debunking was around his misrepresentation of the situation. He implied, based on his link, that this was widespread. His link not only showed that it wasn't, but also showed that it was outlawed in 2005 and some members of the IDF who were found to have done this, since, were arrested and suspended. He failed to mention this, disingenuously, misrepresenting the situation. I "corrected" him, debunking the implications of his position.

I hope that clears things up for you.
 
Do you understand the term Conscription?

Do you understand the term Rufusenik?

In January 2002, 51 reserve soldiers and officers signed a "Combat Troops' Letter" or "Combatants' Letter" in which they declared their refusal "to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people."

"The pilots' letter," published on September 24, 2003, was signed by 27 reserve pilots and former pilots already exempt from reserve duty. One of the signatories was a famous former pilot Brigadier General (res.) Yiftah Spector. In their letter, the pilots stated:

We, veteran and active pilots alike, who served and still serve the state of Israel for long weeks every year, are opposed to carrying out attack orders that are illegal and immoral of the type the state of Israel has been conducting in the territories. We, who were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in Air Force attacks on civilian population centers. We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians. These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society. Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength.

The commando’s letter, dated December 2003, was signed by 13 reservists of Sayeret Matkal, an elite commando unit, serving in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (nine commandos in Sayeret Matkal, 2 soldiers who had been removed from reserve duty because of prior refusals to serve there, and 2 additional combatant soldiers). Their letter, addressed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, stated:

We shall no longer lend a hand in the occupation of the territories. We shall no longer take part in the deprivation of basic human rights from millions of Palestinians. We shall no longer serve as a shield in the crusade of the settlements. We shall no longer corrupt our moral character in missions of oppression. We shall no longer deny our responsibility as soldiers of the Israeli DEFENSE force.
 
Been there done that. Right?

Here are some guys who have been there and done that:

In January 2002, 51 reserve soldiers and officers signed a "Combat Troops' Letter" or "Combatants' Letter" in which they declared their refusal "to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people."

"The pilots' letter," published on September 24, 2003, was signed by 27 reserve pilots and former pilots already exempt from reserve duty. One of the signatories was a famous former pilot Brigadier General (res.) Yiftah Spector. In their letter, the pilots stated:

We, veteran and active pilots alike, who served and still serve the state of Israel for long weeks every year, are opposed to carrying out attack orders that are illegal and immoral of the type the state of Israel has been conducting in the territories. We, who were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in Air Force attacks on civilian population centers. We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians. These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society. Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength.

The commando’s letter, dated December 2003, was signed by 13 reservists of Sayeret Matkal, an elite commando unit, serving in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (nine commandos in Sayeret Matkal, 2 soldiers who had been removed from reserve duty because of prior refusals to serve there, and 2 additional combatant soldiers). Their letter, addressed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, stated:

We shall no longer lend a hand in the occupation of the territories. We shall no longer take part in the deprivation of basic human rights from millions of Palestinians. We shall no longer serve as a shield in the crusade of the settlements. We shall no longer corrupt our moral character in missions of oppression. We shall no longer deny our responsibility as soldiers of the Israeli DEFENSE force.

Source: Refusal to serve in the Israeli military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your true underlying intent here is to take isolated incidents and portray these as standard practice and official policy.

The only really isolated incidents that I know of are when western journalists manage to smuggle video out of Gaza. As official policy, the IDF bans western journalists from Gaza, you know. The Russians did the same thing in Grozny and their official policy backfired on them, just as it is backfiring on the Israelis. Honesty really is the best policy.

Journalists [in Chechnya, 1995] were striking back at Russian military leaders for the latter’s criticism of the reporting from Grozny. Members of the news media pointed out that it was nearly impossible to report from military bases because they could not go anywhere and their cameras and film were confiscated, whereas the Dudayevites helped reporters. This resulted in “one-sided” reporting from the Dudayev perspective according to some journalists. The latter asked who was to blame for the portrayal of events under such conditions, the journalists or the Russian military commanders who refused the journalists access to Russian soliders? Even the Russian command later indicated it had made a serious mistake in this area. Counterintelligence head Sergei Stepashin noted that “we began the operation in Chechnya without having prepared public opinion for it at all. . . I would include the simply absurd ban on journalists working among our troops, . . . while journalists were his [Dudayev’s] invited guests.”

Source: Timothy Thomas, Lt Col, Battle for Grozny

Sleazy poll ya got goin here Eater.

I would call you "sleazy" for defending the practice of kidnapping children to use as human shields, but that would just get me suspended for flaming a moderator. So, instead, I will just define double standard for you.
 
Last edited:
Here are some guys who have been there and done that:

In January 2002, 51 reserve soldiers and officers signed a "Combat Troops' Letter" or "Combatants' Letter" in which they declared their refusal "to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people."

"The pilots' letter," published on September 24, 2003, was signed by 27 reserve pilots and former pilots already exempt from reserve duty. One of the signatories was a famous former pilot Brigadier General (res.) Yiftah Spector. In their letter, the pilots stated:

We, veteran and active pilots alike, who served and still serve the state of Israel for long weeks every year, are opposed to carrying out attack orders that are illegal and immoral of the type the state of Israel has been conducting in the territories. We, who were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in Air Force attacks on civilian population centers. We, for whom the Israel Defense Forces and the Air Force are an inalienable part of ourselves, refuse to continue to harm innocent civilians. These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society. Perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security of the state of Israel and its moral strength.

The commando’s letter, dated December 2003, was signed by 13 reservists of Sayeret Matkal, an elite commando unit, serving in the West Bank and Gaza Strip (nine commandos in Sayeret Matkal, 2 soldiers who had been removed from reserve duty because of prior refusals to serve there, and 2 additional combatant soldiers). Their letter, addressed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, stated:

We shall no longer lend a hand in the occupation of the territories. We shall no longer take part in the deprivation of basic human rights from millions of Palestinians. We shall no longer serve as a shield in the crusade of the settlements. We shall no longer corrupt our moral character in missions of oppression. We shall no longer deny our responsibility as soldiers of the Israeli DEFENSE force.

Source: Refusal to serve in the Israeli military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The only really isolated incidents that I know of are when western journalists manage to smuggle video out of Gaza. As official policy, the IDF bans western journalists from Gaza, you know. The Russians did the same thing in Grozny and their official policy backfired on them, just as it is backfiring on the Israelis. Honesty really is the best policy.

Journalists [in Chechnya, 1995] were striking back at Russian military leaders for the latter’s criticism of the reporting from Grozny. Members of the news media pointed out that it was nearly impossible to report from military bases because they could not go anywhere and their cameras and film were confiscated, whereas the Dudayevites helped reporters. This resulted in “one-sided” reporting from the Dudayev perspective according to some journalists. The latter asked who was to blame for the portrayal of events under such conditions, the journalists or the Russian military commanders who refused the journalists access to Russian soliders? Even the Russian command later indicated it had made a serious mistake in this area. Counterintelligence head Sergei Stepashin noted that “we began the operation in Chechnya without having prepared public opinion for it at all. . . I would include the simply absurd ban on journalists working among our troops, . . . while journalists were his [Dudayev’s] invited guests.”

Source: Timothy Thomas, Lt Col, Battle for Grozny



I would call you "sleazy" for defending the practice of kidnapping children to use as human shields, but that would just get me suspended for flaming a moderator. So, instead, I will just define double standard for you.

I have a better one for you. How about looking up the definitions of "loaded question" and "overgeneralization". The former defines your poll, and the latter defines your argument and position. When you say "The only really isolated incidents that I know of are when western journalists manage to smuggle video out of Gaza," you are demonstrating, clearly, that you have no evidence. Just your own logical fallacies that muck up and misrepresent, searching, veinly for a position that is fallacious, only with the intent to vilify.
 
take isolated incidents and portray these as standard practice and official policy.

It is hard to argue that this was "isolated incidents" when it took a supreme court order to stop this practice that the IDF argued for its continuation in a law suit filed by human rights groups that lasted for 3 years. Had it been "isolated incidents" that did not represnt a "standard practice" at least at one time, the IDF would had stopped it without the need for a law suit. That did not happen.

The army had argued that the practice should be permissible in some cases, in order to prevent possible shootouts and bloodshed. Israeli hard-liners said the new restrictions would make it more difficult for the army to act against militants

israelinsider: security: Supreme Court bans IDF use of Palestinian civilians as 'shields' in arrests
 
Last edited:
IDF used children as human shields? Proof please.

I provided proof in the OP. Let us compare what "proof" means to each side of this debate:

YouTube - Hamas terrorists kill innocent Palestinian in Gaza (Rare Video) (Must See)

Turn off the audio on your video and think about how much of what you know about this incident you actually saw and how much the narrator told you. Some guys shoot up a wedding. Who are they? Why did they attack these people? Where and when did this occur? None of that is in the video. The narrator is just telling us what is happening.

And, incidentally, why was a wedding being videotaped from across the street? Did the videographer know ahead of time what was going to happen? Why did he position himself in an upstairs window 200 yards away from the event he was videotaping? He certainly focused on the approaching vehicles quickly, even before the men got out with guns. Did the bride's father hire a professional photographer, as most fathers of brides do? Where is that video?

YouTube - Hamas admits it uses human shields

In this video, man is shouting in Arabic while English subtitles describe him confessing to using women and children as human shields. Are the subtitles accurate? I don't know - I don't speak Arabic. For all I know, he's complaining about his missing dry cleaning.

In sharp contrast to your videos, the following ones show uniformed IDF soldiers using human shields. The frame in the first video where the boy is at the door and the soldiers are sighting their rifles over his shoulder really doesn't need a narrator to explain it for us. Similarly, in the second video, the boys sitting on the hood of the Humvee aren't there because their feet are tired.

Unlike in your videos, we are not asked to trust an anonymous narrator or an anonymous translator. We are only asked to trust our own eyes.

YouTube - IDF using Human Shield

YouTube - Israeli IDF commander uses Palestinian Human Shields
 
When you say "The only really isolated incidents that I know of are when western journalists manage to smuggle video out of Gaza," you are demonstrating, clearly, that you have no evidence. Just your own logical fallacies that muck up and misrepresent, searching, veinly for a position that is fallacious, only with the intent to vilify.

Actually, no. When I say, "the only really isolated incidents that I know of are when western journalists manage to smuggle video out of Gaza," I am demonstrating, clearly, that the reason I only have two videotaped incidents is because they were the only two to get past the IDF censors.

Instead of cursing me with grammatical jumbles like, "just your own logical fallacies that muck up and misrepresent, searching, veinly for a position that is fallacious," why don't you try to explain away what we can all clearly see in the videos?

Here they are again:

YouTube - IDF using Human Shield

YouTube - Israeli IDF commander uses Palestinian Human Shields
 
I provided proof in the OP.

The "kids" from your video's in your OP were not kids. They had to be at the very least in their 20's. People in their twenties are NOT kids. They are adults.

Let us compare what "proof" means to each side of this debate:

Yes lets do.

Onion Eater;1057886022Turn off the audio on your video and think about how much of what you know about this incident you actually saw and how much the narrator told you. Some guys shoot up a wedding. Who are they? Why did they attack these people? Where and when did this occur? None of that is in the video. The narrator is just [i said:
telling[/i] us what is happening.

Not hard to do. Just so you know I took your suggestion and watched the video without the narrator. Only difference is I did that BEFORE I replayed it and listened to the narrator. I'm seeing a white wedding wreath. Which in some cultures represent a wreath used in funerals. But AFAIK that does not apply to Islamists. A bunch of chairs and several people standing around. Other than that I've no idea what they are doing. Then I see several trucks pull up and everyone starts to scramble away. I notice that the newcomers are dressed up just like Hamas dress up. From this I can see that they are Hamas. I see them beating on people and at one point a truck that the Hamas arrived in smash into all the chairs that were there. Later on in the video I again see those same types of trucks used in a different area. I see people dressed up like Hamas detain several what appears to be Palistinians and it looks like they have some of them half undressed. Though they could have been that way before they were detained. Either way they are obviously palastinians. What were thier crimes? Who knows. But then you have to wonder what crime was committed at a wedding.

And, incidentally, why was a wedding being videotaped from across the street? Did the videographer know ahead of time what was going to happen? Why did he position himself in an upstairs window 200 yards away from the event he was videotaping? He certainly focused on the approaching vehicles quickly, even before the men got out with guns. Did the bride's father hire a professional photographer, as most fathers of brides do? Where is that video?

Non sequitor. Doesn't matter why the person was there taping. For all you know it was someone that wanted to tape a happy event so that they could see some happiness in their lives. I can't imagine that they have much happiness coming towards them in such an enviroment. Can you? Trying to hint that they were some "plant" to discredit the Hamas with actors dressed in Hamas cloathing does you no good without proof.

In this video, man is shouting in Arabic while English subtitles describe him confessing to using women and children as human shields. Are the subtitles accurate? I don't know - I don't speak Arabic. For all I know, he's complaining about his missing dry cleaning.

And for all you know the subtitles are correct. It's amazing the spin that you put on things just to try and support the Hamas. You admit that you don't know arabic yet you are so willing to say that those video's are telling lies. :roll: Let me ask you a question though. If the subtitles were lies and that the person talking was actually saying something else then don't you think that someone that DOES speak Arabic would say something about it being a lie? There are plenty of neutral parties that speak Arabic ya know. Surely one of them would say something, dontcha think? Hell even a palastine could speak up and say something...I've yet to see one video that refutes the claim that the subtitles in that video are incorrect. Got one handy?

In sharp contrast to your videos, the following ones show uniformed IDF soldiers using human shields. The frame in the first video where the boy is at the door and the soldiers are sighting their rifles over his shoulder really doesn't need a narrator to explain it for us. Similarly, in the second video, the boys sitting on the hood of the Humvee aren't there because their feet are tired.

Thats not a boy. It's an adult. The guy had to be in his twenties. Same with the second video. And even according to your own video the IDF soldiers that did this was suspended. Do you even watch those videos all the way through before you put them up here? If you're trying to prove something you don't really want to use video that SAY's that the ones that do this are punished. (ie suspended in the case of this video). Of course you probably don't want to believe it since someone "narrated it". You're on a very slippery slope when you start trying to cast doubt as to what the narrators are saying.

Unlike in your videos, we are not asked to trust an anonymous narrator or an anonymous translator. We are only asked to trust our own eyes.

I trusted my eyes in your videos. They were showing exactly what the narrator was saying as far as I can tell. Same thing with the videos that I put up. You see your problem is that you don't want to believe the bad things that Hamas does because you support thier endeavor.
 
Actually, no. When I say, "the only really isolated incidents that I know of are when western journalists manage to smuggle video out of Gaza," I am demonstrating, clearly, that the reason I only have two videotaped incidents is because they were the only two to get past the IDF censors.

Instead of cursing me with grammatical jumbles like, "just your own logical fallacies that muck up and misrepresent, searching, veinly for a position that is fallacious," why don't you try to explain away what we can all clearly see in the videos?

Here they are again:

YouTube - IDF using Human Shield

YouTube - Israeli IDF commander uses Palestinian Human Shields

My presentation of your logical fallacies is accurate. You have no evidence to your conclusion. Another alternative is that these are the only incidents that occurred. You continue to search veinly for a fallacious position that does not exist.
 

Please remain in front of the vehicle,(in plain view),you are being arrested for your terrorist activities this morning. "Human Shied"? How about rocket launchers on the roof tops of schools ,hospitals, apartment buildings,shelters,the terrorist returnig HOME,(to his own house) with his bag of goodies,(and his family as a shield). Forget useing a military base for as a base,or a military camp.The M.O. of the muslim world is,"hide behind a human shield". Cry me a river liberals, Israel is under attack,plain and simple.DO NOT...,I repeat DO NOT trust your local media source ,nor their contextual photos.
 
Last edited:
Actually, no. When I say, "the only really isolated incidents that I know of are when western journalists manage to smuggle video out of Gaza," I am demonstrating, clearly, that the reason I only have two videotaped incidents is because they were the only two to get past the IDF censors.

Instead of cursing me with grammatical jumbles like, "just your own logical fallacies that muck up and misrepresent, searching, veinly for a position that is fallacious," why don't you try to explain away what we can all clearly see in the videos?

Here they are again:

YouTube - IDF using Human Shield

YouTube - Israeli IDF commander uses Palestinian Human Shields
Glass Onion,I can very easily see through you. In this age of WIRELESS INTERNET, the terrorists reporting on the behalf of the terrorists,need to get up to speed on WIRELESS exportation of file footage.In my most recent post I think the implication that the terrorists were being arrested and ORDERED to,"Remain in plain site", explains away your assertion that they are being used to deflect armor piercing rounds. Thank you for being a terrorist sympathizer and makeing rebuttal so darned easy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom