View Poll Results: See OP: Who is responsible for the death of the human shields?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Side A

    41 89.13%
  • Side B

    5 10.87%
Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 185

Thread: Human shields

  1. #31
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: Human shields

    Side A is at fault for using innocent humans (assuming its an involuntary act) as shields and deliberately causing there deaths. A side which commits war crimes is under no circumstance "innocent" under any pretext.
    Side B is at fault depending on the situation. Side B has a moral/legal obligation to avoid harming the innocent human shield and so should do there best to seek an alternative method of attack.....
    but Side B may have very little other options or choice but to use a method of attack that would put these human shields in harms way, which means they are innocent, as they are only defending themselves/a cause. This isn't always the case though....

    You should have included "other". People should always include an "Other" option in there polls as politics is never that black and white.
    Last edited by kaya'08; 03-11-10 at 10:50 AM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  2. #32
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Both sides are responsible for their deaths. Side A is responsible because the human shields wouldn't have been there had they not forced them to be. Side B is responsible because they fired the shots that killed them.
    Does the presence of a human shield create a legal and/or moral imperative to not attack a legitimate military target?
    Last edited by Goobieman; 03-11-10 at 12:28 PM.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    He would accept the responsibility by killing the enemy. If the meat shield is in the way oh well.

    It is exactly this kind of attitude that gives our enemy's comfort and ties the hands of our troops.

    If this kind of attitude prevailed in WWII, we could not have won. We would have been to busy trying to avoid civilian casualty's.

    This is war, war is ugly and brutal. If you are not willing to go all the way for victory, don't get in the way.
    It's not an "oh well". That's a dismissive statement to run away from fault and action. No matter what, the person who kills the meat shield killed the meat shield and is at least in part responsible for that death.

    It's not an attitude which gives "our enemy comfort". That's stupid. It's a statement of fact. If you don't care about other humans to the point where you can say "oh well", that's a problem with you being unable to accept responsibility for your actions. Those sorts of dismissive attitudes only serve to prolong or even excuse aggression in the first place. If you shoot and kill someone, you are responsible for that person's death. Whether or not you think it was justified, you still killed an innocent. Man up and accept the reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No one is negating the action. We are not talking cops and robbers here. We are talking war.
    You are in fact trying to completely negate the action.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #34
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Does the presence of a human shield create a legal and/of moral imperative to not attack a legitimate military target?
    Moral almost always, legal depending on situation.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #35
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,529

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not an "oh well". That's a dismissive statement to run away from fault and action. No matter what, the person who kills the meat shield killed the meat shield and is at least in part responsible for that death.
    "Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets. It may also refer to the use of civilians to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing the civilians to march in front of the soldiers.

    This is done in the hope that the other party will be reluctant to attack them. Furthermore, if the other party attacks these targets anyway, the resulting civilian casualties have propaganda value.

    Using this technique increases the civilian casualty rate and is illegal by any nation that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield]Human shield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


    The act of using human shields is illegal. A country is under no obligation or blame if the opposing forces use them illegally. If a hostage is killed during a rescue attempt by police, the police are not held liable.

    I will take the word of the Geneva conventions over yours, but thanks anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not an attitude which gives "our enemy comfort". That's stupid. It's a statement of fact. If you don't care about other humans to the point where you can say "oh well", that's a problem with you being unable to accept responsibility for your actions.
    The Israelis would disagree...

    "In November 2006, Palestinian women volunteered as human shields to allow the escape of Hamas gunmen from Israeli forces in Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip. The armed Palestinians had barricaded themselves in a mosque, which was surrounded by Israeli troops and tanks. According to a Hamas spokeman, a crowd of women gathered outside the mosque in response to an appeal on the local radio station for women to protect the Hamas fighters. The Palestinian gunmen escaped by dressing in women's clothes and hiding in the large group.

    Also in the same month, the Israeli Air Force warned Mohammed Weil Baroud, a Palestinian leader said to be responsible for firing Qassam rockets at Israel, to evacuate his home in Beit Lahia in the Gaza Strip in advance of an airstrike. Instead, hundreds of Palestinians, including many women and children, gathered outside Baroud's house. Israel suspended the airstrike out of fear that the human shields would be killed or injured. In response to Israel's reaction, another Palestinian leader said: "We have won. From now on we will form human chains around every house that is threatened with demolition." The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs says Hamas now regularly uses human shields to protect the homes of Hamas officials.
    " - [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield]Human shield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Those sorts of dismissive attitudes only serve to prolong or even excuse aggression in the first place. If you shoot and kill someone, you are responsible for that person's death. Whether or not you think it was justified, you still killed an innocent. Man up and accept the reality.
    Prolong or excuse? LMAO! OK, you can continue to ignore the reality of the situations if you like. Most people disagree with you for a reason on this. Including the Geneva conventions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You are in fact trying to completely negate the action.
    Reality is a bitch.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-11-10 at 01:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  6. #36
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Moral almost always, legal depending on situation.
    When would it be illegal? When would it not be?
    Is there a situation where you -would- choose to attack a legitimate target defended by human shields?

  7. #37
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,529

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Moral almost always, legal depending on situation.
    Morals are subjective, and in almost every case since WWII, no legal ground exists to support your claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #38
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Morals are subjective, and in almost every case since WWII, no legal ground exists to support your claim.
    I'd argue that there are situations where it is immoral to NOT attack the targets defended by human shields.

  9. #39
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Human shields

    I read through and have to say, there is no moral or legal equivalent here. War is an ugly and disgusting thing where people die and anyone who has killed may have lifelong traumas that will haunt them forever, especially when innocent civilians were harmed through negligence or willfull violence, this is what makes the cowards that use human shields that much lower than those that would use other tactics.
    While there are no true rules in war, there are dishonorable and cowardly acts and let's not kid ourselves the Geneva conventions although honorable, are only as good as their enforceablitity and application. I think the most cowardly act would be to intentionally involve innocent people, especially women and children.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #40
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,529

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I read through and have to say, there is no moral or legal equivalent here. War is an ugly and disgusting thing where people die and anyone who has killed may have lifelong traumas that will haunt them forever, especially when innocent civilians were harmed through negligence or willfull violence, this is what makes the cowards that use human shields that much lower than those that would use other tactics.
    While there are no true rules in war, there are dishonorable and cowardly acts and let's not kid ourselves the Geneva conventions although honorable, are only as good as their enforceablitity and application. I think the most cowardly act would be to intentionally involve innocent people, especially women and children.
    This is true. We also cannot let people get away with this. If a military sends a clear message that this is not acceptable and the innocents die. Those enemy combatants will be far less likely to try it again. Instead we appease and they get even more bold.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •