• 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!

Human shields

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


  • Total voters
    36
I'd argue that there are situations where it is immoral to NOT attack the targets defended by human shields.
Like when those targets take human shields while they attack your citizens.

That's the ultimate opposition to the number one purpose of the military, to defend the citizens of the country.
 
You still bear some responsibility for having killed those innocent people though. That is an inescapable truth.
Your actions were forced by the situation. You had no choice.
And so, while they died by your actions, the responsibility for those deaths fall on those that placed them in danger.
 
Prove it? Legally you are not.

Did you drop the bomb or pull the trigger which fired the projectile? Did either the bomb or the projectile kill someone? If so, you are at least partially responsible for the death of the person you killed.
 
Your actions were forced by the situation. You had no choice.
And so, while they died by your actions, the responsibility for those deaths fall on those that placed them in danger.

You are always responsible for your own actions. If you pull the trigger and shoot someone, you are responsible for that action and the death, at least in part. What you're looking for is "justifiable" not "responsible".
 
Did you drop the bomb or pull the trigger which fired the projectile? Did either the bomb or the projectile kill someone? If so, you are at least partially responsible for the death of the person you killed.

Well if that is all you are saying I can agree. Legally, it means nothing though.

So basically the responsibility means nothing as it has no ramifications.
 
Last edited:
Who is making excuses? To be a soldier you have to be willing to do the job. If you are not, stay the hell out of the way.

Yes ignoring international law, that pretty much sums up your argument.

I am not ignoring international law. In questioning who is responsible, you don't need to even consider international law. International law is for arguments of justifiability, not responsibility. Responsibility comes from actions. You do X or you do not do X. That's it. If you pull a trigger and kill an innocent person, you are responsible at least in part for that death. Maybe you were justified in that act, maybe you weren't. But that's not the question, the question is responsibility. You kill someone you directly contributed to that person not being alive anymore.

Not according to the information I posted. So far you have posted nothing in the way of facts to back up your position.

I notice you cut out the article saying the exact opposite. I wonder why?

Because it was long and it was unnecessary to repost it as you had already posted it and I wasn't responding to that article. We are not arguing justifiable, we are arguing responsible.

If the enemy is using the person as a shield, no they are not. According to international law and the majority of people.

Now if you would like to post some FACTS, I am more than ready to hear them?

Fact. You pull a trigger. Fact you kill an innocent person. Fact, you contributed to the death of that individual. Fact, you bear some responsibility for that person no longer being alive.
 
Side A always bears the majority of the responsibility, but in my opinion, the responsibility of Side B is pretty much situation dependent.

If the strategic importance of eliminating Side A is not of the highest order, then Side B will always share some responsibility.

If the strategic importance is of the highest order, and an alternative attack exists that is likely to minimize civilian casualties but it is not attempted, then they also bear some responsibility.

In cases where the strategic importance is not of the highest order, there is a moral imperative to act at a highesr standard than the opponent, even if that means aborting the mission, IMO.

In cases where the strategic importance is of the highest order, there is a moral imperative to try and minimize the civilian casualties.

In cases where the strategic importance is of the highest order and no approach exists that can minimize civilian casualties, or the alternative approach that was attempted fails to achieve that goal, then I would say that Side B is absolved of any moral responsibility.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
 
Well if that is all you are saying I can agree. Legally, it means nothing though.

So basically the responsibility means nothing as it has no ramifications.

Responsibility actually has moral implications. And I think they are important because if we accept it, then we can understand the humanity of those we face and are perhaps more likely to seek peaceful solution before jumping into war. War isn't always avoidable, but we should try like the dickens to avoid it. If we have to enter it, we should fight and claw to get out of it ASAP.
 
You are always responsible for your own actions. If you pull the trigger and shoot someone, you are responsible for that action and the death, at least in part. What you're looking for is "justifiable" not "responsible".
I disagree. There are certain situations where your actions are forced by others; in those instances, you are not responsible for your actions.

-Justifiable- is an entirely different subject.
 
Fact. You pull a trigger. Fact you kill an innocent person. Fact, you contributed to the death of that individual. Fact, you bear some responsibility for that person no longer being alive.

Fact: If no legal repercussions, it means nothing.

Taking responsibility without any recourse means nothing. I can say I take responsibility all day and if it means nothing but lip service, whats the point?

I mean I see what you are saying. In the long run though it means nothing on the battlefield.
 
Last edited:
Side A always bears the majority of the responsibility, but in my opinion, the responsibility of Side B is pretty much situation dependent.

If the strategic importance of eliminating Side A is not of the highest order, then Side B will always share some responsibility.
I think you get into trouble when you start discussing 'strategic significance'. This is entirely subjective, and it doesnt even necessarily apply.
 
So if I catch my girlfriend cheating on me and decide to kill her, and she tries to hide behind her lover, if he ends up dead as a result, is it her fault for putting him in harms way?
 
So if I catch my girlfriend cheating on me and decide to kill her, and she tries to hide behind her lover, if he ends up dead as a result, is it her fault for putting him in harms way?

I can only pray your girlfriend thinks twice before she cheats on you.

And the answer is yes. But it's also your fault in this situation - your committing a crime. In war, death isn't a crime under most circumstances.
 
I can only pray your girlfriend thinks twice before she cheats on you.

And the answer is yes. But it's also your fault in this situation - your committing a crime. In war, death isn't a crime under most circumstances.

I always thought that warfare and capital punishment sent an interesting message: "It's okay for the government to kill people, but it's not okay if you do it."
 
People who fire guns are responsible for the consequences. Sometimes a consequence of firing a gun is that an innocent person was killed, and five more were saved.

The person who fired the gun is responsible for killing an innocent, and also responsible for saving five.
 
I disagree. There are certain situations where your actions are forced by others; in those instances, you are not responsible for your actions.

-Justifiable- is an entirely different subject.

No one else but yourself can have your brain send signals to your muscles to have them perform an act. You're not a robot, everything ultimately always comes down to a choice you make.
 
Fact: If no legal repercussions, it means nothing.

Taking responsibility without any recourse means nothing. I can say I take responsibility all day and if it means nothing but lip service, whats the point?

I mean I see what you are saying. In the long run though it means nothing on the battlefield.

The point is to learn, the point is to not dismiss the humanity of those we fight. By acknowledging this, we can potentially decrease the frequency and longevity of wars we have to fight.
 
I always thought that warfare and capital punishment sent an interesting message: "It's okay for the government to kill people, but it's not okay if you do it."
Not so much -- its OK for you and I to do it, under similar circumstances.
 
No one else but yourself can have your brain send signals to your muscles to have them perform an act. You're not a robot, everything ultimately always comes down to a choice you make.
This doesnt negate what I said.
 
This doesnt negate what I said.

Yes it does. You cannot be "forced" into shooting someone. You may feel as if you have no other choice. You may feel as if you are justified. But you are never forced into pulling the trigger. That is always a decision you make yourself and as such you bear responsibility for the consequences of that action.
 
Yes it does. You cannot be "forced" into shooting someone. You may feel as if you have no other choice.
Sometimes, there is no other choice.
 
Yes it does. You cannot be "forced" into shooting someone. You may feel as if you have no other choice. You may feel as if you are justified. But you are never forced into pulling the trigger. That is always a decision you make yourself and as such you bear responsibility for the consequences of that action.
Circumstantially, yes you can be forced to perform a lethal action. People with military, law enforcement, and many with regular firearms/tactical training do have reflexive actions that are second nature, including pulling the trigger under duress.

For instance, at the range I pull with fingers to the side of the trigger and as soon as I bring to level I'm on the trigger, this is a reflexive and I do it before I even thought about it, tactical training has a reflexive shot for just about any circumstance, and the reason being is that many of these decisions are made within less than 2 seconds. In those instances the human mind and thinking is a disadvantage in that an attacker has no inclination to worry about their consequences and does not care if they kill you, if you have a moral blip, you will die.
 
Side A and side B are fighting a war.

Side A uses human shields to protect its forces.
Side B attacks the forces of side A, and the human shields die
(Clarification -- the human shields involuntary act as such)

Who is responsible for the death of the human sheilds?
>>

Since it's based on a supposition, probably to justify collateral damage, either answer is non-productive.

It's like the age-old... "When did you stop beating your wife?"

ricksfolly
 
I think you get into trouble when you start discussing 'strategic significance'. This is entirely subjective, and it doesnt even necessarily apply.

Not if the "highest order of strategic significance" is clearly defined. The subjectivity would exist if it's not defined, or during the defining process, but once it is clearly defined, then the situation loses subjectivity.

As it stands, it is not defined except at the subjective level. This is a mistake, because what I described does occur to some degree. It is just not consistent in application.
 
Back
Top Bottom