• 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
So we have an anonymous vote for Side B. Probably some lib from here.

Now you have a Guest and one of the original forum members voting for Side B. A full spectrum.

And I don't tremble on my reasoning.
 
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:
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:
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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]

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.

You are in fact trying to completely negate the action.

Reality is a bitch.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?

If you are the initial aggressor, you could probably legally be liable for the death. If defender and protecting your own life, you're likely to not be legally liable. Though these are broad generalities here and everything would depend on the specific conditions which go down.

And there would probably be times which I would choose to attack such a target. There are circumstances in which it is legally justified. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that I would have killed (if we assume the human shield is killed) an innocent person. Even if I am not held legally liable for it, I still would have ended an innocent's life. Taking human life is never a good thing.
 
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.
I think if you've got enough high ground, let our best sharpshooters have a little cross-pattern fun and pick 'em off at will. The human race has little use for scum that is that cowardly.
 
"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.
Human shield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

Of course it's illegal. But if you shoot someone, you shoot someone. No amount of excuses or international law will take away from that fact. Sorry you disagree with reality.

The Israelis would disagree...

Israel is hardly the moral authority on respecting innocent life. They are more than willing to take out as many civilians as possible in order to try to maybe get one or two terrorists. Appeal to them would go more against your case than for it.

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.

It is you whom seeks divorce from reality. The dehumanization of people leads to the ability to continue or initiate war. It's common practice of warmongers to try as well. We do everything we can to dismiss the humanity of the victims so that people can feel better about ending human life. But the cold hard facts of the matter is that if you shoot someone, you are responsible for taking their life at least in some part as you are the one who pulled the trigger.

Reality is a bitch.

It certainly is, let me know when you decide to join it.
 
I think if you've got enough high ground, let our best sharpshooters have a little cross-pattern fun and pick 'em off at will. The human race has little use for scum that is that cowardly.
Ummmmbut...

What if the target is a launch site placed inside a town where the people are held captive and the only way to take it out is to bomb it?
 
Ummmmbut...

What if the target is a launch site placed inside a town where the people are held captive and the only way to take it out is to bomb it?
Worst case scenario, don't release the info to the international press, do everything possible to get a covert team in there to minimalize casualties, worst case do whatever is necessary to negate capabilities of the enemy to launch. I will take a small town of civilians over much larger numbers in a potential missle strike any day of the week.
 
Ummmmbut...

What if the target is a launch site placed inside a town where the people are held captive and the only way to take it out is to bomb it?

I think really perhaps we're getting off what this thread asked about. It asked about responsibility. I think what people seem to be arguing in some part is a question on whether or not the act can be justified. Those are two very different questions.
 
I will take a small town of civilians over much larger numbers in a potential missle strike any day of the week.
This is exactly the right answer.
 
This is exactly the right answer.

You still bear some responsibility for having killed those innocent people though. That is an inescapable truth.
 
Of course it's illegal. But if you shoot someone, you shoot someone. No amount of excuses or international law will take away from that fact. Sorry you disagree with reality.

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.

Israel is hardly the moral authority on respecting innocent life. They are more than willing to take out as many civilians as possible in order to try to maybe get one or two terrorists. Appeal to them would go more against your case than for it.

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?

"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.
"

It is you whom seeks divorce from reality. The dehumanization of people leads to the ability to continue or initiate war. It's common practice of warmongers to try as well. We do everything we can to dismiss the humanity of the victims so that people can feel better about ending human life. But the cold hard facts of the matter is that if you shoot someone, you are responsible for taking their life at least in some part as you are the one who pulled the trigger.

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?

It certainly is, let me know when you decide to join it.

:roll:
 
You still bear some responsibility for having killed those innocent people though. That is an inescapable truth.

Prove it? Legally you are not.
 
Back
Top Bottom