- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,920
- Reaction score
- 22,243
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Let's hope your gun has enough 'oomph' to shoot right through the shield.....
hit the shield enough and it'll just turn into a dead weight
Sean Penn? :ssst:
So we have an anonymous vote for Side B. Probably some lib from here.
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.
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.
No one is negating the action. We are not talking cops and robbers here. We are talking war.
Does the presence of a human shield create a legal and/of moral imperative to not attack a legitimate military target?
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.
You are in fact trying to completely negate the action.
When would it be illegal? When would it not be?Moral almost always, legal depending on situation.
Moral almost always, legal depending on situation.
I'd argue that there are situations where it is immoral to NOT attack the targets defended by human shields.Morals are subjective, and in almost every case since WWII, no legal ground exists to support your claim.
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.
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?
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.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.
"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.
The Israelis would disagree...
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.
Reality is a bitch.
Ummmmbut...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.
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?
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?
This is exactly the right answer.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.
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.
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.
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.
It certainly is, let me know when you decide to join it.
You still bear some responsibility for having killed those innocent people though. That is an inescapable truth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?