3 ms·

The other way to look at it is that enemy combatants have no problems using innocent civilians as human shields. If US decided it would not harm human shields,

The other way to look at it is that enemy combatants have no problems using innocent civilians as human shields. If US decided it would not harm human shields, the world would find out, and US would never win another battle again.

Udik 7y ago
I think we should be really careful in telling apart real cases of civilians used as human shields from simple propaganda used against the enemies. Accusing the enemy of using human shields is very handy for at least two purposes: de-humanising them and justifying a high number of civilian casualties. Also remember that in highly asymmetric warfare, clearly separating yourself from civilians effectively means hanging a target sign from your neck and asking to be killed. Those who have the most advanced technologies and weaponry at their disposal cannot be serious in asking that a poorly armed enemy fight on the same terms: a bit too cavalier when they have Kalashnikovs and you have semi-autonomous drones piloted from half the world away.
s_kilk 7y ago
Consider the US's famed "Double Tap" strikes, where they bomb a wedding ceremony, then come back around to bomb the paramedics that show up a few minutes later. Are those folks being used as human shields by the dastardly terrorists, or are we really just putting up a smoke-screen to defend the heinous actions of the US?
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  Drone strikes have killed as many people as the 9/11 hijackings. That put the USA government -- and the people who democratically control it, on par with Al Qaeda. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333
  - littlestymaar 7y ago
    Being “on par” with such an evil organization shouldn't really be a source of pride…
gmueckl 7y ago
Please define human shield. Is it the family of the terrorist with whom he lives? Friends invited over to spend time with? Where is the difference between people being around coincidentally and people being kept around for protection?
- xupybd 7y ago
  Often it’s worse. It’s schools and Mosques. Places that look really bad to target. War is horrible it’s taking life in the hope you’ll save more.
- bobcostas55 7y ago
  To give just one prominent example: Hamas stores weapons in and fires rockets from hospitals, there's no "coincidentally" - these groups know exactly what they're doing.
  - DSingularity 7y ago
    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-human-shields-claims-gaza-180618085404724.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-hum... I wonder what kind of person pushes false narratives dehumanizing a people who have been oppressed by a brutal occupation for decades.
    - sergioj97 7y ago
      I don't think there's a way to know for sure. I guess we could exchange links that described opposite points of view all day long, but we wouldn't reach any meaningful conclusions. However I fail to understand why this human shield topic seems so unbelievable to some people. Terrorist-like groups such as Hamas constantly show a very explicit lack of respect for innocent lives (even for the lives of innocents who share their same culture), the most clear example being attacks directed exclusively towards civilians. You can say "similar" things about the US (and other governments), but certainly not the same thing. One of the obvious reasons for this is that a terrorist group usually faces an extreme disadvantage when it comes to logistics and operational capabilities in general, specially against the US military. Using civilian installations as human shield seems to be in line with the way terrorist groups usually fight back (using civilians lives as a mean to reach their goals). I'm not saying that the fact that it's a plausible possibility makes it a reality. It is a possibility (an unlikely one in my opinion) that a terrorist group decides to avoid killing civilians (refusing also to use this human shields) and tries to dominate the conflict spreading terror by any other means. And it's certainly a possibility that Israel created this hoax, too. I'm only saying it's not that strange seeing terrorist groups doing this kinds of things, without the need to create any fictional narration.
littlestymaar 7y ago
We aren't talking about battles against combatants. We are talking about assassinations of people who could conduct an attack against the US. It's not about winning battles, It's about killing the enemy troops before a battle could even occur.

Udik 7y ago

I think we should be really careful in telling apart real cases of civilians used as human shields from simple propaganda used against the enemies. Accusing the enemy of using human shields is very handy for at least two purposes: de-humanising them and justifying a high number of civilian casualties. Also remember that in highly asymmetric warfare, clearly separating yourself from civilians effectively means hanging a target sign from your neck and asking to be killed. Those who have the most advanced technologies and weaponry at their disposal cannot be serious in asking that a poorly armed enemy fight on the same terms: a bit too cavalier when they have Kalashnikovs and you have semi-autonomous drones piloted from half the world away.

s_kilk 7y ago

Consider the US's famed "Double Tap" strikes, where they bomb a wedding ceremony, then come back around to bomb the paramedics that show up a few minutes later. Are those folks being used as human shields by the dastardly terrorists, or are we really just putting up a smoke-screen to defend the heinous actions of the US?

fjsolwmv 7y ago
Drone strikes have killed as many people as the 9/11 hijackings. That put the USA government -- and the people who democratically control it, on par with Al Qaeda. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333
- littlestymaar 7y ago
  Being “on par” with such an evil organization shouldn't really be a source of pride…

gmueckl 7y ago

Please define human shield. Is it the family of the terrorist with whom he lives? Friends invited over to spend time with? Where is the difference between people being around coincidentally and people being kept around for protection?

xupybd 7y ago
Often it’s worse. It’s schools and Mosques. Places that look really bad to target. War is horrible it’s taking life in the hope you’ll save more.
bobcostas55 7y ago
To give just one prominent example: Hamas stores weapons in and fires rockets from hospitals, there's no "coincidentally" - these groups know exactly what they're doing.
- DSingularity 7y ago
  https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-human-shields-claims-gaza-180618085404724.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-hum... I wonder what kind of person pushes false narratives dehumanizing a people who have been oppressed by a brutal occupation for decades.
  - sergioj97 7y ago
    I don't think there's a way to know for sure. I guess we could exchange links that described opposite points of view all day long, but we wouldn't reach any meaningful conclusions. However I fail to understand why this human shield topic seems so unbelievable to some people. Terrorist-like groups such as Hamas constantly show a very explicit lack of respect for innocent lives (even for the lives of innocents who share their same culture), the most clear example being attacks directed exclusively towards civilians. You can say "similar" things about the US (and other governments), but certainly not the same thing. One of the obvious reasons for this is that a terrorist group usually faces an extreme disadvantage when it comes to logistics and operational capabilities in general, specially against the US military. Using civilian installations as human shield seems to be in line with the way terrorist groups usually fight back (using civilians lives as a mean to reach their goals). I'm not saying that the fact that it's a plausible possibility makes it a reality. It is a possibility (an unlikely one in my opinion) that a terrorist group decides to avoid killing civilians (refusing also to use this human shields) and tries to dominate the conflict spreading terror by any other means. And it's certainly a possibility that Israel created this hoax, too. I'm only saying it's not that strange seeing terrorist groups doing this kinds of things, without the need to create any fictional narration.

littlestymaar 7y ago

We aren't talking about battles against combatants. We are talking about assassinations of people who could conduct an attack against the US. It's not about winning battles, It's about killing the enemy troops before a battle could even occur.