2 ms·

> Don't associate with terrorists. Do not shelter terrorists. Do not eat dinner with terrorists. Don't get car rides from terrorists. That's impossible to achi

> Don't associate with terrorists. Do not shelter terrorists. Do not eat dinner with terrorists. Don't get car rides from terrorists. That's impossible to achieve in practice as you probably knew before spending time to write this. And it's also not a valid defense for any attacker since being next to the wrong person on the street isn't proof or even suspicion of association. Make sure your kid checks everyone's terrorist credentials when playing in the park. And the Uber driver. And the pizza delivery guy. And the supermarket clerk. And the rando just walking past you.

spwa4 2y ago
> That's impossible to achieve in practice as you probably knew before spending time to write this ... True. Well, not impossible, but no guarantees. But the stipulation is that civilians lose their protection if they are close or inside military targets ... > And it's also not a valid defense for any attacker since being next to the wrong person on the street ... True. But civilians lose protection if they are close to or inside military targets. The onus is on the militaries ... and terrorists ... to distance themselves and their infrastructure from civilians. Western militaries do this, and not doing it, even when there are no victims, is a warcrime. Terrorists, as a matter of policy, don't do this. That's one of the things that makes them so problematic. The rules are documented here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-protection-civilian-persons-time-war https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... You will find stuff like: Article 19 The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. (this matters because a lot of stuff, like humanitarian flights/convoys/red cross personnel/... are given "the same protection as hospitals") Article 28 The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. Article 29 The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred. ... In other words: human shields may be attacked if they are near a valid military target. If anything happens to them, the responsibility for this rests solely with the government they live under. (and thus NOT the attacking party)

spwa4 2y ago

> That's impossible to achieve in practice as you probably knew before spending time to write this ... True. Well, not impossible, but no guarantees. But the stipulation is that civilians lose their protection if they are close or inside military targets ... > And it's also not a valid defense for any attacker since being next to the wrong person on the street ... True. But civilians lose protection if they are close to or inside military targets. The onus is on the militaries ... and terrorists ... to distance themselves and their infrastructure from civilians. Western militaries do this, and not doing it, even when there are no victims, is a warcrime. Terrorists, as a matter of policy, don't do this. That's one of the things that makes them so problematic. The rules are documented here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-protection-civilian-persons-time-war https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... You will find stuff like: Article 19 The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. (this matters because a lot of stuff, like humanitarian flights/convoys/red cross personnel/... are given "the same protection as hospitals") Article 28 The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. Article 29 The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred. ... In other words: human shields may be attacked if they are near a valid military target. If anything happens to them, the responsibility for this rests solely with the government they live under. (and thus NOT the attacking party)