How many soldiers does it take to change a location to a military target?
Is it a percentage? Is it their presence at all?
Ok, does that apply to Israeli hospitals or public venues that had soldiers there as guards?
If the attack on those venues is terrorism by virtue of the civilians there, but not a legitimate military strike despite the soldiers being there, then at the very least, bombing hospitals and refugee camps is terrorism too even if a few soldiers and weapons are found.
Executing human shields is monstrous, and “look what you made me do” is the language of abusers.
Someone using something as a human shield makes it into a human shield. Requires just one.
How many soldiers does it take to change a location to a military target?
Could be as few as one. Which is why there’s zero tolerance for using such locations.
Ok, does that apply to Israeli hospitals or public venues that had soldiers there as guards?
It’s the same rule for everyone.
If the attack on those venues is terrorism by virtue of the civilians there, but not a legitimate military strike despite the soldiers being there, then at the very least, bombing hospitals and refugee camps is terrorism too even if a few soldiers and weapons are found.
There’s two related issues. Killing civilians and using civilian cover to conduct warfare. Both are despicable.
Executing human shields is monstrous, and “look what you made me do” is the language of abusers.
Right, though I’d put more blame on those, you know, using human shields. They’re the ones putting the humans between you and your enemy to begin with.
Given the demographics of those killed by Israel are squarely in line with the civilian population broadly (i.e. there’s no meaningful over-reprentation of Hamas, which we’d expect from purposeful targeted attacks against them), you’d apply your arguments consistently and defend Hamas attacking the IDF within Israel with similar civilian casualty rates (putting aside the whole national service, everyone is a combatant thing), right?
I was wondering why a link to BBC News didn’t have HTTPS. Well…
Last Updated: Friday, 23 April, 2004, 11:24 GMT 12:24 UK
Of course this has nothing to do with the music festival in particular but I’m guessing your point is more that they’ve at least at some point used (or “faced claims” about using) huma shields? I would’ve imagined we’d much more recent cases to make that point though.
While we’re at it, we might just as well declare every 9/11 victim a US “human shield,” too.
Frankly, Bin Laden’s justification why killing US civilians was justified sounds very similar to justifications of hard line Israeli politicians why civilian getting killed in Gaza don’t deserve any sympathy and were “asking for it”. Both boil down to, “they voted for the people in charge who do crimes against us, so they are guilty as well.”
It’s amazing how quickly contrived propaganda terms like “human shields” loses any meaning when they are flipped around on people western media hasn’t marked for genocide, eh?
The IDf operates behind every civilian in Israel - which means every civilian in Israel is a “human shield” for the Israeli state.
That’s an interesting take on it. I don’t think that’s how the idea of human shield is usually viewed. It’s usually more direct, operating from a place with civilians so you don’t get bombed or literally forcing someone to stand between you and your enemy or something.
While we’re at it, we might just as well declare every 9/11 victim a US “human shield,” too.
That’s an interesting take on it. I don’t think that’s how the ideapure propaganda of human shield is usually vieweddeployed for the consumption of Israeli-loving white supremacists.
Again… if that is what Hamas has (supposedly) done, then there is no reason not to designate every civilian in Israel, the US or any NATO member state as “human shields” as well.
Pick your propaganda and stop being a hypocrite about it.
I find it interesting that you can’t give a straight answer to whether you believe they’ve used human shields or not. I think it’s undeniable they’ve done that.
then there is no reason not to designate every civilian in Israel, the US or any NATO member state as “human shields” as well
I’m sorry but that doesn’t make sense. A human shield has an actual meaning, it’s not just all civilians in general.
Pick your propaganda and stop being a hypocrite about it.
Indeed. I’m pretty straightforward in that I condemn the use of human shields, full stop.
I’ll have to ask you to explain what you think I’m implying. You might’ve misunderstood me, since I don’t think I’ve said anything that could be taken for “disingenuous and disgusting”.
Yes, the meme is clearly trying to deny the use of human shields without having to say it. I was hoping OP or even you’d have balls to be honest about it, but that’s not happening.
I’m not a native speaker so you can chalk it up to that, so it’s not as embarrassing when I call you out on not having the balls to stand behind your convictions. I’m giving you an easy way out there, might as well take it.
Pretend huh. Still not willing to admit it?
How many soldiers does it take to change a location to a military target?
Is it a percentage? Is it their presence at all?
Ok, does that apply to Israeli hospitals or public venues that had soldiers there as guards?
If the attack on those venues is terrorism by virtue of the civilians there, but not a legitimate military strike despite the soldiers being there, then at the very least, bombing hospitals and refugee camps is terrorism too even if a few soldiers and weapons are found.
Executing human shields is monstrous, and “look what you made me do” is the language of abusers.
Someone using something as a human shield makes it into a human shield. Requires just one.
Could be as few as one. Which is why there’s zero tolerance for using such locations.
It’s the same rule for everyone.
There’s two related issues. Killing civilians and using civilian cover to conduct warfare. Both are despicable.
Right, though I’d put more blame on those, you know, using human shields. They’re the ones putting the humans between you and your enemy to begin with.
Given the demographics of those killed by Israel are squarely in line with the civilian population broadly (i.e. there’s no meaningful over-reprentation of Hamas, which we’d expect from purposeful targeted attacks against them), you’d apply your arguments consistently and defend Hamas attacking the IDF within Israel with similar civilian casualty rates (putting aside the whole national service, everyone is a combatant thing), right?
…right?
Thought not.
Why would I defend either side killing civilians…?
Maybe Israel should stop using music festival attendees as “human shields…” that would be nice.
If they were operating behind the music festival then absolutely. Nobody should be using human shields.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3650791.stm
I was wondering why a link to BBC News didn’t have HTTPS. Well…
Of course this has nothing to do with the music festival in particular but I’m guessing your point is more that they’ve at least at some point used (or “faced claims” about using) huma shields? I would’ve imagined we’d much more recent cases to make that point though.
The IDf operates behind every civilian in Israel - which means every civilian in Israel is a “human shield” for the Israeli state.
While we’re at it, we might just as well declare every 9/11 victim a US “human shield,” too.
Frankly, Bin Laden’s justification why killing US civilians was justified sounds very similar to justifications of hard line Israeli politicians why civilian getting killed in Gaza don’t deserve any sympathy and were “asking for it”. Both boil down to, “they voted for the people in charge who do crimes against us, so they are guilty as well.”
It’s amazing how quickly contrived propaganda terms like “human shields” loses any meaning when they are flipped around on people western media hasn’t marked for genocide, eh?
That’s an interesting take on it. I don’t think that’s how the idea of human shield is usually viewed. It’s usually more direct, operating from a place with civilians so you don’t get bombed or literally forcing someone to stand between you and your enemy or something.
How exactly?
Fixed that for you.
You don’t think Hamas has used human shields?
Again… if that is what Hamas has (supposedly) done, then there is no reason not to designate every civilian in Israel, the US or any NATO member state as “human shields” as well.
Pick your propaganda and stop being a hypocrite about it.
I find it interesting that you can’t give a straight answer to whether you believe they’ve used human shields or not. I think it’s undeniable they’ve done that.
I’m sorry but that doesn’t make sense. A human shield has an actual meaning, it’s not just all civilians in general.
Indeed. I’m pretty straightforward in that I condemn the use of human shields, full stop.
deleted by creator
Because it’s just as disingenuous and disgusting to imply as what you’re implying.
I’ll have to ask you to explain what you think I’m implying. You might’ve misunderstood me, since I don’t think I’ve said anything that could be taken for “disingenuous and disgusting”.
Whoosh!
Please explain then
No.
Coward
deleted by creator
Lmao what a copout
deleted by creator
Yes, the meme is clearly trying to deny the use of human shields without having to say it. I was hoping OP or even you’d have balls to be honest about it, but that’s not happening.
I’m not a native speaker so you can chalk it up to that, so it’s not as embarrassing when I call you out on not having the balls to stand behind your convictions. I’m giving you an easy way out there, might as well take it.
Take some self responsibility. Try to understand it yourself. Hint: Take away the top placard.
Cowardly and pathetic copout.
I hope you can get past your hate one day. Inshallah.
I’m more embarrassed than angry at you.