• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

Hercules56 said:
The International Committee for the Red Cross has done a thorough analysis on the issue of human shields, and what the obligations are of the opposing army:


page 899.

The possibility to attack a military objective protected by human shields,or the use of a classic proportionality test?One question that may arise at the outset is whether the fact that the adverse partyhas violated its obligations under international humanitarian law by using humanshields releases the other party from some of its own obligations. However, thiscannot be so in view of the unanimously accepted non-application of the tu quoqueprinciple (principle of reciprocity) when it comes to international humanitarianlaw.71 Article 51(8) of Protocol I states that ‘[a]ny violation of these prohibitionsshall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respectto the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.’ The obligation incumbent on abelligerent state to spare the civilian population and take the measures prescribedto that effect does not therefore depend on the adversary’s compliance with the banon using human shields. However, although the attacking party is under a constantobligation to spare civilians, including human shields, that does not mean that itmust in all cases abstain from attacking a military objective protected by humanshields. Just as the presence of military objectives in an area occupied by the civilianpopulation does not rob those people of their civilian status,72 an ‘objectif militairedemeure un objectif militaire meˆme si des civils se trouvent a` l’inte´rieur’73 or in itsimmediate vicinity. Military objectives protected by human shields do not cease tobe legitimate targets for attack simply because of the presence of those shields.It follows that when a commander asks himself whether or not he canattack such a military objective, he must reason as in the case of any other legitimate military objective an attack on which runs the risk of causing collateraldamage to civilians who, in this case, are the human shields protecting the target.An attack will be possible if and only if the potential damage to civilians is not‘excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’.74This means that the expected civilian losses must be weighed against the size of theconcrete military advantage to be anticipated if the military objective is neutralized.75 The attacker is also obliged to take precautions as required by Article 57of Protocol I.76 The presence of human shields will not therefore systematicallyprevent an attack – even if conducting an attack despite their presence may have aconsiderable media and political impact. This is something that should be madewidely known, particularly to potential voluntary human shields.The case of involuntary human shieldsIf the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated proves sufficiently significant in relation to the potential damage to the human shields, the attack maytake place. The appraisal must be in concreto and must always take into account themilitary advantage, which can shift, for example over time (a bridge of fundamental importance one day may have little strategic significance the next daydepending on where the front line lies at the time), and the extent of collateraldamage that will be caused to civilians. The extent of that damage may depend,among other things, on the number of civilians likely to be affected. A particular military advantage may thus be regarded as sufficiently important to justify anattack on a military objective protected by five people being used as human shields.However, if the object is protected by five hundred human shields, the outcomeof the deliberation may change. In practice then, there is no doubt that in certaincases, the attacked party can effectively protect the military objective by placingsufficient human shields on or around it! Some authors understandably rejectthis conclusion, which they consider shocking, and recommend human shieldsnot be taken into account by a commander applying the proportionality principle while preparing for or deciding on an attack.

So yes, according to the ICRC, targets protected by human shields CAN and MAY be attached by the opposing army, if a thorough analysis of the harm vs benefit possibility is worth it. Say Hitler was protected by 500 human shields, obviously the harm of such a strike, if guaranteed to take out Hitler and end the war was deemed certain, would be a necessary and worthwhile sacrifice. However if a low-level Hamas private is protected by 25 children, no sane person would or could argue that such a strike and intended military advantage outweighs the likely loss of life of 20 innocent children.

Although the IDFascists might.
Click to expand...
So you agree with me. Amazingly, so does the Red Cross. I think your objection isn't to me at all.
 
theprestige said:
So you agree with me. Amazingly, so does the Red Cross. I think your objection isn't to me at all.
Click to expand...
No, we do not agree, as you believe even if the target is a low level Hamas fighter, its worth the harm of killing 50 children that may be surrounding him at a hospital. You feel that NO number of civilian Arab human shields is enough reason to not strike even the most inconsequential Hamas fighter.
 
Hercules56 said:
No, we do not agree, as you believe even if the target is a low level Hamas fighter, its worth the harm of killing 50 children that may be surrounding him at a hospital.
Click to expand...
Nope.

Hercules56 said:
You feel that NO number of civilian Arab human shields is enough reason to not strike even the most inconsequential Hamas fighter.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Hercules56 said:
Israel has destroyed countless hospitals and schools in Gaza.
Click to expand...
According to the WHO, there are a total of 36 hospitals in the Gaza strip, and 17 are still at least partially operating. According to other reports, at least three of the hospitals stopped operating not because they'd been destroyed, but because their administration considered them too close to the fighting to remain open.

Whole numbers up to 36 seem pretty countable to me.

Hercules56 said:
Were they all occupied by high-value military targets?
Click to expand...
I don't know. We'd have to examine each one on a case by case basis. We might not have enough information to properly evaluate each case.

Hercules56 said:
I call BS.
Click to expand...
And I say - again - tell Arth. He's the one saying Hamas uses human shields.
 
theprestige said:
According to the WHO, there are a total of 36 hospitals in the Gaza strip, and 17 are still at least partially operating. According to other reports, at least three of the hospitals stopped operating not because they'd been destroyed, but because their administration considered them too close to the fighting to remain open.

Whole numbers up to 36 seem pretty countable to me.


I don't know. We'd have to examine each one on a case by case basis. We might not have enough information to properly evaluate each case.


And I say - again - tell Arth. He's the one saying Hamas uses human shields.
Click to expand...
Israel, the terrorist State, also uses human shields.
 
theprestige said:
Press F to doubt.
Click to expand...
widely documented, mostly by testimonies of IDF soldiers who have done it, were not comfortable with the praxis, told their Command and got told to keep doing it.
It has been going on since Oct 8th, with Palestinians being forced to move in front of IDF soldiers when walking through territory likely to contain IEDs or when exploring tunnels.

This is what is happening, and the fact that you are not even curious about it means that there is absolutely nothing Israel could do to lose your unquestioning support.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
widely documented, mostly by testimonies of IDF soldiers who have done it, were not comfortable with the praxis, told their Command and got told to keep doing it.
It has been going on since Oct 8th, with Palestinians being forced to move in front of IDF soldiers when walking through territory likely to contain IEDs or when exploring tunnels.

This is what is happening, and the fact that you are not even curious about it means that there is absolutely nothing Israel could do to lose your unquestioning support.
Click to expand...
Don't forget, its "anti-Semitism" to criticize Israel for anything they do.
 
theprestige said:
The best part about that was that ISIS was largely a small time player, fixated on carving out a local caliphate. Sure, they dabbled in international terrorism, but mostly they just wanted to destabilize their neighborhood enough to set up their own clubhouse, with the Islamic equivalent of blackjack and hookers. And eminently more smack-down-able if they ever got too uppity. Waaay more manageable than Baathist Iraq.
Click to expand...
This was very quickly proven untrue
 
Israel says no Syrian military forces will be allowed south of Damascus. So basically Israel is going to have military control of 1/3 or Syria???? WTF???

So much for expanding the Abraham Accords.


Screenshot_20250718_172605_Maps.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom