• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Innocent" civilians?

It is nigh impossible for a guerilla group to work and coordinate in an urban area without the cooperation of the locals.

You may be right, but obtaining that "cooperation" isn't too difficult either.

Say I was an insurgent and one night knocked on your door saying that I had a wounded friend who needed bandages. I also stated that we (the insurgents) need food and water and someplace to store our heavy weapons. You kindly refuse not wanting to get involved. What's the next step?

Naturally, I stick a weapon up against your wife's head, or your son's head and threaten to kill him if I don't get what I want. Still willing to not "cooperate?" It doesn't stop after I've gotten what I wanted. I promise to come back and rape your daughter and wife, then to kill your entire family. What would YOU do?

It happened in Vietnam, it happened in Kosovo, it's happening in Iraq and it's happening in Palestine. Are innocents still innocent if they've been coerced into helping insurgents, or are they (as Cement-Head would have you believe) terrorist sympathizers who deserve the same treatment as those carrying and using the guns?
 
People who supply terrorists are also working with them; that doesn't mean that they're engaging the Israelis. And yes, people do act as human shields. It's well established that Palestinians are willing to die merely to hurt Israel.

So you are claiming that it would be alright to shoot thousands of civilians if they just felt like going for a walk in what coincidentally would shortly become a battle field between Palestinian agressors and defending Israelis...

What about pirates? If pirates also showed up for a strool, would it be ok to shoot them? or only the ones with wooden legs?



The above was brought to you by the Campaign to Rid Forums of Ridiculous Hypotheticals
 
Last edited:
So you are claiming that it would be alright to shoot thousands of civilians if they just felt like going for a walk in what coincidentally would shortly become a battle field between Palestinian agressors and defending Israelis...

What about pirates? If pirates also showed up for a strool, would it be ok to shoot them? or only the ones with wooden legs?



The above was brought to you by the Campaign to Rid Forums of Ridiculous Hypotheticals
I'd most definitely not shoot the ones with wooden legs but would possibly shoot the ones with cutlasses in their teeth especially if they were swinging towards me on ropes.
 
The above was brought to you by the Campaign to Rid Forums of Ridiculous Hypotheticals

Ha! You have your work cut out for you, Megalodon!

It is inevitable that some individuals will commit atrocities, and it is debatable to what extent the Israeli people are responsible for the acts that have been done in their name. But there can no longer be any reasonable debate that the Palestinians are officially in favor of murder. The entire Palestinian population is now a participant in terrorist acts.

If someone wants to criticize firing a rocket and killing "innocent" civilians, then they should back up the claim that they are, indeed, "innocent". If some "innocent civilians" are, in fact, terrorists who would attack any force attempting to arrest the terrorist leader, then aren't the rest of the civilians, simply by providing cover, giving up their claim to "innocence"? I mean, take this to an extreme. Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis. The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

So, the question is, are the Palestinians really taking all reasonable steps to avoid being near a terrorist when an Israeli rocket strikes? If not, then the responsibility for the deaths lies with the Palestinians.

I'm saying that who's got rocks and who's got tanks is not determative. Are you going to answer my question? Do you think it is? If an Israeli soldier is on patrol, and out of nowhere a Palestinian throws a rock at him and kills him, is the Israeli authomatically at fault simply because he's at fault? And how are the Israelis supposed to know that they're rocks, and not grenades?

Imagine you're a new IDF recruit. Just a kid, really. You're out on patrol, trying to get through your day knowing that at any moment you can be killed. Suddenly your buddy goes down, blood pouring out of his head. You don't know whether he's alive or dead. Adrenaline is coursing through body, as are all sorts of emotions, from rage to terror. Objects are flying through the air all around you, and one can hit you any time. What do you do? Do you call out that we're all just people, and we should all get together and sing Kumbaya? Or do you put your rifle on full auto and blast away? Which do you think is a more reasonable reaction?

Anyone who throws rocks at the IDF is asking for a Darwin's Award nomination, and has no right to complain if they get one.
 
I'd most definitely not shoot the ones with wooden legs but would possibly shoot the ones with cutlasses in their teeth especially if they were swinging towards me on ropes.

But only if they didn't have parrots on their shoulders... That would be a no-no
 
As Mycroft pointed out, what is "clearly" true is completely inconsistent with what I actually said. What, two groups just happen to be advancing on the exact same Israeli position at the exact same time, and you assume they are "TWO SEPARATE GROUPS"? Please. Either you're an idiot, or you're deliberately interpreting it in a manner that makes no sense.

I guess I am an idiot! I was actually reading what you wrote instead of what you THOUGHT you wrote. (emphasis mine)

Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis.

The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

Hmmmm, maybe I got the impression that they were two distinct groups because you said there were. One carrying weapons and wanting to kill Israelis - the other carrying no weapons and having no intentions of engaging the Israeli soldiers. Now who is the idiot? The one who makes an observation based on unclear writing in a bad example or the one providing the bad example through unclear writing?
 
I guess I am an idiot! I was actually reading what you wrote instead of what you THOUGHT you wrote. (emphasis mine)



Hmmmm, maybe I got the impression that they were two distinct groups because you said there were. One carrying weapons and wanting to kill Israelis - the other carrying no weapons and having no intentions of engaging the Israeli soldiers. Now who is the idiot? The one who makes an observation based on unclear writing in a bad example or the one providing the bad example through unclear writing?

Art was unclear and you misunderstood. Can you stop beating this dead horse now?
 
I notice that once again you've moved on to completely different "points", ducking the questions I've asked you.

Perhaps because of this. It hasn't been sufficiently clarified, at least in Cement-Head's mind.
I'm reporting this.

Now, you could have just said one large group of people looking for trouble if you didn't mean they were two separate groups.
But that would have eliminated the point of my hypothetical.

First off, you're the idiot who said that this group of civilians (Palestinians) were unarmed and had NO INTENTIONS OF ENGAGING THE SOLDIERS. That to me says they had no intention of being involved in any violence.
It's not my fault if you decide to read things into my posts that aren't there.

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/e/01897.html
1. In air defense, a fire control order used to direct or authorize units and/or weapon systems to fire on a designated target. See also cease engagement; hold fire. 2. (DOD only) To bring the enemy under fire.
(Emphasis mine). Nothing about acting as human shields.

Furthermore, you've quoted the original hypothetical, yet you apparently didn't bother reading it, because it completely destroys your claim of "Gee, whiz, I made an honest mistake".

Art Vandelay said:
If some "innocent civilians" are, in fact, terrorists who would attack any force attempting to arrest the terrorist leader, then aren't the rest of the civilians, simply by providing cover, giving up their claim to "innocence"? I mean, take this to an extreme.
I was clearly introducing the hypothetical as an extreme example of civilians providing cover to terrorists.

What purpose do YOU imagine a group of unarmed civilians with NO INTENTION OF ENGAGING THE SOLDIERS has?
I already answered that. Why are you asking the same question over and over?

And NOW you've assigned a number to this group ("several thousand") whereas before I only imagined a group of 30 to 40 individuals.
What are you talking about? I assigned a number to them from the very beginning. Are you an idiot or a liar? Which one?

You also have them "walking between a bunch of Israeli soldiers and a bunch of Palestinians with guns - that WASN'T in the original thread.
How would they provide cover if they are not between the two groups? How would shooting the militants mean killing civilians, if the civilians are not between the militants and the Israelis? You simply are not arguing in good faith. You didn't make any effort to understand what I was saying.

I think we all know why you'd like them to "spontaneously decide to walk between a bunch of Israelis with guns and a bunch of Palestinians with guns," so you could shoot them!
Yes, that's right. Every single person who disagrees with you is a bloodthirsty sociopath. :rolleyes:

It happened in Vietnam, it happened in Kosovo, it's happening in Iraq and it's happening in Palestine. Are innocents still innocent if they've been coerced into helping insurgents, or are they (as Cement-Head would have you believe) terrorist sympathizers who deserve the same treatment as those carrying and using the guns?
All you have is lies, don't you?

Hmmmm, maybe I got the impression that they were two distinct groups because you said there were. One carrying weapons and wanting to kill Israelis - the other carrying no weapons and having no intentions of engaging the Israeli soldiers.
You're playing equivocation games. "They're not the same, therefore they're distinct. Distinct means separate, separate means in different places, therefore they're in different places." Yeah, and God is love, love is blind, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God. Just because they are separate in category does not mean they are separate in space.

Now who is the idiot? The one who makes an observation based on unclear writing in a bad example or the one providing the bad example through unclear writing?
You didn't make an "observation". You told me what I said. If you're going to declare yourself a mindreader, you shouldn't object to criticism that you're not reading someone's mind correctly.
 
Please argue the topic and not the person.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
But you clearly said, they have no intention of engaging the Israelis. I think acting as human shields (does anyone actually do that?) counts as working WITH the terrorists; therefore they ARE engaging Israelis.

You should talk to Z-N. He's got photos of Palestinian civilians purposefully standing in front of masked militants while they are setting up weapons in order to shield them from Israeli fire.

Multiple pictures.
 
Last edited:
You should talk to Z-N. He's got photos of Palestinian civilians purposefully standing in front of masked militants while they are setting up weapons in order to shield them from Israeli fire.

I think Zenith-Nadir is far more of an authority about what is happening in Israel than Vandaley is, and I've come to several agreements with him about various things. Of course, his writing is concise and leaves nothing to interpretation.

Wouldn't you say that these unarmed human shields are engaging the Israelis? NOT engaging the Israelis (usually) means not wanting to become involved in hostilities, wouldn't you agree?
 
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/e/01897.html(Emphasis mine). Nothing about acting as human shields.

Did you really think you'd find something about human shields from a DoD./NATO (air defense) definition? I don't think the DoD OR NATO use human shields. Maybe a different source?

I was clearly introducing the hypothetical as an extreme example of civilians providing cover to terrorists.

Then why (in your example) do you say they are TWO GROUPS confronting the Israeli soldiers when they are in fact ONE GROUP hostile to the Israeli soldiers whether or not they are armed?


What are you talking about? I assigned a number to them from the very beginning. Are you an idiot or a liar? Which one?

Can you show me your previous quote where you assigned them a large number? Didn't think so.

All you have is lies, don't you?

I suppose you can prove to me that I'm lying about the Viet Cong forcing the indigenous population to support them? Didn't think so.

You're playing equivocation games. "They're not the same, therefore they're distinct. Distinct means separate, separate means in different places, therefore they're in different places." Yeah, and God is love, love is blind, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God. Just because they are separate in category does not mean they are separate in space.

Huh? You just said that distinct means separate AND separate means in different places. Doesn't that also mean that they might NOT be of the same mind in spite of the fact that they're both moving in the same direction? It seems to me that ONE group being heavily armed and looking for trouble and ANOTHER GROUP being unarmed and not wanting to engage the soldiers means TWO DISTINCT GROUPS - one wanting to fight, the other unarmed and not wanting to engage the soldiers.

You didn't make an "observation". You told me what I said. If you're going to declare yourself a mindreader, you shouldn't object to criticism that you're not reading someone's mind correctly.

I based my "observation" on what you wrote. It's not my fault you don't know English. Maybe you're an illegal immigrant.
 
Did you really think you'd find something about human shields from a DoD./NATO (air defense) definition?
Why, no, I didn't. Because that's not what it means.

Maybe a different source?
Alrighty then. Google search for "engage definition human shields": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=engage+definition+human+shields

First link: "Because they [humans shields] are not directly engaged..."
Second link: "There has been some debate over the exact nature of the relationship between the 1949 and 1977 criteria for belligerency, but whatever their precise relationship, voluntary human shields clearly do not fall into this category."
Third link seems to be the same as the first
Fourth link:" By definition, they are not members of an armed force, nor do they meet the criteria in Art. 4(a) GCIII for being combatants."

Then why (in your example) do you say they are TWO GROUPS confronting the Israeli soldiers when they are in fact ONE GROUP hostile to the Israeli soldiers whether or not they are armed?
Because I wanted to emphasize different properties. Is your problem that I used the word "group" rather than "category"?

Can you show me your previous quote where you assigned them a large number? Didn't think so.
What are you talking about? You quoted it yourself.

Art Vandelay said:
If someone wants to criticize firing a rocket and killing "innocent" civilians, then they should back up the claim that they are, indeed, "innocent". If some "innocent civilians" are, in fact, terrorists who would attack any force attempting to arrest the terrorist leader, then aren't the rest of the civilians, simply by providing cover, giving up their claim to "innocence"? I mean, take this to an extreme. Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis. The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

So, the question is, are the Palestinians really taking all reasonable steps to avoid being near a terrorist when an Israeli rocket strikes? If not, then the responsibility for the deaths lies with the Palestinians.

Huh? You just said that distinct means separate AND separate means in different places.
No, I said this is your implied argument. So apparently, quote marks and question marks are items of punctuation that you don't understand.

I based my "observation" on what you wrote.
Then show where I said that the civilians are innocent. Show where I said that they are not inter-mixed. Your "observations" are not based on the fact that I said what you say I said, but that I did not explicitly contradict what you say I said. There is a huge difference between saying that something is true, and not saying that it is false. If you want to say that my original hypothetical was insufficient to conclude that the civilians weren't innocent, fine. But to claim that my original hypothetical is sufficient to conclude that they are innocent is outright lying.
 
Killing the innocent is a direct violation of most international law and Just War Doctrine, personally I have laways viewed the doctrine of just war as higly suspect.
 
Killing the innocent is a direct violation of most international law and Just War Doctrine, personally I have laways viewed the doctrine of just war as higly suspect.

So what, exactly, is the "doctrine of just war"?
 
Alrighty then. Google search for "engage definition human shields": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=engage+definition+human+shields

Okie Dokey, I used your handy search page and found these:

"Whilst voluntary human shields do take part in hostilities, they do not do so in an active fashion. It is therefore inappropriate to group them with active combatants."

http://www.wischik.com/marcus/essay/humanshields.html
__________

"The following exchange took place between Ned Walker, Assistant to the Undersecretary for Middle East Affairs at the U.S. State Department, and the Hon. Lee Hamilton, chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East—under the auspices of the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the House of Representatives—on the background of talks between the US and the PLO. The remarks will attest to the problems involved in the use of the concept “terrorism”[3]:
Hamilton: Well, how do you define terrorism, do you define it in terms of non-combatance?
Walker: The State Department definition which is included in the terrorism report annually defines it in terms of politically motivated attacks on non-combatant targets.

Hamilton: So an attack on a military unit in Israel will not be terrorism?

Walker: It does not necessarily mean that it would not have a very major impact on whatever we were proposing to do with the PLO.

Hamilton: I understand that, but it would not be terrorism.

Walker: An attack on a military target. Not according to the definition. Now wait a minute; that is not quite correct. You know, attacks can be made on military targets which clearly are terrorism. It depends on the individual circumstances.

Hamilton: Now wait a minute. I thought that you just gave me the State Department definition.

Walker: Non-combatant is the terminology, not military or civilian.

Hamilton: All right. So any attack on a non-combatant could be terrorism?

Walker: That is right."

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm
____________

"Jessica Montell, B'Tselem - Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: Over the past three years we have seen an increase in violence against both Israelis and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. It seems that as part of this intifada, people on both sides are taking the law into their own hands and committing acts of violence against the other community.

From a human rights perspective, we are more concerned with the response of the Israeli authorities, and the responsibility of Israel to enforce the law and to punish people who violate the law. The Israeli authorities are, on the whole, much more lenient toward Jews who break the law - including acts of violence - than they are toward Palestinians.

The intensive investigations, arrests, interrogations, and prosecutions in the case [of the settlers from Bat Ayin], stand in stark contrast to what we see as very lax law enforcement against the routine violence by settlers toward Palestinians."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4277
_________

Thanks for doing the search for me, Art. :)
 
Okie Dokey, I used your handy search page and found these:

"Whilst voluntary human shields do take part in hostilities, they do not do so in an active fashion. It is therefore inappropriate to group them with active combatants."

I think these images may be what Art had in mind.
 

Attachments

  • k_11t.jpg
    k_11t.jpg
    18.2 KB · Views: 1
  • k_11r.jpg
    k_11r.jpg
    10.6 KB · Views: 0
  • k_11l.jpg
    k_11l.jpg
    10.4 KB · Views: 26
  • k_12r.jpg
    k_12r.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 26
  • k_12l.jpg
    k_12l.jpg
    11.5 KB · Views: 26

Back
Top Bottom