07 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFMy jowls are implants of material from that fence I sit on all day.
It is 4,000 times less absurd, precisely, for which I thank you.
I don't see why you feel the need to approach this with scenarios where the "combatants" outnumber the "civilians" in these ways. This is hardly ever the case in real life.
You must have jowls of high tension steel. You are sucking even more air out of the already complete vacuum!
Strong stuff.
07 Apr 10
In any case, as I'm sure you're gleaned, I'm not going to say anything on this thread that can be used against me when someone inevitably whips out the ol' "Ha! That's what the US/Israel is doing in Afghanistan/Iraq/Gaza!"
Disclaimer: In no way am I implying that this was your intent in creating this thread, but as this thread grows longer, the probably approaches 1 that someone was going to do that; although I undoubtedly sped up the process with this post.
😉
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFForce X mingles with the civilians too. Problem solved?
Force X is attacking inferior Force Y.
Force Y mingles with Civilians Y.
What exactly is the despicableness of the human shield tactic in this military situation?
(1) Is it because Force X now has no choice but to kill innocent civilians - a despicable course of action - in order to achieve its military objectives?
(2) or is it because ...[text shortened]... a despicable dilemma set up by Force Y's actions) in order to achieve its military objectives?
08 Apr 10
It seems pretty clear to me: the force that uses the human shield tactic is in the wrong. Their intent is to endanger innocent lives for their own benefit, while the opposing force has no intent to kill civilians. Force Y's actions are despicable, regardless of the outcome. Force X's decision to engage hostiles using this tactic is not despicable because they don't intend to cause harm to civilians.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by BeyerIf Force X, say, burns a town down or subjects it to devastating aerial bombardment, in the full knowledge that there are many more civilians there than combatants, in what sense do you claim that "they don't intend to cause harm to civilians"?
Force X's decision to engage hostiles using this tactic [killing the people who constitute the human shield] is not despicable because they don't intend to cause harm to civilians.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFWould you feel comfortable if Coalition forces started using human shields? If civilians died because of this, would you blame it on the insurgents?
If Force X, say, burns a town down or subjects it to devastating aerial bombardment, in the full knowledge that there are many more civilians there than combatants, in what sense do you claim that "they don't intend to cause harm to civilians"?
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe insurgents kill more civilians than combatants anyway, deliberately it seems. I don't condone it. Nor do I condone human shield tactics. However, I cannot endorse Force X killing Civilians Y with impunity - as suggested by others on this thread already - after Force Y has put them in harm's way, especially if Force X could use tactics to minimize the losses suffered by Civilians Y.
Would you feel comfortable if Coalition forces started using human shields? If civilians died because of this, would you blame it on the insurgents?
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn my OP, Force Y and Civilians Y are compatriots, and Force Y is located amongst Civilians Y as Force X approaches. As for whether Civilians Y are volunteers or hostages, well they are in their own homes, they fear Force X, and they do not really have anywhere else to go.
Did the human shields volunteer or are they hostages?
08 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am wondering whether, because inferior Force Y has taken its arguably despicable step (which it hopes will increase its chances of survival), superior Force X has no choice but to hold its fire and wait - or mount a more costly assault that discriminates between combatants and civilians. If Force X attacks the predominantly civilian target in town Y, then it is taking an arguably despicable step too. This is what I am currently cogitating, with the kind assistance of contributors to this thread.
On reflection I'd have to say it depends.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFExcept, I didn't say that in that context. Obviously in your scenario Force X intends to cause harm. In any case, it's still quite clear to me. If Force X attempts to find a solution with the intent of causing the least amount of civilian casualties, their decision isn't despicable. In your specific scenario, if that was the best course of action, then how can you lay the blame on Force X? In fact, it's the most honorable route to take.
If Force X, say, burns a town down or subjects it to devastating aerial bombardment, in the full knowledge that there are many more civilians there than combatants, in what sense do you claim that "they don't intend to cause harm to civilians"?
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by BeyerWhy isn't the least despicable thing to do to consider it stalemate until Force X can attack Force Y without killing innocents?
In your specific scenario, if that was the best course of action, then how can you lay the blame on Force X? In fact, it's the most honorable route to take.
08 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFWhen will that be? Ever? Should Force X allow Force Y to shoot at them without defending themselves? Is Force X obligated to flee Force Y when civilians are used as shields?
Why isn't the least despicable thing to do to consider it stalemate until Force X can attack Force Y without killing innocents?
08 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungForce X has the option of mounting a more costly attack that minimizes risk to Civilians Y.
Should Force X allow Force Y to shoot at them without defending themselves? Is Force X obligated to flee Force Y when civilians are used as shields?
The way I see it, Force Y's tactic - despicable as it may seem - forces Force X to either hold off, or risk higher casualties, because the less risk alternative for Force X (e.g. airstrikes, burn the town down) is also seemingly despicable.
When you play snooker or pool, and you're behind, don't you ever try to snooker your opponent?