Hamas is criticized for cowardice and unconcern for Palestinian civilians because they establish what few “military installations” they have in and among crowded civilian locations (which begs the question: considering the makeup of Gaza where else could they possibly go?). I live in greater OKC. Right in the middle of town sits a huge military installation, Tinker AFB, surrounded by about a million civilians. Should the US government be criticized for being Hamas-like because it embedded a military installation within a stone’s throw of civilian schools, hospitals, houses, apartment buildings, etc? How about Vance AFB in Enid? Ft. Sill in Lawton? Altus AFB in Altus? Israel’s primary military headquarters are smack in the middle of Tel Aviv. Is Israel using its civilians as human shields?
Am I A Human Shield?
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Hamas fires rockets FROM schools and hospitals. Hamas has tunnels underneath Gaza.
How is that the same? Also those towns, the town grew around the military base. Its not like Ft. Sill is underneath Lawton.
Okay, so the standard is you are not to fire rockets from schools, hospitals, etc., but it's acceptable to fire them when you are a few hundred yards away? It is not acceptable to dig tunnels in an effort to protect yourself from air attacks by your enemy? No, you should stand out in the open in broad daylight, arms outstretched so your enemy can get a clean shot at you. Is that how Israel conducts itself? Is that how any military organization in the world conducts itself? Also, those towns may have "grown around" the military installations over the years, but they were built in those towns knowing that is exactly what would happen. And I'll ask you again: considering the conditions/infrastructure in which it finds itself, where is Hamas supposed set up shop?
Your attempted equivalence here is incomplete and needs more information to provide the most accurate answer.
Did the residents around these military bases vote to put a radical regime in power whose sole purpose is the destruction of another country?
Did those residents participate and celebrate a unprovoked sneak attack purposely targeting women and children?
Did those residents celebrate the beheading of babies and small children?
Did those residents celebrate burning people alive?
Do those residents fully support the taking of innocent civilians as hostages?
Do those residents support the destruction of that country?
Have those residents done nothing to stand up in opposition to the radical regime?
Did the residents around these military bases vote to put a radical regime in power whose sole purpose is the destruction of another country?
Did those residents participate and celebrate a unprovoked sneak attack purposely targeting women and children?
Did those residents celebrate the beheading of babies and small children?
Did those residents celebrate burning people alive?
Do those residents fully support the taking of innocent civilians as hostages?
Do those residents support the destruction of that country?
Have those residents done nothing to stand up in opposition to the radical regime?
I'm not sure how your questions relate to the idea of human shields. Are celebrants and supporters human shields, or are they not? I would speculate that the residents around Tinker AFB, for example, support and celebrate almost any activity the US military involves itself in. So does that eliminate them from being considered human shields? Does that make them fair game for destuction in a conflict? Must a civilian be opposed to the military activities of its governing body before he is a human shield? In your mind is there a hard number or a percentage of a population that makes it acceptable to annihilate in revenge to something its military perpetrated?
I think the better question is are the Palestinians innocent and worthy of the designation of human shields or are the willful participants with Hamas? Based on my expereince with Palestinians, listening to the expereince of people I trust who have interacted with them extensively and what I do and do not see it looks to be the later.
I would also point out both Russia and China have most every US military base targeted with nuclear weapons. They could give a shit whether civilians died in the process. During WWII the war was fought with little regard for innocent civilian deaths, it was war. Whether you like it or agree with it Israel is at war with Hamas and other terrorist groups that want to wipe every Jew off the face of the earth. Israel didn't start this, didn't want this and would love to live in peace but that is evidently not the case with the radical Islamist.
The purpose of the thread is supposed to center on the idea of human shields, whether a military and/or government is allowed to operate in the vicinity of a civilian population. It is clear that every government establishes military operations within the vicinity of civilians. But for some reason only Hamas seems to be criticized for doing it. I wonder why that is.
Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Yeah, I know it is. On the other hand many people on this board have claimed the Palestinians in Gaza deserve whatever destruction Israel destroys them with because Hamas is their elected governing body. I'm wondering how it fits that a supposedly democratically elected governing body is simultaneously a terrorist organization. But mostly this thread is about the concept of human shields as a defense mechanism. Is it correct to criticize a terrorist organization for operating from within a civilian population but not criticize a supposedly legitimate government for doing the same thing? What makes it alright, for example, for Ukraine to fire rockets into Russian held territory from schools and hospitals?
Yeah and there's a pretty low bar for that around here.
Do other combatants use hospitals, churches, mosques or other known civilian areas for storage of military hardware, command and control units or firing rockets?
IMO the moment a civilian structure is used for military action against another it becomes a legitimate target.
Well if it’s democratically elected then the Palestinians are implicit with Hamas’ actions.
Every Palestinian is implicit? Even those that didn't vote for Hamas? I didn't vote for Joe Biden. I refuse to believe I am implicitly responsible for the harm he has brought to this country.
Those having the wherewithal to attack Tinker AFB (Russia, China) are not going to target the base itself. They are simply going to nuke OKC. Therefore, the analogy fails.
Last edited:
There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Sometimes it's what you do (vote in Hamas) and sometimes it's what you don't do (work to remove them). Same here. You didn't commit a sin of commission by not voting for Biden. But you committed a sin of omission by not voting at all.
Again, stupidest thread on this board and that's a bar so low you can't trip on it.
Again, stupidest thread on this board and that's a bar so low you can't trip on it.
Good point! Paying the price is one thing. Being responsible, even implicitly, is another.
The analogy does not fail. It is either immoral for a military organization to establish operations within the boundaries of a civilian population, or it is not. It is illogical to claim one military is immoral for doing it but others are not.
The citizens are secondary (came after the base) and can choose to be there or not.
Analogy fails
Analogy fails
You have created a nice scenario wherein the non-Hamas Palestinians in Gaza are wrong no matter what they do. They are deserving of being bombed into oblivion by Israel unless they take up arms (which they don’t have access to) and battle Hamas for Israel’s sake.
Military targets on bases in the US are placed far enough away from civilians that even Hamas would have a hard time hitting the civilians. Hamas on the other hand puts its HQ right under a civilian hospital. There is no equivalency here. Nice try, but the answer is no.
Except the Palestinians don’t fit your parameter. They have been systematically rounded up like cattle, driven into Gaza like cattle, fenced in like cattle and given no access out. They are literally herded into a concentration camp, they have no choice but to be human shields. The civilians living around Tinker AFB are there for their own reasons and can leave if they want, to that I agree. But while they’re there they are just as much a human shield as the Gazans.
I
I think the question of what qualifies as a human shield, and whether using human shields can be justified is less relevant than the question of if and when the killing of human shields is justified.
That’s nonsense and you know it. There are houses, apartments, schools, hospitals, businesses, etc. across the street from the fences around military bases. As I said earlier Israel’s primary military headquarters are right in the heart of Tel Aviv, a city of over 4 million souls. Do you suppose Israeli children in school a few feet away are in less danger than Palestinian children in school above a Hamas stronghold?
Within the vicinity of civilians and using civilian infrastructure for military purposes are two distinctly different things. If the USAF was using the SSM St. Anthony Midwest Hospital for military purposes, it would be considered a legitimate target. But we both know the US military doesn't use civilian infrastructure.
Hamas uses civilian infrastructure for and to shield their combat operations. I'd be criticizing the US if Tinker was located under the hospital in Midwest City.
Your analogy absolutely fails. To even remotely have merit, Tinker would have to be located in a war zone. I’ve provided the only feasible scenarios where that would be the case. Besides, Hamas, being the moslem cowards that they are, would aim directly for civilians located far away from any military bases, so you’re quite safe insofar as they are concerned.
Dan
Was Tinker/Ft. Sill/ Vance air base are bases built and the town built around it. As a employer people have to live in proximity to the base so they built houses in the base area. How much housing is right by a military base in the US?
Hamas built underneath Gaza with all the materials that were taken to build gaza up. Instead they built tunnels under Gaza with the people they govern as a shield above them.
Don't you first have to determine if they are a human shield first. You skip step if you don't determine.
You're trying too hard to be clever. Considering the tiny landmass over which Hamas has control they really don't have much choice but to go underground. Hamas has no air force, no navy, no tanks, no way to defend itself from attack. Going into tunnels is about the only option available to them. If they set up military operations in the open Israel would demolish them in one fell swoop. Israel enjoys one of the best armed and most sophisticated militaries in the world. Open military confrontation is out of the question. I think a credible argument could be made that Hamas does not necessarily use civilian infrastructure as a shield, but rather it's the only place from which they can operate. Greater OKC, for instance, is a larger land area than all of Gaza. I would bet the US would go underground and use tunnels if its entire military were reduced to operating out of OKC.
That's immaterial as an argument re: human shields. If utilizing humans around your military operation is grounds for calling them human shields, as is said about Hamas, then it is incumbant on every government/military to ban settlements in its vicinity. If you allow civilians to gather around your military base then you are just as complicit in using them as shields as a military that hides within a civilian population.
Just keep trying bub. As much as you try to rationalize it. You be you
That just leads us down the semantics rabbit hole of where to draw human shield line on the spectrum between a hospital in Gaza and Tinker in OKC. There is no platonic definition of human shield, and even if there was the fog of war and propaganda would still make the subject debatable. You can cut through the semantics and grant that the innocent people being killed are being killed as a by product of killing Hamas members. The only question remaining is how many children you can justify killing in order to kill a murderer.
And what a rabbit hole it is! In one month Israel has killed more Palestinian children than Russia has killed Ukrainian children in two years. Under those circumstances finding the justifiable number of dead children per dead Hamas participant becomes very difficult to ascertain.
Last edited:
It's the only place they have to go, OK. So are you saying that they should not be attacked? Or something else?
Yes, I am saying innocent Palestinians being imprisoned in Gaza should not be attacked.
