Is it morally acceptable to use civilians as cover for a military attack?

Question

If so, who is at fault when a retaliatory strike is launched at the site of the original attack?

Answer 1

No, and its the soldiers fault

Answer 2

It is disgusting how some people don't value the lives of their OWN people. You'd think the Lebanese would put their people in shelters. If Hezbollah are such humanitarians why do they not send their civilians away from the fighting and put them in shelters, especially when leaflets have been dropped down to them telling them that they are about to be bombed???

It is because they want their civilians to die so that the images can look horrible on the TV for the world and the Arab world to see how horrible Israel is because they killed a bunch of children.

If Israel did not value life and left their women and children to be outdoors amidst the fighting, we'd see a lot of horrible images of Hezbollah rockets killing the Israeli women and children, but the Israelis would NEVER put their civilians in harms way, especially for a good public image, or to ridicule and make their enemy unpopular. People should see this for what it is. Hezbollah is using the lives of their own people to make Israel look bad, to further their own agenda. But why should they care, they grow up and raise their children to think that it is a good thing to kill yourself while killing as many Jews as possible.

Answer 3

It is morally reprehensible to use innocent civilians as shields behind whom to launch attacks.

It does, however, seem to be modus operandi for the Islamist terrorists. The use hospitals, schools, mosques and civilian housing areas as weapons depots and places from which to launch attacks and hide from retaliation.

It's unfortunate for the civilians ... but Israel DID warn them to leave the area because an attack was coming. If they didn't listen ... they chose to support their Hezbollah buddies ... and chose the result.

Answer 4

you're striking except for the actual undeniable reality that if there became no God (it is fortunately not a threat) there should be no morals, there ought to purely be options. you will see that that obviously with challenge of abortion the position some people say that murdering a baby in that's mom's womb is completely moral and ok. the persons who communicate about instincts and social regulations being adequate without God do not comprehend that we purely have such issues as instinct, acculturation, and socialization because God designed us to have those issues.

Answer 5

sure its acceptable if your the one doing it, hell, you can even probably use the negative pr in your favor ... its a sign they are getting desperate and looking for a way out or expecting the world to jump in and save them ... a miscalculation that one "saddam hussein" proved doesnt work ... people die in every war thats a fact of life ... FACT of life ... its no worse here than in any other war and hezbolla is the one that started the hostilities so they should bear the full brunt of the responsibility in all the deaths on both sides ....

Answer 6

It is if one is a religious fanatic who makes up his own rules as he goes along and knows that he has the blessing of God, and can spin propaganda to make the enemy look bad. Hope you got the sarcasm in the answer.

Answer 7

In the case of Qana, there was no attack. The Israelis effed up.

Answer 8

Apparently to many in the world and the UN it is, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing so much condemnation of Israel and sympathy for it's enemies.

Answer 9

That is exactly what terrorist do...Hussein used to do that to. It's the cowards way out. I don't think its the same as retaliation...that's part of war...which is all unfortunate but sometimes necessary.

Answer 10

probably not. but from a military stand point, anything is acceptable in war as long as it helps you win

Answer 11

There is no excuse for Isreal, what they are doing is violating so many humanitarian laws it's absurd