When enemy targets hide among civilians

@vivify said
As the OP asks: what is the answer? How do you confront an enemy using civilians as shields?

Kill them as well.

@moonbus said
This is essentially the same question as "how do civilized peoples deal with savages?" The long-range answer is: by civilizing them, showing them that civilization is better than savagery. This usually involves careful and patient negotiation, to de-escalate a crisis first. It is not possible to rationally discuss matters with hot shooting wars going on, because people in fea ...[text shortened]... cts which are forbidden by international law and treaty, and should have been reined in by Congress.

You probably have the best answer on this thread.

@vivify said
You probably have the best answer on this thread.

"Some simple questions do not have simple answers. Therein lies a difficulty."

--Goethe

@vivify said
I already gave you links that you apparently refused to read. Here's one more:

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4428134/us-forces-issue-safety-warning-to-civilians-in-iran/

"The Iranian regime is using heavily populated civilian areas to conduct military operations"

Also:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/07/i ...[text shortened]... or their country and “declared their readiness to sacrifice their lives in defence of Iran”.[/quote]

The first link is from the US military, hardly an unbiased source.

The second link refers to power plants which are not a legitimate military target. From the link:

"Attacks on civilian infrastructure amount to war crimes, legal experts say."

@vivify said
You probably have the best answer on this thread.

The best answer comes from those who have live among Islamic terrorists for decades. They know best. All other are just talkers. The diplomat types just want to be heard and be relevant without providing workable solutions. Had the Jews listened to these politicians and advisors, they would likely be dead or living under Islam.

There is a critical moral difference between one side that hides behind a child, and the other side that provides shelters for their citizens.

@no1marauder said
The first link is from the US military, hardly an unbiased source.

The second link refers to power plants which are not a legitimate military target. From the link:

"Attacks on civilian infrastructure amount to war crimes, legal experts say."

Legal experts can say whatever they like. If you are up against an enemy that is committing war crimes, there is often no choice but to respond with war crimes. Western nations war crimes are far

For a man to point to war crimes committed by the US or Israel while ignoring those committed by the Muslim states, clearly shows where his loyalty lies.

@Rajk999 said
Legal experts can say whatever they like. If you are up against an enemy that is committing war crimes, there is often no choice but to respond with war crimes. Western nations war crimes are far

For a man to point to war crimes committed by the US or Israel while ignoring those committed by the Muslim states, clearly shows where his loyalty lies.

The Nuremberg Court specifically rejected the doctrine of tu quoque or "they did it too" as a defense to war crimes.

Moreover, Crimes against Peace or aggressive war was deemed an offense sufficiently serious to get several Nazi defendants hung including Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop. The US and Israel's attack on Iran certainly rates as that.

I won't waste time further explaining basic principles of international law to a deranged, murderous sociopath.

EDIT: Maybe psychopath would be more accurate.

At any rate, your inevitable strategy of claiming anyone who doesn't agree with your concept of a genocidal Holy War must be a Muslim is childish and idiotic.

@no1marauder said
The Nuremberg Court specifically rejected the doctrine of tu quoque or "they did it too" as a defense to war crimes.

Moreover, Crimes against Peace or aggressive war was deemed an offense sufficiently serious to get several Nazi defendants hung including Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop. The US and Israel's attack on Iran certainly rates as that.

I won't waste tim ...[text shortened]... ho doesn't agree with your concept of a genocidal Holy War must be a Muslim is childish and idiotic.

You constantly misuse the Nuremburg Court finding that 'tu quoque' is not a defense for war crimes. Hamas's war crimes remain Hamas's war crimes. Israel's war crimes will remain theirs. Israel is not claiming innocence, neither are they committing the war crimes that Hamas committed. The fact that you keep trying to equate Islamic evil with normal western warfare say a lot about your mental state.

Israels right to self-defense and their right to disable the enemy, does not disappear if the terrorists are fighting, and firing rockets, among their civilians. The war continues.

@vivify said
As the OP asks: what is the answer? How do you confront an enemy using civilians as shields?

in general? or in this particular case where the aggressor doesn't care about civilian casualties anyway? where the aggressor shouldn't have escalated to war in the first place?

what are you looking for? someone to give their blessing that it's ok to kill as many civilians as possible if the enemy hides behind them? you already have a rabid dog on this forum who won't care no matter how many muslims die. dm him and he will give you that blessing.

the only way to avoid civilian loss of life in modern warfare is to not engage in modern warfare. So that's my answer. this was an unprovoked, idiotic war and it should end diplomatically. There will be no winning, no matter how long it takes or how many lives are lost.

@vivify said
I already gave you links that you apparently refused to read. Here's one more:

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4428134/us-forces-issue-safety-warning-to-civilians-in-iran/

"The Iranian regime is using heavily populated civilian areas to conduct military operations"

Also:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/07/i ...[text shortened]... or their country and “declared their readiness to sacrifice their lives in defence of Iran”.[/quote]

? Why do we care what he says? I am missing something.
I wonder what you all think should happen....you never say. I'll say it for you. We have to stop bombing, and let them build their bombs.

@Zahlanzi said
in general? or in this particular case where the aggressor doesn't care about civilian casualties anyway? where the aggressor shouldn't have escalated to war in the first place?

what are you looking for? someone to give their blessing that it's ok to kill as many civilians as possible if the enemy hides behind them? you already have a rabid dog on this forum who won't car ...[text shortened]... nd diplomatically. There will be no winning, no matter how long it takes or how many lives are lost.

Did this one answer the question, or is he some sociologist mire???
What are we supposed to be, preacher.? What are we to do, Preacher??
Now is your moment. Answer the question, liberal poster boy!!!

@vivify said
You probably have the best answer on this thread.

Hey>. Trump has given them choices (no nukes, no Strait problems) which, if they comply, we will be happy to 'civiize ' them.,
Are you daft. ? how hard is that to understand? Did you read Zahlanizi hot air??

@Rajk999 said
The best answer comes from those who have live among Islamic terrorists for decades. They know best. All other are just talkers. The diplomat types just want to be heard and be relevant without providing workable solutions. Had the Jews listened to these politicians and advisors, they would likely be dead or living under Islam.

There is a critical moral difference between one side that hides behind a child, and the other side that provides shelters for their citizens.

What should we do, though?
I feel like I am watching a dance, and you dance wih each other.

No answers. Just jabber, seeing who can impress who. I am not impressed

@no1marauder said
The Nuremberg Court specifically rejected the doctrine of tu quoque or "they did it too" as a defense to war crimes.

Moreover, Crimes against Peace or aggressive war was deemed an offense sufficiently serious to get several Nazi defendants hung including Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop. The US and Israel's attack on Iran certainly rates as that.

I won't waste tim ...[text shortened]... ho doesn't agree with your concept of a genocidal Holy War must be a Muslim is childish and idiotic.

So, what should Trump do? Any answers, anybody? Not you Marauder. Same ole same ole

@vivify said
I already gave you links that you apparently refused to read. Here's one more:

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/4428134/us-forces-issue-safety-warning-to-civilians-in-iran/

"The Iranian regime is using heavily populated civilian areas to conduct military operations"

Also:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/07/i ...[text shortened]... or their country and “declared their readiness to sacrifice their lives in defence of Iran”.[/quote]

So you believe your government? LOL!

Governments lie. Especially ours. Trump is the best example. He said Iran had nothing. No air defense. Then Iran shot down jets in a botched attempt to steal uranium from a nuclear facility. The US bombed their own jets that were shot down to prevent Iran from using them.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/why-us-blew-up-its-own-aircraft-during-most-daring-iran-rescue/articleshow/130042833.cms

Despite Trump being caught in an obvious lie he keeps doubling down and repeating the lie. He thinks if he keeps lying people will believe it. He is a moron. He is so delusional he thinks lies can overcome reality. If Iran has nothing why can't he open the strait of Hormuz? His lies are so obvious.

If heavily populated civilian areas were used to conduct military operations there would be evidence of it. There is no evidence. Just false allegations.