Because pretty much every military base has residential areas around it.

No.

You're smort. You can figure it out.

and when you do it, use Iranian school children instead of America, and think about why they're not human shields.

Okay guess you're not smort.

Hamas intentionally builds bases under civilian structures to specifically prevent them from being bombed.

Everywhere else in the world, civilian communities naturally form around military bases.

Let me break it down to something you and efette can understand.

* People making military base.
* Military people have families.
* Families build communities next to military base.

Contrast with:

* We don't want to get our command center bombed GBU-72.
* So we go where people are already, and build our base under our hospital.
* If somebody blows up our base, they blew up the hospital, and they're the bad guys.

When they start building CP's under Walter Reed, you'll be on to something.

Right. Human shields.
As for Gaza, it's just a strip, building "military bases" - regardless of where - is gonna be surrounded with

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-09-27 03:35 PM | Reply

Surrounded with != underneath.

You're arguing for the military necessity of human shields. Have fun with that.

"They're not human shields, even though we're using them as human shields!"
"We don't have a choice but to use human shields!"
-Clown

The problem with your retarded human shield strategy, is that it only works until you escalate with the other side until they didn't it doesn't work anymore.

Not to mention all the civilians you're getting killed with it, but they only get to be a footnote in the human shield strategy.

idgaf about Israel.

"Under international humanitarian law (IHL), civilian communities that naturally or historically develop around military bases are not considered "human shields." For a situation to meet the legal definition of human shielding, there must be a specific intent to exploit civilian presence for military advantage."

"Legal scholars often distinguish between active shields and what the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) refers to as "proximate" civilians. These are individuals who simply happen to live or work "too close" to a legitimate military target without any coercive action or deliberate tactical placement taking place. While their proximity dramatically increases their risk during a conflict, they do not automatically fulfill the legal definition of human shields."

"While communities surrounding military bases are not shields, militaries do have a legal obligation under Additional Protocol I (Article 58) to "endeavor to remove the civilian population... from the vicinity of military objectives" and avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas."

"International Criminal Court (ICC): In late 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for leaders of both Israel and Hamas (including Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif). While the charges against Hamas leaders heavily centered on the October 7 attacks (such as murder, hostage-taking, and sexual violence), subsequent formal complaints have been filed at the ICC by Palestinian civilians from Gaza, urging the court to explicitly prosecute Hamas for utilizing local residents as human shields."

ICC Definition & Legal Framework

Core Act: The intentional use of protected individuals"such as civilians or prisoners of war"to block or deter an enemy attack on specific military targets, zones, or forces.

Protected Status: It applies to people who are otherwise legally protected under international humanitarian law.

Voluntary or Coerced: A person can act as a human shield either by force (involuntarily) or of their own volition (voluntarily), and the prohibition still applies.

Context limitation: Under the current wording of the Rome Statute, this specific war crime is explicitly codified for application during international armed conflicts.

I can say "Hamas uses human shields", and not care about Israel, and condemn Zionism.

Thank you for playing.