The "human shields" argument is just bombing civilians and blaming it on someone else. That's all it's ever been.

The "human shields" argument is like if London had responded to an IRA attack by dropping thousands of bombs on Belfast, killing thousands of Irish civilians and hundreds of children, and justifying its bombing campaign by calling it an unfortunate but necessary measure to take out the IRA's Belfast Brigade because they're located in the same places as civilians.

It's like if the western political/media class defended and supported the carpet bombing of Belfast, saying "All those thousands of deaths are the fault of the IRA, because they're in Belfast where the civilians are. England has a right to defend itself, after all."

It's like if Belfast was walled in with nowhere for civilians to escape to, and London carpet bombed it targeting schools, churches and hospitals, and the western press framed this relentless assault on civilian buildings as "the UK-IRA war" in which London is exclusively bombing "IRA targets in Belfast".

It's like if the British spent a week dropping military explosives on locations it knew were packed with Irish children, and anyone who criticized this was accused of anti-Britishism and blood libel.

And to be clear this is not something I'd put past the British actually doing during the Troubles… if the Irish were Muslim and their skin was a little darker.

Reading by Tim Foley.