It wasn't my intent to embarrass. I had hoped you might reexamine your statement.
No one has said using human shields is a novel tactic. What I'm challenging is whether we are using that term correctly.
I could also challenge whether the use of human shields is axiomatically wrong. The French Resistance used human shields. US revolutionaries hid in populated areas. And so on. Sometimes by choice. Sometimes because they had little other choice.
What's relatively new is the argument that if we can say you used human shields then we are justified in killing those human shields. It's our bullets and bombs, but it's not our responsibility.
That's a vile argument. Sure, we're going to kill the human shields. But please don't pretend we're the good guys when we do.
Even when the bad guys do actually use human shields, that neither forces us to kill them nor excuses us when we do kill those human shields.