Posted on 06/12/2006 6:00:55 AM PDT by white trash redneck
As the civilized world justly celebrates the long overdue killing of Abu M Zarqawi, it must recall that his death was brought about by what has come to be known as "targeted assassination" or "targeted killings." This is the same technique that has been repeatedly condemned by the international community when Israel has employed it against terrorists who have murdered innocent Jews. When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: "targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified." The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.
Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community. Surely there is no real difference between Zarqawi on the one hand and terrorist leaders from Hamas and Islamic Jihad on the other hand. If it is argued that Sheik Yassin was merely a spiritual leader of Hamas (a total lie since he explicitly authorized numerous terrorist acts), then it must be noted that one of the people targeted by the United States was Sheik Abd-al-Rahman, who was also described as a "spiritual advisor."
When the United States and British forces have engaged in targeted killings of terrorists, there have often been collateral deaths of non terrorists, as there apparently were in this instance as well. Collateral deaths are inevitable when terrorists hide among civilians and use them as shields. Both Israel and the United States make great efforts to reduce the number of collateral deaths and injuries but they do not always succeed.
I applaud the targeted killing of Al Zarqawi. His death will save many innocent lives. But I also applaud the targeted killings of anti-Israel terrorists whose deaths save numerous lives. All decent people must insist on a single standard of judging tactics such as targeted killing. It is nothing short of bigotry to approve this tactic when used by the United States and Great Britain but to condemn it when it is used by Israel.
Why is that?
But I will ask: Is Israel at war with Hamas? I know that the US is at war with terrorists. We kill both foot soldiers and leaders in pursuit of our war effort.
If the perception (fair or not) is that Israel is not at war, then perhaps some folks think assassination is not an acceptable political tool.
"As the civilized world justly celebrates..."
So he doesn't think that the MSM is part of the civilized world?
I think that Israel is more clearly at war with Hamas than the US is at war with muslim fascists. Hell, our own leaders and media can't even bring themselves to name the enemy.
yes he is right
But it is not us here are FR who condemns Israel for targeted killings- we think more of the murdering ba$tards should be done in. After they picked off the top 3 hamas leaders one in a row we heard no more for 16 months - actions get results.
The problem is the LAME STREAM DINOSAUR MEDIA that condems Israel.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
I can't believe that Douche-o-wits actually said something sensible...
Attacking the leadership of organizaions actively engaged in combat operations in a war zone is not assasination.
He and his staff are command and control targets, just as any officers in a combat zone are. remeber the Brit's didn't think it fair that American riflemen during the revolutionary war shot at the men on horseback ( typically British officers) first.
He misuses the word, as do most of the press.
There are those who don't think the US is at war - a clear 9-10 mentality.
But isn't it somewhat disingenious to argue this point? Look at the coverage of the Z-bomb and the med examiner's press conference. I detected an overwhelming negative feeling. The Washington Post even criticized the picture frame used in the Z conference. These press people must think what we did was wrong, and they are probably the same who think that when Israel wipes out a target, they are also wrong. I don't believe the premise that the people who think that Z's targetting by the US was good will think otherwise when done by Israel.
I think you either get it or you don't. Ditz is mixing apples and oranges.
If you have time read "Chutzpah" (1998) by Dershowitz. Nice book
Alan inches inexorably towards the right. Mugged by reality.
He is spot on.
Even a blind pig will occasionally stumble over a truffle by pure chance.
agreed
The late U. S. Senator Russell Long had a saying that explained seemingly contradictory votes on the same issue within a relatively short period of time. It was, "Where you stand depends on where you sit."
the point is: let's get it out in the open-right now assassination by the CIA is illegal w/o authorization by POTUS, or some such thing; let's be frank 'bout our war necessities.
weren't the Brits fumbling in the WWII era when they debated whether it was ethical to assassinate Hitler early on?!
"Grog no like Dershowitz."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.