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.
And boy, does THAT piss off the DUmmies (LOL).
Dershowitz knows what happens to his a$$ should the Islamo-nazi's ever get ahold of him... he's a rabid socialist... but he ain't nuts.
That sir is an excellent point.
All this talk about "TARGETED" killings leads me to wonder if there is any other reasonable and responsible use of organized violence by a national government. Would targetless killings be preferable? What would that look like anyway? Picking random targets? Non-combatants? Bombing civilian populations. Now THAT sounds like terrorism.
Don't be scared. Dershowitz is a Liberal, a rare breed any more, so we may not agree on some points, but will agree with him on others. He's not a Leftist like those who have seized control of the MSM and the Democrat party over the last few decades. On the War on Terror, Conservatives and the few remaining (surviving) Liberals see mostly eye-to-eye.
I think you're right about that...Problem is he should be more vocal in support of our mission. Say what you want, Bush took iniative where very few weaker presidents including his father would have gone...
I seldom agree with Dershowitz, but he's clearly correct here, although I can't see how those who were in the same damn house as Zarqawi can be described as "innocent collateral damage". As far as I'm concerned, we don't have nearly enough targeted assassinations.
I have no military experience, but it seems that there would be only two ways to really fight this kind of war. One is a completely covert, special ops, stealth killing of the bad guys leaders. The other is the conventional method where, once you've got overt troop operations, you go to the "gates of the city", as it were, give them a chance to send out the bad guys for prompt killing and, if they refuse, you level the city. We seem to be doing something in between and I don't understand it. Please, note again that I have no military experience, much less "expertise".
well, really, what would one expect from Powell? For a 'war hero' I found him fairly wimpy... he was more like "can't we all get along?" He didn't want to go into Baghdad in '90 thus enabling the Heussein regime during the intervening years and creating a situation where President Bush didn't have much choice by 2003.
i understand the 'hand wringin', but whatsa winner(?) in this mideast toilet gonna do?! long ago, great men decided thay couldn't negotiate w/hitler-could never trust 'im-what's different w/those who have earned the name 'diaperhead terrorists'?
"what's different w/those who have earned the name 'diaperhead terrorists'?"
Nothing at all is different. We must do whatever it takes. My hand-wringing (and I'll admit that's what it was) is at the thought of the enemy changing us, forcing us to change, and wondering what we'll be like after we have won (which I fully expect to happen). The rough shape I see of a future complex world with enough built in safety for commerce to be worth conducting involves surveillance of just about everything. I can't see any other way to supervise would-be terrorists closely enough that we are protected. Such a world will be much less free in many ways, but that's what the Jihadis have imposed on us.
Bump
yup; but it needn't be as inhumane and stultifying as "1984".
Now that brings me back to a real, real happy time... ;)
I do too.
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.