Posted on 05/09/2011 5:37:04 PM PDT by SJackson
Former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker had a great line he used when dodging a reporter’s question, “couldn’t say” he would remark with a broad smile or twinkle in the eye as the situation warranted. Here in Israel, they know a thing or two about assassinating their wanted "terrorists." They are also experts at saying "couldn’t say."
An entire Wikipedia page is dedicated to the details of “Israeli Assassinations” and counts more than 50 dating back a half century. Some of Israeli’s most-wanted were killed covertly: letter bombs, exploding cell phones or poisoned chocolate.
Others were killed by less covert ways that sent a clear signal: missiles fired from helicopters, car bombs and a long Israeli favorite: a few shots to the head in public often as the condemned vacationed far from the Middle East.
...snip...
One thing has remained constant: The Israeli governments official response to reporters’ questions is the basic equivalent of "couldn’t say" with a broad smile.
Even when caught virtually red-handed in the murder of a Hamas arms buyer in Dubai, spokesmen and even trusted sources within the Jewish state’s security apparatus remarked that they just "couldn’t say" who was involved. They noted that bad things tend to happen to bad people and it was just "tragic" that events transpired the way they did.
number of people here have been even more stunned by the media coverage fueled by intensive speculation and administration leaks that to some experts severely compromise operational security. Details of a similar Israeli operation would take years to leak and even decades later are not officially confirmed. It was the United States that confirmed the story of the 2007 Israeli mission that destroyed Syria’s nuclear facility.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
An interesting article, the issue of publicity the greatest contrast. Of course Israel is a tiny nation, often criticized for these actions, even by the US. And today the US is in the hands of The One, shutting down most press criticism. One of the few times I agree with the liberal press. There's nothing to criticize, other than the leaks, which they're part of. Had the Cowboy from Texas done this, the tone would be different.
It really would have been more effective and frightening to our enemies if we simply would not explain the entire event, what we had, who we may have or may have killed, and so on. Keep em guessing.
I don’t think that the Rooskies ever explain much.
If zero couldn’t have basked in the glory this mission would have never gone down.
IMHO, it was criminal for Hussein to order the killing of Bin Laden if he was first taken alive.
A real President would have Bin Laden at an undisclosed location entertaining CIA types with his tales.
Good men will likely die because Hussein did not wish to deal with the political fallout from his base with a captured Bin Laden.
Israel brought Eichmann to trial.
Their Entebbe mission is one for the ages.
Just a couple of random thoughts here.
obama: “I” “I” “I” “My” “My” “I” “I” etc, etc. His words will come back to bite him.
The Israelis have got it right.
An interesting point, it would have been easier to kill him. I don't think a bin Laden trial would have had the impact of Eichmann's, no one other than the terrorists and their supporters are unaware of his crimes. Eichmann did raise the world's awareness. A choice, in either case, either option was fine, imo.
I agree, unless we think this is the end, we'll never confront a similar situation again. Even Obama isn't that stupie. But not "explaining" doesn't win votes. Have to keep our priorities straight
If by taken alive, you mean captured. Surrendered, a surrender our SEALs accepted, sure. But despite the multiple stories from the press, there's no way that happened. As an enemy combatant, whether he was visibly armed or not, he's a threat and a legitimate target. As to capture, I'm a bit torn on that, but recognize that this administration wouldn't wring a bit of information from him. Or any future captives. Better to kill them under those circumstances, it's the Obama way.
The cases are so very different. No one doubted Eichmann was innocent.
I just threw this out as something to ponder. If I am not mistaken, Eichmann is the only person ever executed by Israel.
Thinking too about the insanity of the O administration trying to seize all the drugs used for legal executions here in the US. In the face of their shooting obl dead on sight their anti death penalty actions are inexplicable.
Frankly, I am more convinced than ever that BHO is a psychopath.
Meant to say, no one in the civilized world doubted Eichmann’s guilt.
I believe there was a spy who was hung in 1948. It’s interesting, since Israel largely adopted the British legal system in place when they became a state, and the Brit’s had no qualms about executing people in those days. I wasn’t addressing doubt about Eichmanns guilt, just the fact that a trial brought what was at the time a somewhat forgotten issue to the worlds conscience. I don’t know why they didn’t simply kill him.
It was my own error in posting that made the comment about doubting Eichmann’s innocence.
I well remember the news when he was captured.
We have come a long way since then. Am now hearing more clips from O’s 60 min. interview and it’s chilling to hear his comments that anyone who thinks the seals did the wrong thing need their head examined.
Am not convinced more than ever that this president is evil to the core.
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.