We could learn a lot from Israel when it comes to dealing with these animals.

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at June 8, 2006 1:31 PM

I, personally, have never had a problem with Israel's target killings of terrorist leaders.

500lb bombs work wonders.

Posted by: Vee at June 8, 2006 1:33 PM

Israel is doing very little to defend itself. In my opinion, it's not doing the minimum required, which is the expulsion of all "Palestinians" from what is the Biblical land of Israel, to Jordan or Egypt. If this doesn't happen eventually, Israel will lose in the demographic war, and it's fate will be similar to the Christians in Lebanon.

But even the little that Israel does is condemned by the secular, liberal, Jew-hating "European community".

"I will bless those that bless thee, and curse those that curse thee."

Posted by: US_infidel at June 8, 2006 1:37 PM

Oh, there's a difference. Israel's better at it, targets more precisely and the ensuing chaos is televised with body parts and all. Perhaps it's a matter of taste. Some just like the F-16 and a jdam over a helicopter and a hellfire.

Posted by: NativeSon at June 8, 2006 2:05 PM

Coincidentally, the world has been noting the 20th or 25th anniversary (I don't remember which) of Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear power plant. Israel was vilified for it at the time, although now there is widespread agreement that it was necessary and probably saved the world from a terrible disaster. Here again, in terms of the targeted killings, Israel is vilified for doing what has to be done.

Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard at June 8, 2006 2:06 PM

The military was simply targeting and enemy combatent, thats what the military does,"seek out and destroy. The only difference here is that this was a high profile target that happens to be responsible for thousands of deaths through out Iraq, and not just coalition troops but mostly Iraqi civilians along with apparently being responsible for the attack on two hotels in Jordan his home country that killed numerous Jordanians.

Posted by: Mackie at June 8, 2006 3:09 PM

The difference: attitudes like "Die Juden sind unser Ungluck" (The Jews are our misfortune.).

From anti-Semitic European history and consciousness, to Nazi banners, to Hitler's speeches, to the Holocaust, to Islamic ideology (end times Hadith and Qur'an), to the jihad against Israel, to worldwide Islamic consciousness, to the speeches of Ahmadinejad, to rampant, paranoid Islamic scapegoating of Israel and 'Zionism' in the UN and around the world in the minds and hearts of untold hundreds of millions, to Eurabian consciousness, to college campuses, to the unthinking parroting of 'the perennial conflict of two peoples-two religions-two states-two cultures', to a major media outlet near you, BBC, CCN, Reuters; and the underlying message: "if something bad happens, blame the Jews, and whatever Jews do, Jews do wrong."

Hence the liberal democracy of Israel is an apartheid, totalitarian, racist state, and the 'Palestinians' are an oppressed, dispossessed, alienated people with a unique cultural identity, who want nothing else but lasting peace, democracy, human rights, social justice, and equality among all men and women of the world.

The contradiction Dershowitz notes is, of course, merely a symptom of countless lies and absolute nonsense that guide the thinking and conduct of generations of peoples in Muslim countries and the West as well. And the irony with the 1930s is inescapable. As the nonsense is revealed for what it is, so is the real danger that threatens not merely the Jews but everyone else who does not belong: from National Socialism to Islam, the real story yet to be told.

Posted by: JTF at June 8, 2006 3:14 PM

from JTF:

"Hence the liberal democracy of Israel is an apartheid, totalitarian, racist state...."

And also, according to Eurabians, 'the greatest threat to world peace'. Because its Jewish population dares to exist, I guess.

This from today's news:

"The Hamas-led government's 3,000-member private militia showed no signs of withdrawing from Gaza's streets Thursday despite a deal with the rival Fatah movement to remove it from public areas." ... and just when we thought that al-hudaibya treaties were just for infidels.

Posted by: Infidel33 at June 8, 2006 3:38 PM

Balkans from a Jewish Perspective

Kosovo: The emerging terror state

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/mb/048.shtml

Posted by: adobe at June 8, 2006 5:29 PM

I don't a always agree with 'the Dersh,' but he's right on target here. Sometimes he hits the nail on the head. I think he's right on torture as well--sometimes it is justified such as in the 'ticking clock scenario.' Many opposed all torture--such as at Gitmo or with high-value targets like KSM, but, from what I've read, the water-board is like the holy grail. Everybody talks, in seconds to a minute with water-boarding. I would hate that to happen to me=). Some, such as McCain are opposed to all forms of torture; I respect their views(especially McCain given what he's been through), but I feel it is justified at times. With today's topic--as Rush Limbaugh once said of UBL and the 'one' question he'd like to ask--"what are your coordinates?"

Posted by: biorabbi at June 8, 2006 5:30 PM

Uh Robert Dershowitz has no credibility I would rather see quotes from someone else. The guy is immoral. If he happens to point out something right who cares. I am sure OJ himself might be right on some of the issues too. Would rather not see the words of scum like this at all.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 8, 2006 6:20 PM

Dershowitz has been right on Iran and Israel, and wrong on Iraq. However, does he understand and recognize the truth about Islam? If he does, then he is worth supporting - we need to bring not just the GOP but the Dems as well to recognize Islam for what it is. The reasons may vary - the GOP may be anti-Islam because Islam would overshadow the very concept of the US constitution, abolish rights of Christians, Jews and all other religions, and introduce a totalitarian regime in Washington. The Dems may be anti-Islam because Islam is misogynic, homophobic, cruel-to-animals, anti-athiest, Arab supremacist, et al. To the extent that Derschowitz understands this and helps promote it among the Democrat base, he's worth supporting.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 8, 2006 7:30 PM

I am split on Israel and targeted killings, escpecially with aircraft dropped bombs. As long as they stay away from the PLO, I'd be okay with them killing HAMAS, Hezbollah and Al-Aqsa Mosque members until the streets of the West Bank ran red with blood.

Posted by: skald at June 8, 2006 9:11 PM

Why, skald? What's so sacred about Fatah/PLO?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 8, 2006 9:59 PM

How can one disagree with Mr Deshowitz?

The incongruity - and hypocrisy - in the reaction of the "international community" (there's that damn term again Hugh) is inescapable.

Meanwhile, the one time Israel bombed an entire apartment building - killing 14 - to get to one terrorist, they subsequently acknowledged the error in policy and vowed not to repeat it.

Whay a contrast to the jihadi modus operandi, where indiscriminate murder is the goal.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 8, 2006 10:08 PM

Slightly OT; re: the elimination of Zarqawi. A local news station here in NYC just had man-in-the-street (actually at the WTC site) reactions.

One man's on-target statement - "he wanted jihad; he got it".

Yes, indeed.

Posted by: Vee at June 8, 2006 10:22 PM

Israel's has the same problem as here in the US and Canada, too many hand wringing left leaning politicians. they do not need endorsements to self protection, and are cannot wait for europeans to cheer them on. so next time they kill terrorist from above, tell the UN,EU etc to stuff it!

Posted by: Lulu at June 8, 2006 10:26 PM

Professor Dershowitz is of course correct. He made a very similar agrgument in "The Case for Israel", a book which incidentally provides point by point deconstruction of myths used to smear Israel. He also makes a very strong case for the use of torture in the war on terror in limited circumstances.

An above poster wrote

Uh Robert Dershowitz has no credibility I would rather see quotes from someone else. The guy is immoral. If he happens to point out something right who cares. I am sure OJ himself might be right on some of the issues too. Would rather not see the words of scum like this at all.

No credibility? Immoral? Scum? Dershowitz is one of the most honest (brutally honest at times) commentator and supporter for Israel. At the same time however, he has criticised some Israeli policies.

Posted by: Haidon at June 8, 2006 10:49 PM

Infidel Pride

Read the fourth or fifth chapter of teh Case Against Israel. Dershowitz lays heavy criticism on Islam itself.

Posted by: Haidon at June 8, 2006 10:51 PM

Sorry that's the "Case for Israel", his seminal and best work.

Posted by: Haidon at June 8, 2006 10:52 PM

Irrespective of anyone's personal views on human rights the fact is that when information that may save hundreds of lives, or more, is required, no state with any intention of surviving will think twice about torture and horrible or not that is at it should be.

I always had the impression that some posters here had dire need of a reality check in discussing what is in actual fact a war of extermination. No one with any sense likes torture (or extreme questioning) or the use of Guantanamo Bay and the accidental killing of civilians or even a death penalty. But in war people are hurt and killed that is the nature of the beast and you either fight or you lose. There is no in between.

It is not really a matter of ethics in war. It is a matter of survival. You can only have rigid ethics in a stable, unthreatened state with a reasonable standard of living. That person who is starving, freezing, seriously ill,
threatened or illtreated will die if he leaves his ethics intact while his children may survive if he is flexible. Read up upon survival in the
concentration camps before you talk about ethics.

IN an ideal world ethics are of prime value but in lesser worlds its importance and its priority fade proportionately as survival probability drops.

I had always been a liberal human rights activist but have slowly swung to the view that the survival of western civilisation as we know it is at stake here.

I know that our western states are not perfect and that I deplore death penalties, overzealous state highhandedness and any form of brutality and especially so as I was once a pacifist.

But we are at WAR. The fact that it is NOT declared means NOTHING.

In war chivalry, kindness and ethics are only possible when it is safe to apply them. The enemy have NO concept of ethics as we understand them . They see ethics only dictated in the Koran where they do NOT apply to nonbelievers
but only to fellow Muslims. They ignore truces except when they are losing; they do not recognise either diplomatic immunity or church sanctuary; they have no qualms about killing off wounded and incapacitated enemy soldiers(Iraqi doctor); they are allowed to rape and kill infidels as they see fit and so on.

In many ways this war is akin to the pacific war where only a total change of ethics enabled allied soldiers to first cope with and then defeat an equally savage enemy who will quite happily hide behind women and children to escape
return fire. In my view if he does so then it should NOT stop anyone firing at him and if innocents are killed it is he who changed the parameter. All too often they depend so much upon western ethics for which they themselves have absolutely no respect. It is time to fight them on their terms and no other.

After the dust has settled, the sarin stains have dried up, the radioactive deserts are cooler and the mosques are all gone then we can afford to return to civilied western ethics but only then.

Posted by: Zathras at June 9, 2006 1:27 AM

The Brits used to use sensory deprivation interrogation techniques on Irish terrorists in the 1970's - it mainly consisted of making them stand for hours with hoods over their heads, hands against a wall a listening to white noise or industrial fans but here may have been some sleep deprivation involved and I once heard mention of a gun being fired, out of the blue, near somebody's head while he was being being treated like this. Any way the international court of human rights adjudicated that it was torture, so we stopped doing it. The French are, or were, more blase about it since the standard manual of torture used in the middle east was written by the French military ('They always talk in the end - we learned that in Algeria' is a memorable line from 'The Day of the Jackal')But he biggest argument against torture is not that it's against international law or that the french use it and we don't or even that the information it produces is often worthless, but that Mohammed used it -on the Jew, Kinanah, in order to find where his treasure was hidden, before having him killed. It is difficult to deport 'radical' clerics from the UK to their Muslim homelands because all those countries use torture. They think they should imitate their brutal prophet, we have learned not to sink to his level.

Posted by: wallyUK at June 9, 2006 1:37 AM

WallyUK...Unfortunately unless we do fight like them, we will not win. That was the rule discovered in the pacific war.

As I said above ethics have no place in war and although I agree with you that they should have, it only gives a difficult enemy more chances to survive.

This is a war of extermination, not a parade ground for those whose ethics shine most.

Posted by: Zathras at June 9, 2006 4:22 AM

biorabbi - Is there any evidence torture works? Especially with these fanatics who will just scream Al Ak till they die? Not that I care really - go for it - just curious. Curious because I'll tell you who killed Kennedy if you tortued me (fast too just pull out the pliers and I'll spill all the sorid details)..but how do if it's the truth or not?

Posted by: Zebo at June 9, 2006 4:28 AM

Cornelius - you do realise rockets continue raining down on Israel daily from Gaza? Indiscriminate blatent slaughter?

Meanwhile - Israel targets terrorists who are always moving so when they get a one-in-a-million tip of his location - launching a missle at one of thier safe houses makes the differnece between catching them and never catching him. To make an incursion for physical apprehension is not an option because of the clock. Secondly they would lose many men doing it and kill many more fanatics doing it - as children, women, old men everyone would attack them! You must understand thier religion - The love dying! Its an honor in the Jihad!

You really need some education. Go there for a couple weeks and see. You would never utter that nonsense again. Israeli are too wimpy have way to much regaurd for human rights. What do you think happens when an IDF soldier is captured by PAL? Head is gone. What do you think happens when a PAL terrorist is captured by IDF? They have hundreds in jail, conforming to the Geneva, which legally they don't even have to do!!

Posted by: Zebo at June 9, 2006 5:40 AM

Zebo...even fanatacism has its antidote. Just add a little pig's blood to whatever you are doing and it may have a dramatic effect.

The art of torture is not to kill the "client" but to persuade him that revealing information is the better option.

It is simply a matter of finding his weakness and exploiting it. All of us have a weakness. Remember room 101?

As a jihadist is set on achieving eternal heaven for his immortal soul, contaminating him with pig's blood and threatening to cremate him after death should convince him of his folly.

Posted by: Zathras at June 9, 2006 7:13 AM

Haidon

I haven't read Deschowitz' book, but if what you say is correct, I'd root for him.

As for your comment on the other poster, the reason many people loathe him is because of his role in the OJ Simpson trial, and his behavior on Geraldo. I wouldn't hold that against him, although I seriously disagree with a lot of his leftist views. But if he is one of few people who recognizes the truth about Islam, and particularly given his influence with the Left, I'd root for him to succeed. Not being a Leftist, there isn't much more I could do there. On the right wing side of the spectrum, I'm always available to persuade people of the threat Islam poses, but generally, in my experience, those on the right don't have any illusions.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 9, 2006 12:25 PM

Zathras - Sounds good to me. As I said I don't really care if it works or not from an moral standpoint they deserve to be cut mm by mm. Just questioning efficacy.

I bet pair of panties over the head worked here:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/captured_zarqaw.html

Posted by: Zebo at June 9, 2006 12:26 PM

said: "targeted killings of this kind are unlawful

So he prefers the UNtargeted killings of the terrorist kind???

Posted by: dococ at June 9, 2006 10:05 PM

from what I've heard, Dershowitz's book, the Case for Israel, is very good at demolishing the propaganda attacks on Israel. But his solutions are foolish and silly, and aren't much different from the silly talk out of the White House and State Dept.
The Israeli bi-monthly Nativ ran a very critical review on Dershowitz's book recently, mainly for what I pointed out above.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 11, 2006 3:37 AM

I, too, read Dershowitz's THE CASE FOR ISRAEL and was deeply impressed. But only for a time. Norman G. Finkelstein establishes with erudition and very careful attention to detail that Dershowitz is guilty of egregious plagiarism. Dershowitz tried very hard, without success, to prevent the publication of BEYOND CHUTZPAH (On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History) by Normon Finkelstein. I remain a strong supporter of Israel, but thanks to Finkelstein I'm less naive about the lengths some will go (major distortions of history and illegal plagiarism) to make a case that can quite easily be made by telling the truth.

Dershowitz is also a torture apologist. His specious arguments are carefully deconstructed and refuted by the Australian Catholic gay conservative author DREADNOUGHT on his website of the same name.

Posted by: Tom at June 12, 2006 12:58 AM

Tom, you are invited to look over my site [click on my name] which has a lot of historical material about Jewish history in the Land of Israel, Jewish-Arab relations, Jews in Iraq, etc. If you don't like Dershowitz, have finkelstein try to refute me. Supposing that Dershowitz did plagiarize, that does not at all mean that the plagiarized material is incorrect.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 12, 2006 5:57 PM