When I saw the link to this a little after midnight this morning I assumed it was just another al-WaPo pablum piece and didn't bother reading it. Thank you Allahpundit for pointing out my error: In Israel, a Divisive Struggle Over Targeted Killing. Read it. All of it. Before clicking the "Continue reading ..." link. Give it some thought and then please do click the link.

The article raises a very important issue: How many innocent "them" is it acceptable to kill or maim to protect "us?" For me the calculus is easy. I'd have dropped the larger bomb, then followed with several more to make sure the job was finished. Likewise, if I knew dropping massive thermonuclear weapons on a few Muslim cities would prevent the detonation of one primitive A-Bomb in an American or Israeli city, I'd have no problem at all giving the order to do it, nor would I have a problem with announcing in advance that for each WMD attack in an American, European, or Israeli city two important Muslim cities will cease to exist, starting with Mecca. Would that George Bush had the balls to make such and announcement.

Comments are open.

Contributed by Bill Faith on August 27, 2006 at 06:37 PM in Bill Faith, Islamism Delenda Est, Israel | Permalink

Comments

Posted by: dhimwit

I would but for one consideration. Iran is pretty close to Russian and Chinese territory. How would we avoid getting them very p*ssed?

Posted by: dhimwit | Aug 28, 2006 8:42:58 AM

Posted by: Rurik

Do the Muslims, the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ever make such calculations? When I see evidence that they have begun to make such calculation, then we should, but not until then.
The very fact that we, and the Israelis, show such distinction is the reason the brutes take shelter among the non-combatants. Once they learn there is no advantage, but only loss to their own from taking such shelter, they may cease.
I also have questions about the "degree of innocence". Is the child being trained for future terror innocent? Is the woman who encourages her man and sons? What about the "civilian" who takes no part in direct operations, but lends his support indirectly, such as delivering messages or providing shelter? And to forestall the question, I declare myself to be an "inactive combatant", a supporter, and no "innocent civilian" on our side. FIJFI.

Posted by: Rurik | Aug 28, 2006 3:54:24 PM