« I feel like sharing | Main | The use of deadly force »

Thursday, July 03, 2008

A few thoughts on yesterday's attack

In case you've been living without access to news for the past 24 hours, there was a terror attack yesterday in Jerusalem.  An Arab from one of the villages on Jerusalem's periphery (who therefore had an Israel ID card) turned the bulldozer (technically it is called a front loader) he was driving on Jaffa Street as part of the ongoing light rail construction project, and began ramming, up-ending and crushing cars and buses along with whoever happened to be in them. 

When the rampage ended, three people were dead (not counting the terrorist) and more than 60 people were injured.  The terrorist was first wounded by a police officer and finally shot and killed by an off-duty soldier and another police officer.  According to multiple eye witnesses, the driver was shouting 'Allahu Ackbar' (allah is great) throughout his 500 meter rampage down one of Jerusalem's main streets.

Here - in no particular order - are the three thoughts that followed me down into a fitful sleep last night, and which were still waiting patiently for me when I opened my eyes this morning:

1.  More guns.  Many, many terror attacks that occur here in Israel are ended by the armed intervention of bystanders, off-duty police officers and soldiers.  Army officers used to be required to carry pistols, but a couple of years ago the IDF made this optional.  The result has been that far fewer responsible Israelis are walking around armed today.  I think they should not only reinstate this requirement, but they should extend the requirement to senior NCOs as well and encourage both groups to obtain civilian gun permits when they leave the service rather than sell their guns (yes, unlike the assault rifles issued to combat troops, pistols carried by soldiers are privately owned).  They should also require off-duty police to be armed at all times.  There can never be too many responsible armed citizens on the street while we continue to face the ongoing threat of random terror.

2.  House demolition.  Yeah, it feels good (in a vengeful kind way) to authorize the destruction of a terrorist's home.  And it certainly sends the 'armed resistance' crowd (and their supporters) into a lather when the bulldozers show up to raze a 'militant's'  home.  But does it have any impact on future terror attacks?  I doubt it.  We've been seeing more and more 'middle class' Arabs with jobs, wives and kids lining up to murder Israelis, so the thought of having one's house razed doesn't really compare to all the other stuff they are already willing to give up. 

Don't get me wrong... I'm still all for bulldozing the homes of terrorists.  And there is some cosmic symmetry in this case since the terrorist used a bulldozer in his attack.  But I think it is silly to suggest that the policy is in any way a deterrent.  It is a punishment, plain and simple... and a damn fine one.

3.  Crediting the kill.  There has been a fairly gruesome trend in recent years of naming and publicly praising those who, in an official or unofficial capacity, kill terrorists.  Not only that, but they are endlessly interviewed by the media and the scenario is played out over and over and over like some macabre hail Mary pass that was caught just as time expired in the fourth quarter.  While there is certainly something heroic in being in the right place to act and having the presence of mind to do so... death should not be such a popular part of our culture. 

As a people we Jews don't hunt for sport.  We slaughter animals for meat in the most humane way possible.  We even have laws prohibiting the consumption of meat and milk together out of sensitivity for the fact that we might inadvertently come to broil a calf in its mother's milk!  I can't help thinking that this 'post- pigua wrap-up' that has occurred after many attacks in recent years has begun to glorify the blood-sport of 'bagging a terrorist'.  This was driven home yesterday as the media repeated over an over that one of the people who shot the terrorist was the brother-in-law of the man who shot and killed the Merkaz HaRav terrorist... as if this was part of some heroic terrorist-killing dynasty!

There is a quote attributed most often to former Israeli Prime Minister Golde Meir that went something like "'We may someday forgive Arabs for killing our children but not for making our children killers.' "  I think this perfectly sums up the kind of sober solemnity with which we must regard the taking of a human life... even if that life was unquestionably and utterly forfeit from the outset.

I'm sure there is more stuff floating around up there this morning, but the big kids are sleeping in this morning (sing it with me: "Schooooooool's out for summer!) and Yonah needs to be woken for gan.

 

Posted by David Bogner on July 3, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5539fb54b8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A few thoughts on yesterday's attack:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I think that the names of those who stopped the terrorists in the last couple of months are replayed over and over as a result of people in Israel feeling so helpless in the response to Olmert's lack of action and his harmful actions in the latest negotiations.

It not so much crowing for the blood shed but rather a sense that someone is actually doing something to stop the carnage.

Also, at least to me, by focusing on these heroes, less attention is given to murderers.

Posted by: shira0607 | Jul 3, 2008 2:25:24 PM

I'd like to add that maybe it shouldn't just be police and soldiers that are encouraged to carry. Most people in this country have firearms training, it should be a regular sight around the general public, not just us "gun-toting settlers."
Plus perhaps there should be a similar rule in J'lem that they have in several ofthe yishuvim that require an armed shomer watching over constructions sites that have "palestinian" workers.

Posted by: Max Power | Jul 3, 2008 2:57:33 PM

Come on David, how many times do we see the bad guys get killed in this country? They are usually jailed for a time and then let out, to the accompaniment of cheering crowds, in exchange for .... bodies of Jews killed by other terrorists.

I don't go in for violent movies, and I am probably the last person you could call "macho", but I took great satisfaction in seeing the guy get killed. I don't think you need to worry about our collective character because many others feel the way I do.

Posted by: westbankmama | Jul 3, 2008 3:03:46 PM

"There is a quote attributed most often to former Israeli Prime Minister Golde Meir that went something like "'We may someday forgive Arabs for killing our children but not for making our children killers.' "

This oft heard quote sounds to me more leftist-liberal than traditionally Jewish. I'm surprised that you support those sentiments. Does anyone agree with me?

Posted by: Chaim | Jul 3, 2008 3:23:45 PM

I have to disagree with Chaim. Golda was ultimately echoing Rashi on Bereshit 32, 8: '"[Jacob] was afraid" - that he might be killed "and in distress" that he might kill others'.

Posted by: Simon | Jul 3, 2008 3:50:44 PM

Not so simple Simon. Look at the Siftei Chachamim there. But look at what Golda is supposed to have said, that us killing them (in self defence!!) was a BIGGER problem than them killing us. You really think that's an authentic Torah hashkafa?

Posted by: Chaim | Jul 3, 2008 4:16:38 PM

I think, if I remember correctly, the actual quote was closer to this - "We may someday forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we will never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." There's a subtle difference here. Golda isn't bemoaning the effect on our kids as much as she's bemoaning the effect on their kids (being killed, that is), and the fact that we need to be the agent of their death. This can fall into the category of the Mishna in Pirkei Avos which states, "When your enemy falls, do not rejoice." (Not that Golda was necessarily overly concerned with traditional Jewish hashkafa, of course.)

Posted by: psachya | Jul 3, 2008 4:42:13 PM

Oh, and BTW - totally agree that there should be more armed Israeli citizens these days. When I was studying in Israel (in the early-to-mid '80's), there was a news story about a would-be terrorist who had the bright idea of throwing hand-grenades around on King George Street. The first grenade went off - thank God, injuring no-one - and the subsequent scene was described as something out of a Wild West movie. Pretty much every pedestrian on Melech George that day was packing, and they all had a perfect target to shoot at. The prevailing attitude was, "What an idiot. Doesn't he know that all Israelis carry guns? What was he thinking?" Ah, well - those were the days.

Posted by: psachya | Jul 3, 2008 4:53:54 PM

I'm also not exactly going to appeal to the high court and say he was denied his "Miranda warning" but we have to ask - and I ask this as someone who served in the IDF if this is an ideal situation or a way to survive an un-ideal situation.
Chaim immediately slaps the liberal-leftist label on Golda's statement, but really, do you want your daughter/son to have to take someone's, anyone's life, no matter what the circumstances?

Posted by: asher | Jul 3, 2008 5:00:13 PM

shira0607... I don't know about you... but hearing that it is more often than not a bystander who kills the terrorist instead of one of the security services that are supposed to be protecting us is NOT comforting. Not in the least. If anything it underscores our vulnerability.

Max Power... You may have noticed I was actually quite careful (to the point of awkwardness) about the way I phrased that. I think there are already more than enough settlers walking around with guns... many who probably don't need them and/or aren't what I would call 'responsible'. My suggestion that a wider group of 'pre-screened' people (e.g. officers and NCOs) be encouraged not only to carry, but to continue carrying after they leave regular service. The result will be an across the board increase of Israelis who are armed... and who can (as a group) be considered responsible. Ultimately I would like the sight of a pistol peeking out of a belt to be as common in Ramat Gan as it is in Hevron.

westbankmama... There have been countless times in our history where we as Jews have been called upon to kill our enemies. We have never been told to rejoice in the killing. On the other hand, we are constantly told that human life is a reflection of our creator and must not be taken lightly. the circus surrounding what were true heroics was (IMHO) not suited to who we are as a people. And yes, our collective character does suffer even when we do the right thing. Just look at the way our soldiers feel after a few weeks of miluim at machsomim and you'll know what I mean. They are doing incredibly important work but it is dehumanizing to have to subject another human being to something none of us would want to experience ourselves.

Chaim... You are coming at this from a mistaken assumption. I never suggested that the late Golde Meir was traditionally Jewish or that her quote was meant to have halachic validity. I was simply pointing out that if you take a pure, innocent child and raise them in one of the toughest neighborhoods in the world... you are likely to find that despite the best efforts of the parents, the child grows up profoundly affected by what he/she has had to do to survive.

Simon... Just as I pointed out to Chaim that it was not my intention to suggest that Golde Meir's quote was rooted in Jewish religious tradition, it is also a reach to try to assume she was intentionally 'echoing' Rashi. If you were suggesting that she was inadvertently echoing Rashi I would be more likely to agree.

Chaim... Seeing the words 'Golde Meir' and 'authentic Torah Hashkafa' in the same comment thread just makes me giggle. Stop it! :-)

psachya... OK, I'll buy into that version of the quote, but I still think she was talking about the affect the killing would have on us. And although your citation of Pirchei Avot is right on the money... I hope you weren't suggesting that Golde had that in mind either. :-) BTW, I was involved in that attack on King George street. It took place right outside Richie's Pizza where I was working at the time. The front window of the store got shattered and the milkshake machine took some shrapnel, but we were all OK.

Asher... Your point is valid. Having to kill someone does terrible damage to the person doing the killing. It may be justified but it is something that you never leave behind. I certainly would want to spare my children that pain.

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 3, 2008 5:01:10 PM

Asher, killing is self defence is a mitzva. Of course we prefer not to have to kill, but it's certainly better than being killed, Golda's sentiments not withstanding.

Posted by: Chaim | Jul 3, 2008 5:02:30 PM

Celebrating a hero is far better than the alternative. Too often, people choose not to get involved in such adverse situations. The more it is shown in the media, the more people will be thinking about the event and the hero's response, the better prepared they'll be when they find themselves in similar circumstances.

Posted by: M. Patterson | Jul 3, 2008 5:13:25 PM

Chaim, of course I agree with you that "we prefer not to have to kill, but it's certainly better than being killed" no question about it.

Posted by: asher | Jul 3, 2008 5:13:54 PM

Chaim... Burying your parents and mourning for them are also important mitzvot, but I doubt you'd suggest those who perform them aren't changed on a very funamental level. I also don't think too many people celebrate that particular mitzvah. Nobody is suggesting that we 'turn the other cheek' or allow anyone to kill us. It is simply that I think a few generations of Israeli children who didn't have to fire guns in anger would be a good thing for our society.

M. Patterson... Agreed. But there is a big difference between reporting that a heroic individual (no name) shot the terrorist, and interviewing him, his family and everyone they know while showing the video clip of the death shot over and over and over.

asher... I just love when everyone plays nice. :-)

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 3, 2008 5:21:46 PM

I can't remember when last time media here showed the taped shooting of a terrorist (i.e. in-action). As far as I could see, what we saw here wasn't edited. Actually, kudos to the media, though they were surely feeding a sensationalist nerve in the first place.
They reported that a woman who lost her life pushed her baby out of the car so that at least it would be spared. I'm lost for words. This stands for so much.

Crediting the kill, imho, is only a glorifying poster-of-our-hero short of how Arabs treat their "acts of heroism". And as you've put it so well, "As a people we Jews don't hunt for sport." This smells sensationalism and really dead end. There is no glory in killing a human, even if they were just about to take your own life. It's a crying insult on humanity and nothing any civilized human should feel proud of.


P.S. Aha? So you've made it to twitter and I am not being followed yet? ;)

Posted by: a | Jul 3, 2008 5:37:27 PM

"When your enemy falls, do not rejoice."

This sums up my personal feelings. "Hero" movies make me cringe, mostly, because of the boiler-plate "bravado" response of the hero to killing the bad guy(s). Were I ever in charge of training in self-defense (which is laughable in the extreme, if you knew me), my credo would be that quoted above.

Killing is not like scoring a touchdown; it's a tragedy. On the other hand, sometimes it needs to be done. Some people see that as a contradiction, but I've changed enough flat tires to know that sometimes you gotta do stuff you'd rather not do.

And no -- this is not meant to equate killing with changing tires. Sheesh. ;o/

Posted by: Wry Mouth | Jul 3, 2008 6:15:34 PM

FWIW, I have the following to add with regards to the whole "confirming the kill" thing....

1) From a safety standpoint, I understand the necessity of being one hundred percent positive that the terrorist has been neutralized vis-a-vis remaining a threat, but I personally find the phrase revolting for all the aforementioned reasons. Making sure that one -- and those around you -- is/are out of danger is one thing, but the phrase (at least to my ears) has a rather gruesome and loathe-some ring to it.

2) Many years ago David and I were at a parlour meeting (read: fundraiser) for ZAKA, at which the founder of this unfortunately-necessary-but-extremely-brilliant organization spoke about the aftermath of a pigua. Someone in the audience asked what happens to the remains of the terrorist. At first, I was absolutely stunned with his answer, "we treat the remains as we do those of the victims." It seemed so grossly unjust that the perpetrator of such a ghastly act -- someone who'd just taken as many innocent lives for sport! as he/she possibly could -- would be treated in such an honorable manner. But this fine gentleman further explained that though it is indeed painful to treat the terrorists' remains thus, that as Jews who have accepted the mantle of Torah as our guide, that we are not permitted to act in a disrespectful manner to one of Hashem's creations. Yes, the terrorist is an odious creature; yes, we have a halachic obligation to prevent him/her from taking additional innocent lives -- but we also have an obligation to remember that the remains are still בצלם אלוקים (b'tzelem elokim -- created in G-d's image) and that once the danger is eliminated, we are forbidden from inflicting unnecessary destruction to the body.

If you disagree with number 2, kindly keep it to yourself. I am not interested in getting into a philosophical discussion here. I am merely trying to communicate how my hearing this explanation has deeply affected me.

I, for one, am deeply grateful that I had the opportunity have heard this particular exchange. I find comfort in the fact that the men and women who clear the aftermath -- the ones entrusted with the holy responsibility of ensuring that each of the dead victims will receive halachically proper treatment in preparation for their funerals -- I am deeply comforted by the fact that these people are as concerned with their halachic responsibility to the dead terrorist -- because, דבקה (dafka!) it only underscores that they approach their responsibilities to the victims in the true and most respectful spirit of their horrible tasks.

Posted by: zahava | Jul 3, 2008 8:15:54 PM

I never understood the logic behind destroying the family's house. It seems to me more an act of desperation and weakness, since there is nothing else that can be done. But I think a lot can be done. To people, not too houses. I just saw the killer's father on interviewed on tv. Why isn't he in a shin bet basement undergoing a intense week long interogation along with all other first degree relatives to see what they know. Yesterday I saw his aunt doing the lu lu lu and calling him a Jihad. Why isn't she in prison for incitement to acts of terror. Let's face it, the house is not to blame.

Also, in response to one of the comments> It turns out the deceased mother did not push her baby out of the car but rather that a 20 yea old British tourist rescued the baby moment after the car was crushed the second time after the mother had already died after the first hit.

Posted by: amir | Jul 3, 2008 8:21:07 PM

Oh.

I forgot to make one other point: my feelings regarding the phrase, in no way diminish my respect and admiration for the young man who succeeded in neutralizing the terrorist. But. And this is a big but, the reason I admire him is because in neutralizing the terrorist he acted to save lives. I would feel an equal amount of admiration and respect if he'd simply disabled the terrorist without killing him -- in other words, I don't admire him because he killed the terrorist, but rather because he stopped the terrorist.

The only feeling I have vis-a-vis the terrorist's status is relief -- I am relieved that his ability to inflict harm (either directly or indirectly) more innocent people is permanently compromised. Israel will not have to worry that more of her soldiers or citizens will be kidnapped in an attempt to release this particular terrorist.

Relief, though, is hardly joy.

Posted by: zahava | Jul 3, 2008 8:59:04 PM

Thank you for this thought-provoking post.

Posted by: Ilana-Davita | Jul 3, 2008 9:42:23 PM

"Also, in response to one of the comments>"

Thanks for the update/clarification, amir. I mean, I guess this comment was meant in my direction? And yes, you can call me "a." You're welcome.

Posted by: a | Jul 3, 2008 10:08:26 PM

I was actually living without access to news until this afternoon--we don't have a TV or radio here and I hadn't turned on my computer. I went to pick up Aryeh at gan and was silently handed a slip of paper telling me that the aunt of one of the little girls in his gan had been killed the day before, but the little girl didn't know it yet, so please don't tell your child lest she find out before her parents tell her. I can only assume it was the woman who threw her baby--the same age as mine, as it happens--out her car window before being killed.

On the one hand--we're bringing our children to live here? And on the other--I used to work at 50 Broadway, across the street from a smoking hole. If nowhere is safe, better to be where you're supposed to be.


Posted by: uberimma | Jul 3, 2008 10:51:05 PM

Was I being rude? sorry "a". The guy who saved the baby is name Jeremy
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1214726194375
Although in an interview I saw with him on tv, he said he aooriached the car, saw the women, looked for, but couldn't find a pulse. Then he saw the baby ubharmed, unbuckled him and took him out. THen the tractor ran over the car completely crushing it.

Posted by: amir | Jul 3, 2008 11:04:46 PM

This is a more accurate descrition:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=5301362&page=1

Posted by: amir | Jul 3, 2008 11:17:04 PM

David: I certainly didn't say that Golda was intentionally echoing Rashi, and I didn't mean to imply it, but I do think she was expressing a genuinely Jewish sentiment whose roots are in that Rashi, or rather in the Midrash that Rashi is quoting.

Chaim: I've thought about this topic extensively during the long nights of army guard duty, but I don't want to hijack David's blog's comment section by presenting my opinions at length, so briefly: killing in self-defence is certainly a mitzva, and I wouldn't hesitate to perform it if it were ever h"v necessary, but I don't think it's a great zechut. "Hhova mitgalgel al yedei hhayyav" (guilt is punished by the guilty), and I think anyone who ends up performing this mitzva should make a serious hheshbon nefesh (spiritual accounting).

Posted by: Simon | Jul 4, 2008 12:13:12 AM

It is a difficult situation. There is no good euphemism for killing the terrorist. Doesn't matter whether you say you are confirming the kill, liquidating the enemy etc.

The fundamental question is how to terror. I have a friend who advocates camps in which Arabs are re-educated. Truth is that part of me says that if you can save lives by forced indoctrination, go for it.

But overall I cannot help but cringe at the idea. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of killing the terrorists. As I said elsewhere I like Dirty Harry's policy:

(Harry Callahan):Well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy.
The Mayor): Intent? How did you establish that?
(Harry Callahan): : When a man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!

I mourn the loss of my own innocence and belief that violence can never bring peace.

Posted by: Jack | Jul 4, 2008 12:47:03 AM

about the quote attributed to Golda:


http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33312.html

has the wording as:

We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.

and says that she said it to Sadat before Camp David (mid 1970's)

Howvever, she is reported as saying
When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.

source http://www.mscd.edu/~golda/Norm%20Stuff/CENTER%20FAVORITES.html

and that was in 1969 ie 4 years before Yom Kippur war (October war)

There are other variants but I'm sticking here.

Assuming that Golda was speaking English (fair assumption) and that the quotes were reliably reported (they're quotes, not taken from an autobiogrraphy), they still do match up as putting the onus on the Arabs for making us what we are not (nor is anyone) meant to be.


Posted by: asher | Jul 4, 2008 6:22:25 AM

I have to disagree *somewhat* with #3. I think there's a marked difference between praising the kill and praising the presence of mind and bravery in stopping an attack. Israel is unfortunately forced to kill all too often to protect itself; but people generally are not giving positive attention to that. In this specific case they are giving that positive attention, but because of the clear and present danger that this young man stopped (and everyone has seen for themselves). I think this is a *good* thing to praise.

Posted by: Ezzie | Jul 4, 2008 10:21:28 AM

I still want to know why a civilian killed the terrorist at Merkaz HaRav, and not one of the many police at the scene.

Same here, why was a policeman grappling with the terrorist? Why did it take the initiative of a civilian to shoot the terrorist?

What is wrong with our police??

Also, more guns won't help if the risk of punishment for defense continues to increase. Do you want a list of all the civilians and soldiers who were punished for discharging their weapons in situations where they detected danger?

Our government, and apparently our defense forces, are determined to create a situation where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Though I suppose it is better to spend a few years in jail, than to spend the rest of your life knowing you could have prevented a terrorist attack... (or been a victim of a terrorist attack)

Posted by: Rivka with a capital A | Jul 4, 2008 11:31:30 AM

Is there evidence that this was a terrorist attack or just some guy going postal?

Posted by: jaime | Jul 4, 2008 5:41:06 PM

He yelled "allahu akhbar" right as he took off with the bulldozer. Is that how Muslims usually go postal? Maybe.

Posted by: Ariel | Jul 6, 2008 10:37:45 AM

Oh what a relief! Now that it's over, now that SOMEBODY stopped the terrorist, we can get back to:

- navel-gazing about our Feeeeeelings (am I happy? relieved? proud? vengeful? sad?)

- once-removed hair-splitting discussion about the words we use to describe such an incident ("neutralize" or "kill"? "hero" or, uh... "useful brave person")

- nit-picking about the "kavod" given to the people who actually stepped up and stopped it (not that enlightened folks like us would want to overglorify or encourage such action - we are busy being not-vengefully regretful at having to actually kill a terrorist...)

Posted by: Ben-David | Jul 6, 2008 11:42:29 AM

a ... Agree 100%... As to twitter, I'm in a 'wait and see' pattern as to whether I'll buy into it. :-)

Wry Mouth... Well said. Agreed.

zahava... I've also been mulling the need to accentuate the difference between our cultures and how we relate to death/killing.

amir ... Like I said, destroying the house is just a punishment and I have no problem with it. You raise a child that goes out and does something like this and you deserve to have your house flattened. Full stop.

Ilana-Davita ... Don't thank me... I'm a giver. :-)

I couldn't agree more. We put our aliyah plans into high gear following 9/11 for exactly the reasons you described.

amir... thanks for the updates.

Simon... Fair enough. then what I said goes. She certainly gives a similar view even if she wasn't familiar with the source.

Jack... I disagree. ONLY violence can bring peace. Whenever we have shown restraint and sought to appease our enemies they have taken it as a sign of weakness. Weakness NEVER brings peace... especially from a bully. As to your first point, I am not splitting hairs over whether to call the person who killed the terrorists a hero or not. I simply find it distasteful to dwell overly on the act to the point of over-glorifying it.

asher... Thanks. That's how I meant it too.

Ezzie ... Praise is one thing. But the orgy of coverage and commentary and the heaping on of public commendations is unseemly. Our enemies celebrate the taking of life. We should regret it... even when it is entirely necessary.

Rivka with a capital A... I wrote a post some time ago about the issue of the draconian standards for using lethal force in Israel. I may need to dust it off and finally publish it.

jaime... Does it matter?

Ariel... Yes, exactly.

Ben-David... Hold on there cowboy... I can't hear you over that clanking sound you're making as you walk. First of all, if you have never been shot at or had to shoot someone else, I suggest you talk less in absolutes and couch such opinions in theoretical terms. In my post I didn't split hairs about what to call the person. I simply had (and still have) a problem with the media orgy over who pulled the trigger, and what it looked like, and what it felt like, and what he was feeling at the time, and how his bosses feel about him having pulled the trigger, and on and on and on. Someone (actually, several someones) acted correctly and neutralized a clear and present danger. The police and military should review what was going on with the official response to make sure everything that could have been done, was done. They should also make sure the civilian(s) involved acted within the bounds of the law. All of this should be done quietly, outside the glare of the media, as befits any official inquiry into the use of deadly force. and again, regarding your statement that we are nit-picking about the "kavod" given to the people who actually stepped up and killed the terrorist and "busy being not-vengefully regretful at having to actually kill a terrorist"... come talk to me when you (meaning you personally) have had to take a human life. I don't think you'll consider the correct follow-up to be 'nitpicking' or 'hairsplitting'.

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 6, 2008 12:19:20 PM

To the quote "when your enemy falls, do not rejoice" I would add the rider "but don't rush to pick him up either".

Posted by: Ken | Jul 6, 2008 7:12:10 PM

David,

Maybe I wasn't clear, I agree that violence is necessary. I tried to wax poetic when I said:

I mourn the loss of my own innocence and belief that violence can never bring peace.

It has been a long time since I thought that violence was not a part of the solution.

Posted by: Jack | Jul 6, 2008 8:14:06 PM

Does it matter - to me yes. If the person was Jewish or Christian, or a foreign worker and did that, would it be called an act of terrorism? Some guy who happens to be muslim (and who even yells out allahu akhbar) may only be some crazy dude that just had a really bad day, or some other reason for his insanity.

Posted by: jaime | Jul 7, 2008 1:36:22 AM

Does it matter - to me yes. If the person was Jewish or Christian, or a foreign worker and did that, would it be called an act of terrorism? Some guy who happens to be muslim (and who even yells out allahu akhbar) may only be some crazy dude that just had a really bad day, or some other reason for his insanity.

Posted by: jaime | Jul 7, 2008 1:36:48 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.