Rise of ISIS Read Online Free
Author: Jay Sekulow
civilians as much as possible, increasing the risk that American return fire would inadvertently hurt the innocent.
Then, by scooping up the child, he not only engaged in hostage taking, but immediately mistreated his captive by intentionally placing that child in mortal danger.
Moreover, as a war criminal, he was legally responsible for all the harm that resulted from his crimes, not only the deaths that may have resulted from his mortar attacks, but the deaths that resulted when American forces used their right of self-defense. In other words, if American forces fired and the child died, the terrorist would be legally responsible for the childâs death.
So, yes, we had the right to fire. The war criminal was the terrorist, not the Apache aircrew.
But the Apache crew, like so many Americans before and after them, did not fire. They did not press that trigger. They could not bear to kill a child, and they knew something that the terrorist forgot: the day was very, very hotâ125 degrees hot.
And kids are heavy.
So our soldiers waited and watched as he carried the child for almost a full kilometer before collapsing, exhausted, in the open desert. While the Apache hovered over him, American soldiers closed in and captured him. Tragedy was averted.
Talk to virtually any American or Israeli veteran of a combat unit and he can tell you several stories that are remarkably similar. And they usually do not have happy endings. Soldiers ambushed from mosques have to return fire. Terrorist leaders surround themselves with civilians so often that troops face the terrible choice of either allowing terrorists to roam free and execute deadly attacks, or having to kill them and face the reality of civilian deaths.
A terrible and hidden reality of both Americaâs and Israelâs wars is that hundreds of soldiers have fallen, killed by terrorists, because they were being cautious with civilian lives . This is an impulse that is utterly alien to jihadists, but is a core value for Americans and Israelis. Terrorists take a life for the purpose of taking a life. American and Israeli soldiers take a life in the effort to save civilians.
----
A terrible and hidden reality of both Americaâs and Israelâs wars is that hundreds of soldiers have fallen, killed by terrorists, because they were being cautious with civilian lives.
----
So, why then does the U.N. and much of the international left try to turn American and Israeli soldiers into war criminals? Why do they claim that Americans or Israelis are responsible for civilian deaths when it is the terrorists who strike from schools, hospitals, and mosques, often while using women and children as human shields?
The answer is relatively simple: The U.N. and international left often want to see terrorists prevail. They want Israel andAmerica to take terrible losses, to withdraw, and to accommodate terrorist demands. So they wage âlawfare.â
A good definition of lawfare is the abuse of international law and legal processes to accomplish military objectives that canât be accomplished on the battlefield. Canât beat the IDF? Use the International Criminal Court to tie its hands, restricting its operations until terrorist forces have the upper hand. Canât stop American attacks on al-Qaeda? Use the U.N. to try to declare its drone strikes unlawful, placing America in a terrible bind: either risk boots on the ground or let terrorists plot and plan in safety and security.
At the ACLJ weâve confronted this âlawfareâ directly. After the 2008 Gaza war (called âOperation Cast Leadâ), Palestinian officials attempted to charge Israel with war crimes in the International Criminal Court, a tribunal typically reserved for the worst war criminals in the world. Yet Israelâs alleged âcrimesâ were nothing of the sort. Indeed, Israelâs protective measures (including sending text messages or phone calls to civilian areas in
Then, by scooping up the child, he not only engaged in hostage taking, but immediately mistreated his captive by intentionally placing that child in mortal danger.
Moreover, as a war criminal, he was legally responsible for all the harm that resulted from his crimes, not only the deaths that may have resulted from his mortar attacks, but the deaths that resulted when American forces used their right of self-defense. In other words, if American forces fired and the child died, the terrorist would be legally responsible for the childâs death.
So, yes, we had the right to fire. The war criminal was the terrorist, not the Apache aircrew.
But the Apache crew, like so many Americans before and after them, did not fire. They did not press that trigger. They could not bear to kill a child, and they knew something that the terrorist forgot: the day was very, very hotâ125 degrees hot.
And kids are heavy.
So our soldiers waited and watched as he carried the child for almost a full kilometer before collapsing, exhausted, in the open desert. While the Apache hovered over him, American soldiers closed in and captured him. Tragedy was averted.
Talk to virtually any American or Israeli veteran of a combat unit and he can tell you several stories that are remarkably similar. And they usually do not have happy endings. Soldiers ambushed from mosques have to return fire. Terrorist leaders surround themselves with civilians so often that troops face the terrible choice of either allowing terrorists to roam free and execute deadly attacks, or having to kill them and face the reality of civilian deaths.
A terrible and hidden reality of both Americaâs and Israelâs wars is that hundreds of soldiers have fallen, killed by terrorists, because they were being cautious with civilian lives . This is an impulse that is utterly alien to jihadists, but is a core value for Americans and Israelis. Terrorists take a life for the purpose of taking a life. American and Israeli soldiers take a life in the effort to save civilians.
----
A terrible and hidden reality of both Americaâs and Israelâs wars is that hundreds of soldiers have fallen, killed by terrorists, because they were being cautious with civilian lives.
----
So, why then does the U.N. and much of the international left try to turn American and Israeli soldiers into war criminals? Why do they claim that Americans or Israelis are responsible for civilian deaths when it is the terrorists who strike from schools, hospitals, and mosques, often while using women and children as human shields?
The answer is relatively simple: The U.N. and international left often want to see terrorists prevail. They want Israel andAmerica to take terrible losses, to withdraw, and to accommodate terrorist demands. So they wage âlawfare.â
A good definition of lawfare is the abuse of international law and legal processes to accomplish military objectives that canât be accomplished on the battlefield. Canât beat the IDF? Use the International Criminal Court to tie its hands, restricting its operations until terrorist forces have the upper hand. Canât stop American attacks on al-Qaeda? Use the U.N. to try to declare its drone strikes unlawful, placing America in a terrible bind: either risk boots on the ground or let terrorists plot and plan in safety and security.
At the ACLJ weâve confronted this âlawfareâ directly. After the 2008 Gaza war (called âOperation Cast Leadâ), Palestinian officials attempted to charge Israel with war crimes in the International Criminal Court, a tribunal typically reserved for the worst war criminals in the world. Yet Israelâs alleged âcrimesâ were nothing of the sort. Indeed, Israelâs protective measures (including sending text messages or phone calls to civilian areas in
Readers choose
Stephen Baxter
Ann Mayburn
D.J. MacHale
Christy Evans
Tad Williams
Leila Brown
Imogen Rose
Lisa Roecker
Scarlett Rain