« Al Quaeda's New Strategy | Main | Fortress Gaza »
July 02, 2008
Terror Attack in Jerusalem
People started screaming 'he is running us over, he is running us over,'" recounted traffic policewoman Elinor Nahum, 22, who was the first to react, firing at the bulldozer and apparently hitting the terrorist. Another policeman then climbed onto the vehicle and was lightly wounded in a struggle with the attacker.
Finally, an off-duty soldier took a gun from a security guard at the scene and shot the terrorist, who cried "Allah Akhbar" (God is great) before being killed. The soldier, Moshe Plesser, was assisted in neutralizing the attacker by Eli Mizrahi, a member of police's elite Yasam anti-terror unit.
Plesser, 18, is the brother-in-law of IDF officer David Shapira, who killed the terrorist in the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva attack on March 6.
Evacuating a wounded child from the scene of the Islamic terror attack
To read the complete story, please click here.
Soccer Dad just reported to me that LGF has links to several blogs including The Muqata, Boker Tov Boulder, Israel Matzav, and Israellycool.
I have a prediction. The big story in the mainstream media will not be the terrorist attack or the victims; but we can anticipate buckets of tears and liberal rage that the terrorist was killed—with too many bullets. They will want to know why the terrorist was not taken prisoner and read his rights.
“The video also shows a policeman shooting the lifeless man at point-blank range, a move that could spark questions from Israeli human rights groups about whether the officer's shot was necessary and if he might have unnecessarily killed the man.”
H/T: Soccer Dad, who correctly said to me: “Apparently he [the reporter] never heard of confirming the kill.”
Here's the good news: this is one Muslim terrorist who will not be used in a disgraceful and damaging prisoner swap.
Update: Revoking citizenship of terrorists and their families.
Posted by Robert J. Avrech at July 2, 2008 09:44 AM
Comments
Seraphic Secret is private property, that's right, it's an extension of our home, and as such, Karen and I have instituted two Seraphic Rules and we ask commentors to act respectfully.
1. No profanity.2. No Israel bashing. We debate, we discuss, we are respectful. You know what Israel bashing is. The world is full of it. Seraphic Secret is one of the few places in the world that will not tolerate this form of anti-Semitism. That's it. Break either of these rules and you will be banned.
...anger...impotent rage...
Posted by: pdwalker at July 2, 2008 10:43 AM
If he was already "lifeless," how could he then have been killed, "unnecessarily" or otherwise?
Posted by: ralphie at July 2, 2008 11:54 AM
Human Rights Group in Israel ????
For what, to let Israel know that one too many bullets in the head of a terrorist running the streets killing innocents is one too many....
This is sick.....
Posted by: simon at July 2, 2008 12:22 PM
Obviously, the Israeli human rights groups aren't familiar with the double tap technique.
The sad thing is that the mamzer couldn't have been sent to his 72 virgin goats before he murdered and injured those innocent Israelis.
Posted by: Hugh at July 2, 2008 02:45 PM
Sometimes the wisdom of Dirty Harry is needed:
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!
Same thing here. When a terrorist is trying to kill people you don't waste time politely asking him to surrender. Double tap in the head and the game is over.
Posted by: Jack at July 2, 2008 10:13 PM
How asinine. In both Jewish and Christian morality, no one can be required to risk life to save another, especially if the danger is emanating from that other. The terrorist was not trying to surrender, and as far as the cop knew was still dangerous. He was morally perfectly justified in shooting him as many times as was necessary to insure that he no longer presented a danger. That was his duty as a public servant. This is just basic moral reasoning, according to natural law. Are "Human Rights Groups" really so obtuse as to not see this? Or are Jews now not supposed to have the right to protect themselves?
Posted by: Tschafer at July 3, 2008 06:46 AM
Tschafer:
In my opinion, human rights groups are a mixture of both obtuse or naive rank and file, and a malignant leadership with an entirely different agenda than what they publicly profess.
Posted by: Jake at July 3, 2008 07:20 AM
Unfortunatly, you're probably right about "Human Rights" groups. It seems that they always reserve their ire for the defenders of civilization (without which no 'human rights' are possible), not for those who seek to destroy it. After all, anyone who says that the Israeli cop shouldn't have made sure that the terrorist was dead is essentially saying that the life of the terrorist was more valuable than that of the cop, or of the innocent members of the community; in other words, that the lives of those who violate human rights are more valuable than their victims. Which is a pretty strange stance for supposed lovers of "human rights".
Posted by: Tschafer at July 3, 2008 09:40 AM
In Indonesia, muslims' hatred and brutality against chinese is unbelievable.
http://bbs.9e3.com/showpost.asp?id=2242 (warning: graphic imagry)
Posted by: pixologic at July 5, 2008 07:33 PM
Pixologic:
Beyond graphic!
And of course, this savagery has nothing to do with Islam.
The barbarians are inside the gates. But liberals tell us that the real problem is, y'know, so-called global warming.
Posted by: Robert J. Avrech ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.seraphicpress.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 6, 2008 10:16 AM