Ralph Peters, who spends his time calling for torture and shooting surrendering combatantsPeters never said the latter and this was pointed out to him at the time. This post here, my first ever here to be devoted to Shea, is mostly concerned with Michael Ledeen, to whom Shea illiterately attributed Peters' words, but much of it applies to Peters' too.
The distinction between "execute" and "murder" is glossed over; there is no understanding of what "rules of engagement" are and how moral ones can have different goals; and the nature of the "kill or capture" issue that Peters is talking about is something Shea quite simply never grasps, tries to, or even indicates he sees. Anybody who knows anything about military strategy and military history knows what Peters means by "kill-or-capture." It is, analogous to any other "game plan" type issue, whether you use tactics designed to kill terrorists (like, say, bombing a building) or tactics designed to capture them (like, say, flooding the same building with tear gas or other asphyxiating agent). Peters isn't writing mostly about the "moment of surrender" issues.
It isn't Shea simply that doesn't realize all this (even Zippy seemed to realize, in his first paragraph here, that Shea was miscomprehending) because of his ignorance of military tactics and history. But also that he's too arrogant, petulant, sarcastic and blustering to acknowledge it. But very quickly Shea got it into his head that Peters did call for cold-blooded murder and that anybody who disagreed was making excuses for torture and so could be ignored or vilified.
By now he's just repeating a knee-jerk unthought like a broken record, as if repeating something often enough makes it true. And then takes offense when people call him a liar over it. Shea is now so marinated in his lies that he repeats them without even seeing them. His lies are his reality. He lies every time he broad-brushedly attributes, e.g., "secular messianism" or "salvation through Leviathan" and "End to Evil" to anyone and everyone who disagrees with him.
UPDATE: Like here. If Norman Podhoretz has ever called for an "End to Evil" ("End to Evil Types such as Podhoretz") I want the cite. The cite. We know that it cannot be based on a deep understanding of Podhoretz's ideas as mapping onto those of Frum and Perle's book for any number of reasons, one of which being that Shea hasn't read Frum and Perle's book beyond the colon separator in the title (his statements on "end to evil" in other words, are 200 proof ignorant).
It is merely amusing, of course, that Shea ends this deranged rant by chastizing someone else for "putting words in my mouth."