Apparently my earlier post was lost in the fray, but allow me to forcefully reiterate that the Dubai assassins were fucking with my passport without my permission. I mean, really - how goddamn arrogant do you have to be to just pish-posh away the concerns of the citizens whose nation’s passports were forged? Especially for Ireland, a tiny neutral country?
An interesting article in Saturday’s Irish Times confirms my hunch that - at least until last month - Irish passports indeed conferred a measure of safety on their holders. Now, that has been jeopardized by this bungled fiasco of a hit-job.
Interestingly, the article also notes that precisely because of Ireland’s perceived neutrality, its passports are often forged by foreign intelligence services. Seems to me the Mossad is shooting itself in the foot here, as well as pissing off a lot of people who aren’t involved in any way with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Strikes me that the article provides ample ammunition for the “bagatelle” comment.
Point is, spooks of all sorts “on numerous occasions” have employed such passports, and that this use is “widely acknowledged”.
Again, if only Irish passports are ever faked by such agencies, you’d have a good point; but they are not. Indeed, in this very occasion, the assassins (whether Israeli or not) allegedly faked a bunch of different countries’ passports.
All this adds an air of unreality to the concern that use of faked papers will increase the real danger to the citizens of any one nationality that they will be mistaken for Israeli (or other) spies. Fact is, said spies fake the papers of any handy country, and so someone on the lookout for spies will not be in any way likely to pick the Irish out of the line-up, more than (say) the British, the Canadians, the New Zealanders, the Austrians, etc. etc.
Not to say that faking papers is a good thing. Obviously, if the Irish catch the perps, they would be well within their rights to prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Just that it is a minor matter compared with the decision to use assassins in the first place, and the alleged danger to citizens using the same passports (effectively every country on earth whose passports are useful for spies and assassins) isn’t a particularly realistic concern.
It’s an auto-refutation. Irish passports are well known for being faked by intelligence agencies, but they are still useful for Irish citizens. And we have testimony that at least as late as 2004 it was allegedly put to the acid test.
And even then, we hear that US and British passports produce hostility because of their nations’ role int he war. Not because of MI6 or the CIA or what have you. I’d still like to see a reliable cite as to any real damage done, why things have change to be different than the entire history of modern espionage, and what the tipping point was. All I have seen is lots of people saying “I’m worried” or “this will be bad”. Not a whole lotta proof.
I do not think so. I in fact acknowledged the fact of their widespread clandestine use, so the section of the article you quoted in response is irrelevant to the issue - which is getting caught using other people’s passports. I don’t care how you spin it, that’s wrong in any case, and it’s especially egregious when the aggrieved party is not even involved in Middle East politics at all.
I don’t follow your logic here, either. So, if only Ireland’s passports are ripped off, then there’s a legitimate grievance, but not if those of additional nations are also forged? How many other nations does it take before the threshold of “valid complaint” is crossed? Two? Three? A hundred?
Did you not see how Cockburn attributed his survival to his Irish passport? Maybe that’s because his erstwhile captors didn’t happen to run his passport through their biometric scanner?
It may be common knowledge in the intelligence world that Irish passports are faked, but that certainly doesn’t mean that low-level operatives are going to be aware of the nuances of espionage. They’re going to take a look at the passports and make snap judgments, on the spot, as to the nature of their target. That’s to say nothing of free-lance “entrepreneurs” who kidnap, rob, and kill foreign nationals. Perhaps one of them has heard the news about the Dubai hit and will accordingly now scrutinize holders of Irish passports more pointedly.
I guess, if I had to sum up my position, it would be that the Mossad is a bunch of assholes for using forged Irish passports and getting caught.
The question of how “egregious” it is, is not the same issue as whether it will have the harm alleged.
I can see it being infuriating even if it has no harm at all - an insult to the flag, etc.
I simply disagree it will have the harm you, and others, allege.
Point is that spies use whatever passports are handy. This means anyone can be a suspect.
If anyone from any country is a possible spy, then the risk is not increased to the passport holders of any one country.
Certainly - and there is no evidence he’d fare any differently today.
Again, there is no evidence of this happening in the past to nationals of other nations whose papers have been, in the past, faked by Israeli (or other) spies. For examply, my own nation of Canada.
Correction - whoever used the faked passports. Still no certainty it was Mossad, though admittedly likely.
I have no argument that using faked papers isn’t annoying and criminal, but I simply disagree, as a matter of fact, that it will have this particular harm. I’ve seen no evidence beyond mere assertion that it will.
Slightly less useful now than they were last month.
I think that “The War on Terror” is often overplayed as a factor in anti-Americanism. Sure, it doesn’t help, but even if we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow, there would still be a loooooot of people out there who’d hate America.
Let me try and put it another way. Americans (and British, French, Russian) are automatically hated by certain segments of the local polulation in various regions of the world. Coming face-to-face with one or more of those people at the wrong time and place, I’d much rather have a bland, inoffensive Irish, New Zealander or Danish passport to produce than one from the “big boys”. Now, that Irish passport is not as much of it help as it until recently was.
Agreed, though I notice you don’t disagree that the action is wrong.
This is being a bit disingenuous, I think. As the article I linked to states (and as FinnAgain would - I’m sure - agree) spies do not use whatever passports are handy. There’s only a handful of nations in the world that are useful in the intelligence world for forged passports. Ireland happens to be one of them. I know this, you know this - but not all the bad guys do. That’s why this bungle is so significant. Because now it’s world news.
Unless his kidnapper just happened to hear the news at the café that morning.
I’m not a student or even particularly knowledgeable about the history of intelligence, so I ask - is it possible those earlier screw-ups weren’t as big news stories at their respective times as this one is now? I don’t know. I do know the world is better connected every day, and that this is world news now.
Well, I’m glad we agree that using faked papers is criminal, but I really can’t believe that you can’t see a non-zero harm in this. Sure, it’s a small deal in the big scheme (unless there are repeat performances in the near future), but it’s still wrong and, in Ireland’s case anyway, undeserved.
I don’t disagree. I merely contend that assassinating people is a far greater wrong, and going to war, a greater wrong still. Yet these wrongs may under certain circumstances be justified.
Compared with these possible wrongs, forging papers, while wrong, is a relatively minor matter.
We know for a fact that they are willing to use the passports of many Western nations, not the US necessarily (as that causes its own problems).
The conclusion is that this dilutes the possible harm to relative insignificance.
They were big news in their time, certainly. Dunno how they compare.
Obviously it is criminal. Assassinating people is yet more criminal.
The phrase you took exception to - that, in context of an assassination, faking papers is a bagatelle - is really not much different than saying “… it’s a small deal in the big scheme …”.
Deserved has nothing to do with it. Obviously it is undeserved. The assassins, whoever they were, merely stole or faked papers because they could, and because fake papers were a necessary prop, not as a sort of punishment.
The question of whether the operation and its tactics was justified is not the same as the factual issue of whether the harm as alleged is likely.
Sure it was criminal and annoying (only not as much so as assassination itself). The question is whether, in point of fact, this use of faked papers increases the actual risk of harm to innocent passport holders. So far, I’ve seen no actual evidence that it will. Past use of passports have not had that effect.
That a Hamas commander who has committed crimes in the past will, if not stopped, commit further crimes in the future strikes me as rather easier to support logically.
Yeah well its equally easy to support that a country that lies, cheats and disrespects laws today, is going to do the same tomorrow - so in that sense a lot of harm has been done to relations between the EU and Israel.
I think I have pretty much said all I have to say on this subject.
To me, Israel has behaved poorly, and they have slapped the EU in the face.
When there are consequences, as there are bound to be I also believe that Israel will use it as further evidence of anti-Israel bias. Forgetting that such things were done.
I do think its significant that other countries have not been so egregariously caught. But allow that others may not hold that view.
Further, I feel that more care should be taken not to conflate “he is a Hamas commander” with the other issues expressed in this thread. Being a terrorist he deserves what he gets - but knocking off a terrorist doesn’t give Israel carte blanche to do what they want. Because your enemy is bad, doesn’t make your bad actions acceptable, right or moral.
But hell - its all very well for a New Zealander to preach such things - we face a bigger threat from an Orca invasion than terrorism.
Hey, like I said, Apartheid SA vs Israel is the analogy I made. Refute it if you can, but don’t come crying that it isn’t another, different, more tenuous one. What’s it called when you argue against the points you wish your opponent had made, again?
I believe you know, as well as I do, that people often don’t follow links. I believe you rather relied on the fact when you only half-quoted me, and if I hadn’t called you on it, you would have gone on as though what you quoted was the sum of what I’d said.
No, it is the actual experience of reality, in Apartheid South Africa, that has taught me this. Terrorism isn’t a crime, it’s a label attached to a whole load of other crimes.
What, it’s “extreme” “illogical” “legalism” to think people should have a trial before they’re executed, now? That’s fucked up.
I wouldn’t expect the World Court to charge anyone with something so subjective as “terrorism” in the first place, idiot. I’d expect them to charge him with murder, or illegal arms sales, or something else there’s actually, you know, objective facts for. Assuming such evidence exists, of course.
Yeah, that Gandhi, always spouting slogans, never having the balls to act on his beliefs…:rolleyes:
I know, pity “God is with us” was already taken…
So when you said we shouldn’t have any “moral qualms” with murder, I’m not allowed to contrast that with your views on passive resistance? Sorry, “suicide”.
My bolding:
Still with that straw man, I see. I only think *some *coalition members are out to kill Muslims for the sake of killing Muslims. You know, the ones who think “Sand Nigger” and “Towelhead” apply to people who live in mountains and wear a pakul.
I think the rest were mainly motivated by jingoism, revenge on the Taliban specifically, money, and the desire to be seen to be doing something, even if it had precious little to do with getting Bin Laden.
The only mitigating factor in this mess now is that everyone knows NZ and Australia and the UK and those other European countries had nothing to do with the hit.
And the wider issue that is being addressed here is that whilst it’s “wrong” for countries to use false passports from friendly countries for cloak-and-dagger skullduggery, there’s a chasmic gulf of difference between a foreign spy agency using a New Zealand passport to sneak an operative into the Soviet Union and smuggling out some aircraft plans, and using a New Zealand Passport to sneak into the Soviet Union and perform a hit on an influential figure.
The former is the stuff that Frederick Forsyth, John Le Carre, and Tom Clancy novels are made of and whilst it’s “wrong”, there are unspoken rules about how it’s done, it goes on all the time, and everyone knows about it.
The second one is absolutely wrong, not the done thing, etc but at the same time, we live in an age where gentlemen do indeed read each other’s mail and things are perhaps a bit less “Great Game” like than they used to be.
Look at it this way: Would anyone care if the assassins had been using fake Thai or Filipino passports? I suspect the answer is “Probably not”, to be honest.
On the scale of what’s most wrong in this case, the terrorists actions committed by the now fortunately dead terrorist is first and far above all other considerations.
Second on the list is that Dubai allowed a known terrorist free access without trying to arrest him.
Someways down the list comes the wrong that was done by Israeli agents (if that is what it was) of using NZ passports. bengangmo et al are just upset about that comparatively minor element, because their particular country was marginally involved. A bit of local huffing and hissing. Fine, but why should the rest of the world give a hoot about such a relatively minor element of the whole case? Also if it turns out Israel was not involved after all, would bengangmo’s false accessions not be a larger transgression, that the passport thing?
I’m aware that there are white supremacists in the Army; more than their should be. I’m not aware that it’s a “haven” for them, or that they make up the majority of the army; much less that white supremacists control US foreign policy and the decision to go to war, which, in the US, is a civilian function.
Good luck with the definition of “terrorist” thing. The US has been trying to get an anti-terrorism convention passed in the UN for nearly ten years and has so far failed because no one can agree on precisely what “terrorism” means. Even different departments within the US government have different - and contradictory - definitions.
What would you call an institution that took you in, gave you training in how to do what you would dearly love to do, and then puts you in a place where you can do that very thing?
yeah, I can see how you got “majority” from me saying “some”:rolleyes:
What does this have to do with anything?
Oh wait, when I said “coalition members”, were you reading it as “entire country that is a member of the coalition”, hence all the confusion about how representative or pervasive I think the racists are? I don’t know how else to phrase “member of one of the the coalition’s forces” in a shorter manner. Maybe I should just stick with “some US troops”, except Prince Harry is a UK soldier…