Sorry…first time I read this I saw the** engendered ** tuatura, and I thought ewwwww you sick sick individual
Go get 'em. Make the bastards pay for what they’ve done. 
Yeah its a bit hyperbolic right?
But at the end of the day, why is it that after how many instances of this happening, Israel still gets off pretty much scot free? Why do they get to ride roughshod over other countries and get away with it?
I am pretty sure that part of the reason NZ was targeted is that we are a pimple. What sort of clout do we have to act against Israel in any sort of manner they really care about?
But I also think that this sort of behaviour perpetuates the war, and is not conducive to a settlement. And its the same independent of how Israel’s various enemies are behaving. While I may well agree with you that you have every right to kill this terrorist, whether or not I want to take action is my decision - you don’t and shouldn’t get to subvert that right. Even if it is by doing something as innocuous as identity theft and state sponsored cheating.
Set the orcs on 'em.
Whatever the issue in this particular instance, I really appreciate Allesan’s posts here and the experience/point of view he brings. I still struggle thinking of anyone with the name “Allesan” as a guy, though.
It may be because all nations do this, to some degree. You have to show that Israel is somehow different in its actions and how it’s treated.
I wonder whether the next assumed terroists will be Haitians, The Israeli forces over there have reportedly stopped looking for bodies. ( Maybe they got their passport quota?)
Woo-hoo! My first pitting!
Would you believe that I’vbe been on this board since July 2000, and this is the first time someone has ever opened a thread to call me a “syphilus infected rabid cow turd” - or anything else, for that matter - in the Pit? I’m actuallya bit conflicted about it: on the one hand, it’s about time; but on the other, I kinda wish I could have made it a clear decade.
Ahem.
Now, as to the (rather lean) meat of the OP: you seem to think that New Zealand doesn’t act the way Israel does because New Zealand is inherently a more moral country than Israel. That’s one theory. Allow me to present an alternate hypothesis: New Zealand acts differently than Israel because New Zealand is a isolated country in the middle of nowhere with no enemies, no foreign disputes and no real need to care about anything taking place outiside its territorial waters; while Israel is stuck in the Middle East. I mean, I would love it if my country had been established on an island paradise in the South Pacific, with nothing to fear except sheep-transmitted diseases and uruk-hai, but it seems as though your ancestors were much better colonialists than mine.
What I’m saying here is that you’re coming across as a bit smug - kind of like the idle rich criticising the working poor for getting their hands dirty. It’s unbecoming. Those less fortunate than you don’t always have the luxury of behaving in a purely moral manner, not unless all they aspire to is to be victims. And yes, I know that what I’m satying is “you have to live in the real world”, and that line can essentially excuse anything. But there are, I believe, acceptable levels of immorality, and in this case, taking into account the actual damage caused, I don’t think Israel (if it was Israel) crossed the line. No innocent people died. No innocent nations were framed. All in all, it could have been much worse.
That said, I do think that Israel *should *apologize to NZ. the UK and all thos other nations involved. They were wrong to get caught. Still, if you really think they shouldn’t have used Brit or kiwi passports, could you suggest a name of a country they should have used? Just give me a name.
There. Sorry if I’ve veered this pitting into GD territory. If it helps, bengangmo, I’ll try to find some choice insults for you too. I’ll have to do some research, though, as I can’t seem to recall ever reading any of your posts.
(Oh, and John? The name “Alessan” (one L) is from the novel *Tigana *by Canadian author Guy Gavriel Kay. It’s pseudo-Italian - a variation on “Alessandro” - and it’s all male)
lol at “acceptable levels of immorality.” Alessan, you’re my hero.
You misspelled syphilis.
I wouldn’t go around bragging that George Bush gave you a medal. He gave lots of people medals for utterly incompetent behavior. Really, just put it in a box in the attic and never mention it again.
Well yes no innocent people died this time. And Dubai built on the sweat of 3rd country nationals is no liberal state. The UKs complicity in rendiions in the GWAT doesn’t leave them squeaky clean either.
But Israeli extrajudicial killings in foreign countries have actually resulted in the death of innocents (in Lillehammer Norway for example) Thats not an acceptable level of immorality. As long as this policy is accepted then its a given that more errors will happen again.
Sorry to add a weak GD pithless pit. Feel free to add suitable invectives as required.
Oh wait a minute yeah fuckers! Why is it that every thread on Israel is derailed after 4 posts by foaming at the mouth apologists who have no intention of pursuing a dialogue other than intentionally train wrecking debate! You know who you are and its not fuckin’ big and certainly not fuckin’ clever!
twats!
Rationalization to back up a pre-conceived notion or general position? The acid test:
Other systems that have led to innocent people suffering, even dying: just wars, the police doing their jobs, the legal system, to name a few. So do you also agree that we should never wage a just war ever, the police should never try to arrest anybody and we should abolish the legal system?
Or are you coming to a conclusion and then working backwards to try to find support?
I do have to admit, seeing intellectual pygmies like you get all flustered over this is just icing on the cake.
-“Assassinations are more moral than sanctions or war since, when pulled off correctly, not one innocent person suffers let alone dies.”
-“Extra-judicial killings are wrong!”
-“No, I don’t believe they are. A valid target of war is valid even if he goes to ground somewhere else. The idea that it’s ‘moral’ if he is on one patch of dirt and ‘immoral’ if he hops over an imaginary line is silly. To say nothing of the fact that your position advocates wholesale misery and/or death due to sanctions and war, and mine is clean and efficient and yet you claim that your is moral.”
-“But there were passports involved!”
-“Yes, every intelligence agency on the planet uses means to disguise the identity of its agents, including but not limited to fake passports.”
-“You have to admit I’m right! I’m obviously right, why won’t you admit it!?!?”
-“I’ve outlined my reasons, and I feel my case is stronger.”
-“Moral apologist!!!”
You poor idiot.
This has nothing at all to do with this subject at all, classic diversionary tactics, when someone runs out of meaningful things to say on a topic, they start to use analogies and strange and irrelevant comparisons.
This is the fourth diversion you have attempted on this subject alone, rather than address the subject, it seems to be your modus operandi.
If you want to debate the effectiveness of the legal system, thats a differant debate, if you want to discuss how we all live within certain constraints imposed by various legal systems, thats also another debate.
What we have, just to remind you, is Israel leaving its own jurisdiction, and killing someone in another land, now you may call that other land a patch of dirt, but it is not Israel’s patch of dirt and it is subject to the rules of the governors of said patch of dirt.
It may surprise you, but did you know that these imaginary lines drawn by entities who describe themselves as nations seem quite important to them, even if you have no respect for the existance of these nations.
I would not be surprised to find that those who gave the final go ahead for this murder use similar justifications.
I have little doubt that the UK has done such things before, but that does not make it right.
Using passports and forged documents are no doubt a common practice in some agencies, however when we find none approved people doing this, such as drig dealers, we seem to have rather differant views about their criminality.
You are a very simple individual to understand, when the pressure is on and you have run out of ideas and imagination, why, you just wave an irrelevant distraction to us, and you are fucking stupid enough to think we will not notice.
Alessan has better points to make than you, even though I disagree with them, you bring nothing to the debate, no true insights, no logic, just a smokescreen to hide your intellectual dishonesty.
If you are this stupid, how do you manage to remember to turn your computer on before you try to type? I mean, seriously, the stupidity wouldn’t be quite so bad without the hilarious righteous indignation backing it up. It’s like you’re too dumb to realize you don’t get it, and too angry to try to get it, so you just go into full on berserk-idiot mode and start angrily vomiting in my general direction.
Let me clear this up for you, shit-for-brains: it’s not a diversion.
It points out that a great many processes have, as a possible consequence, the accidental death of innocents (I could’ve added in routine hospital mixups to that list, as well as a few others). But some folks operate under a double standard, and some are seen as fine and routine and the risks are just part of the cost of doing business, and others are awful, just awwwwwful.
Glad to point out why exactly you were being stupid. Now you can go back to gargling donkey semen.
We must have peace. Period. If there is to be peace, someone must make it, someone must recieve a blow and not return it, otherwise, there is always another. Some nation must be strong enough, noble enough, and courageous enough to take that last blow. Or it will only come when one is too weak to return it.
I nominate Israel, I believe her people are wise and smart enough to see the truth in this. If it were the Palistinians, my respect for them would skyrocket a thousandfold. I fear not.
But we must have peace. Too many innocent lives at stake. If America could impose peace by brute force, I would vote for it. But that’s not the way it works, it only works when enemies realize they will live together or bury their children. Peace is the answer, it is the only answer.
Targeted assassinations will not advance the cause of peace. Duh.
It is kind of you to nominate someone else to allow their citizens to be killed endlessly until your views are put into practice. Truly, very generous. Selfless, even. Of course, as I pointed out to you the last time you just made this silly comment, Israel took quite a bit of “first blows” during the peace process and finally decided it had had enough around the time the second Intifada was finished being planned and orchestrated and was unleashed.
Targeted assassinations are not about bringing “peace”, they’re about lessening the odds that a terrorist will hatch a successful plan to kill your civilians. Equally ‘duh’, allowing terrorists to attack you as much as they want will not bring piece, only pieces.
You are a reasonable correspondent on virtually any subject, Finn, save this one. Then, talking to you is like arguing with an irritable badger on meth. No thanks. I’ll just say what I have to say, and you can take it as you will.
Peace on you.
Naw, Lucy, I’m right with you, all we are saaaaaaaying is give Hamas unlimited time for bombings a chance.
How can a cow turd have rabies?