The comment was a rebuttal of sorts, but it is still irrelevant.
Let’s remind ourselves,
If we were to consider every single thing that was right or wrong with unconnected parts of the law, we should soon find ourselves lost in a maze of our own making.
Simply because something else is wrong, this does not lend any more legitimacy to another thing that is wrong, this is why that point is not worthy of debate.
We are not talking of other systems, we are not talking about the police, nor are we talking about the merits of just and unjust wars, we are actually talking about the illegal behaviour of an element from a nation in a murder and its encroachment upon the territory of another nation to do it.
You will also note, that in this diversionary attempt, the thing that is ignored is judicial oversight, we may well declare war, police may well cause inoccent people to suffer, but through the places we tend to call civilised, there is a judicial appuratus from which remedy might be sought. Here we have only Israel’s word for their reasons, there has been no trial, no sentence, no right to defence, no appeal - Israel is obviously very certain of its position, but given that it is so certain, it should at least have had some sort of legal oversight.
Many individuals have been tried and sentenced in absentia, there is no reason why this could not have happened here. at least the evidence would be out in the open, I’m sure there would be some disputes over this.
Israel of course has tried to become closer to the EU, however what it has done is to pass a death sentence, but without rule of law, it turns out that article 1 of the EU charter on Human Rights states that every person has a right to life, which means that Israel has also distanced itself from the very national grouping with which it wishes to associate
You will notice how FinnAgain raises the point about suspects being in another territory - outside the sovereignty of Israel, and then goes on to state that somehow being within the territory of another nation is irrelevant - I rebutted this by mentioning that those border (or ‘lines in the dirt’) are important. So far our star has not chosen to address this.
This poster is dishonest, he picks out bits to comment upon, and simply ignores the substantive ones, except where he goes off on some irrelevant journey such as an analogy or even something that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Just because you’re too stupid to understand what’s going on doesn’t mean I’m dishonest. The definition of honesty is not, in fact, soothing the fevered grey-matter of a babbling fool.
Case in point, you don’t even understand what a rebuttal is.
“Finn says that a valid target is valid even if they hide in another country and if they’re killed with no civilian casualties it’s better than waging war or invoking sanctions/blockades. But he’s totally wrong and I totally showed him what’s what and rebutted him, because I said borders are important!”
New Zealand is a liberal democracy, its citizens are free to hire out their services to whomsoever they wish.,
New Zealand has a number of treaties with other nations, were Dubai / UAE to request the extradition of the perpetrators, and were a treaty in place New Zealand would hand them over poste haste ( I should go and check what the status of our treaties are in such a situation, but fuck it - if you care, look it up)
I would not be at all surprised to find out that murdering someone for money, even on foreign soil, does violate a New Zealand law, and if it does - they would be prosecuted
On the other hand, if NZ passports are forged by Israel, who should we prosecute for the crime? The head of the Knesset? The head of the intelligence agency? The drone who did the actual work? Like that’s ever going to happen. There are only diplomatic angles to pursue.
Ah, a history buff! Many good insights can be gained from history! Since you have the facts at your very fingertips…
How many fully equipped armored divisions could England muster against Germany? How many nations stood ready to throw their blood and treasure into the fray? And France, what of France? Where was England going to offload her vast army, if not France? Belgium?
Who, then, is the bigger fool? A man who papers over a peace with an enemy he cannot trust, or the man who starts a war he cannot win?
Of course, there is a thing I hadn’t considered, that you were not really attempting to make any sort of historical point, but merely indulging yourself in empty mockery, sneering at the peacenik Mr. Chamberlain, as so many hard-headed realists are wont to do. In which case, you may run along and play tough guy with your action figures, dear, and let the grownups talk.
Another history buff, cool. It’s certainly true that Chamberlain was not the only wuss that failed to stop Hitler before he got too strong. The French arguably could have done it by chasing Hitler out of the Rhineland in 1936. The British reacted with a certain absence of spine as well:
*"ord Lothian famously said (the German occupation of the Rhineland in '36 in violation of the Treaty of Versailles) was no more than the Germans walking into their own backyard. George Bernard Shaw similarly claimed it was no different than if Britain had reoccupied Portsmouth. In his diary entry for 23 March, Harold Nicolson MP noted that “the feeling in the House [of Commons] is terribly pro-German, which means afraid of war”.[35] During the Rhineland crisis of 1936, no public meetings or rallies were held anywhere in protest at the remilitarization of the Rhineland, and instead there were several “peace” rallies where it was demanded that Britain not use war to resolve the crisis[36].
The Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin claimed, with tears in his eyes, that Britain lacked the resources to enforce her treaty guarantees and that public opinion would not stand for military force anyway[37]. The British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, discouraged military action by the French and was against any financial or economic sanctions against Germany."*
None of this rehabilitates Chamberlain and I’m not sure what it has to do with false flag Kiwis assassinating Hamas leaders in Dubai and leaving their passports and sub sandwiches at the scene, but it’s fun for history buffs,
I quite take your point, perhaps I am a bit intemperate in my reaction, but Christ Jesus! I get so tired of being beaten over the head with that same umbrella! By men who preen themselves as hard-headed realists, sneering at peace as if they had an alternative to offer besides horror and death. My favorite Jewboy tells me that the peacemakers are blessed, must have been referring to Heaven, scant evidence in this life of anything but contempt and derision.
Do they, though? Are there Norwegian government agents even now infiltrating France using Nigerian passports? Are Fijians engaging in the identity-theft of Chileans in order to conduct covert operations in Bangladesh?
I think not. “All nations” do not pull this kind of bullshit, only the arrogant, entitled ones.
No. It’s pretty much standard. Unless by ‘arrogant and entitled’ you mean any nation that has global standing at all and chooses to perform espionage, in which case, sure, some nations without power or influence can be content to sit within their borders and take up knitting. Espionage is simply a fact of modern politics. People can rage about it all they want, but it goes on, it’s going to go on, and nobody in power actually wants it to stop because information truly is power.
I missed in your cite where it said everyone does it. Perhaps you could quote?
Backpedal, backpedal. Telemark said “all nations” do this. Now it’s only the “True Nations”, I guess? If you’re going to defend someone’s statements for them, you should do a less-fallacy-laden job of it
Tu Quoque is the last refuge of the debate-challenged. Or the stupid. Like, for instance, someone who can’t tell the difference between actually spying (France) and buying stolen tech (all the other countries listed in that cite).
Also, there’s a far fucking cry from industrial espionage to false-flag foreign-soil assasination, mate.
And as for New Zealand? A cite about 1986 is really, really relevant, isn’t it?:rolleyes:
You missed in the cite where it said that’s how intelligence operations are done? It’s how the game is played. I suppose that they could have accounted for willfully ignorant folks interested in picking an argument despite its merits and pointed out “Yes, this is how intelligence operations are conducted, even for virtuous nations.” but they probably figured it wasn’t worth the work.
You claimed (via ad hominem fallacy, by the way) that only arrogant nations engage in espionage. I pointed out that, nope, small and fairly insignificant nations on the global stage do too.
The point, also (as you seem good at missing it) is that if nations routinely engage in espionage then the claim that only “arrogant” nations do becomes nonsense unless all nations become “arrogant”, and the word loses all possible meaning.
You’re going to hang your hat on the fact that, sure, South Africa was spying on the United States and stealing information, but since they were using someone else to do the actual legwork, why, it’s totally different! Your dodge is a bit like claiming that Russia wasn’t spying on us, it just so happened that Robert Hanssen was spying on us and the Russians decided to buy the information. Of course, spying (yes, even by noble, non-arrogant, non-badguy South Africa) is often done for a very good reason.
That’s just the way the game is played. Don’t worry, I’m not going to hop up on a high horse and declare that your nation is “arrogant”.
Just like you’re inventing a “false-flag” operation. There was never any attempt to get the UAE to believe that a bunch of Brits had carried out the assassination, those were just the cover identities used to get them into the country. If you’re going to babble, at least try to have the very basic level of understanding required to elevate ignorant babbling to annoying babbling.
And, likewise, you’re now attempting to deny the fact that espionage goes on all the time even from “non arrogant” nations but trying to handwave that way since it doesn’t involve wetwork. “Why, they’re only stealing technological secrets and trying to harm the economy of your nation, it’s not like they’re hurting anybody.”
Weak.
The point, that you aggressively missed, is that even pure, virtuous, non-arrogant and horribly-wrong-by-Israel nations like New Zealand, yep, have their own espionage projects that, yep, spy on their allies too. It’s also important to note that these only came to light because old archives were analyzed years after the fact. The idea that nations like New Zealand, which protect their global position via espionage, gave it up because they’re just so ‘non-arrogant’ is, well, stupid.
We’ve got much more recent stuff, of course, like New Zealand participation in ECHELON, but rarely do we get a glimpse into how espionage is carried out by a politician admitting it all in some dusty archives somewhere.
Sir, this is neither the time nor the place to have a reasoned discussion. This forum is specifically designed for not only hole-picking but also name-calling, one-upping, put-downing, and all the other snarky behavior that one gets thrown out of Great Debates for.
I’m not saying I personally don’t (usually) prefer a reasoned discussion to a bunch of tiresome festering snark, but I know better than to expect to find one here in the Pit.
I saw references to the USSR, China, Russia, Warsaw Pact countries (back in the Cold War, BTW) - all nations I would characterise as arrogant and entitled, yes. No refs to small countries at all.
I’m contending that “virtuous nations” don’t generally spy on other countries, actually, and *when *they do, it’s not by having their own agents do it under false identities.
Point to the fallacy. Naming countries arrogant and entitled because they *act *arrogant and entitled isn’t it.
No, you didn’t. If you had, you’d be able to quote where your cites showed this.
A CIA (:rolleyes: because they’re soooo credible) study on what happened in the fucking Cold War is hardly a study on what “all nations” “routinely” do. Only on what WWII Germany, Japan & Britain, Cold War Russia, China, Bulgaria & the US, N. Korea and some unnamed “certain Asian country” do. Hardly “all nations do”, now is it? Especially the “do” bit, which would indicate the present, not 30 fucking years ago. Some of the world has moved on from the CW, you know?
No, they weren’t. They weren’t even fencing.
No, “using someone else” would be if they paid the French for the spying itself. Buying the *products *of the spying (*not *the actual data, but the physical products the French produced) is not the same as spying. This stupid argument of yours goes way beyond semantic twisting into nutjobbery.
That’s like if *everyone *who ever flew in a jet plane is somehow responsible for the Nazi KZ experiments into high altitude sickness that go into making pressurised cabins.
If South Africa bought the information off the French, you’d have a point. But that’s not what your cite says.
:rolleyes: You realise Tu Quoque doesn’t stop being a fallacy the more you use it, right?
That, plus you’re missing the mark somewhat severely if you expect me to defend my country when it’s in the wrong. That’s a trait more closely linked with … certain more jingoistic nations.
I’m not saying there’s never a need for espionage. I’m saying some methods of espionage are more contemptible than others, and not *every *country engages in the contemptible methods. There’s a difference between wiretaps and assassination, for instance. Linking to an example of the former by my country (or, at any rate, OKed by my country) is not going to make the latter magically OK.
If we’d done something that justified the name, I’d not fault you for it. For instance, during Apartheid, we frequently conducted operations on foreign soil that I’d say fell under “arrogant and entitled”, exactly in the Mossad mould. But that was another country.
[/quote]
Just like you’re inventing a “false-flag” operation. There was never any attempt to get the UAE to believe that a bunch of Brits had carried out the assassination, those were just the cover identities used to get them into the country.
[/quote]
As if that makes a difference. They got into the country under false identities. “False flag” is a handy shorthand for this.
Pointing out the distinction between *stealing *and *murder *is hardly “handwaving” to anyone but a murderous sociopath or , it seems, a “True Believer” willing to go to any contortions to excuse their own side’s arrogance.
[/quote]
Weak.
[/quote]
I know you are, but what am I? (since you like the 1st grade putdowns so much.
By stealing and faking passports? By assassinating foreigners in foreign countries? You really think we’re talking about merely “spying” here? You think I was objecting to the very existence of espionage? That’s a pretty stupid interpretation of what I said.
Once again, we’re not talking about mere spying here. No-one, least of all me, has said it’s arrogant and entitled to listen in to the global telecomms network, or to buy stolen information. What’s arrogant and entitled is believing you have a *right *to send your own agents into other countries under false colours and kill people there.
I think we can ignore your inability to understand that when the CIA talks about bona fides and their use they are saying that’s what’s required to hide the identity of their agents.
Most folks (evidently not you) understand that they’re not really saying that all the nice nations are able to conceal their spies’ identities with very friendly smiles and a firm handshake.
“So, are you a spy?”
“Who, me? Nopers.”
“Well, okay then. Welcome to our nation.”
South Africa used the French to engage in espionage and paid them for the results, and that’s “nutjobbery”. Just like the mob doesn’t murder people, they only have ‘independent contractors’ put bullets into people’s heads. And I’m the one engaged in something beyond semantic twisting.
You are so smart.
False flag operations refer to operations where you attempt to frame someone else for your actions. Spies don’t ever operate under their true identities. Is this really so hard for you to understand?
“Hello Mr. Smith, is your stay here for business or pleasure?”
“Oh, neither. I’m here to spy on you.”
“Well Mister Moshe, you are aware that the UAE doesn’t allow any Israelis or anybody with a passport stamped by Israel to ever enter, and that Jews are under increased scrutiny in much of the Arab world?”
“Oh, sorry my good fellow, we didn’t realize that the Arab world was a No Jewish Espionage Zone. We’ll go home now. But please, send us an email every now and again to let us know what your military plans are if you’d be so kind.”
“Ms. Flame, we see that you’re here as one of the officers of your corporation to set up shop in our nation, is this correct?”
“No no, common mistake. We’re actually a front for the CIA, would you like my handler’s contact information?”
“Ms. Jones, welcome to the ambassadorial staff, would you like us to show you to your quarters?”
“No, that won’t be necessary. If you can just direct me to the local military command and advise me on the best ways to infiltrate it, I can get right on with my real work here.”
Espionage includes but is not limited to everything from compromising military information to damaging economic interests and a hell of a lot in between. Want to count the number of lives saved, and lost, during WW II due to espionage?
I suppose we can analyze your… standards. Espionage that damages another nation’s economy and harms their standard of living, well, that’s okay. Espionage that steals military information and puts lives in jeopardy? That’s okay. Espionage that kills a valid target of war while avoiding greater suffering to civilians and totally eliminates collateral damage? Well wait a goshdarn minute!!!
So you’re pretty much completely full of shit, eh? It’s not “arrogant” or “entitled” to believe that you have the right to steal another country’s intellectual secrets and economic advantages, or to listen in on all their conversations. But if you try to save lives by making a war about only the designated target rather than the entire nation he resides in, why, that’s just awful. Awful! So arrogant, all that attempt to limit the harm of war. Only an arrogant nation would try to save lives. The true, non-arrogant position is to inflict maximum loss of life on innocents in order to preserve the moral high ground. The humble moral high ground.
Oh, and, you’re full of it. You didn’t say the issue was only assassination, but any and all infiltration where spies hide their identity.
P.S. Yes, “only arrogant and entitled nations do this!” is not an argument about its pragmatic effect, a discussion of what spies need to do their jobs properly, the utility of wetwork versus war/sanctions, an argument about the actual harm fake passports do to nations that have their passports stolen. It is, purely, simply and exclusively an ad hominem fallacy.
It’s the same sort of ignorant twaddle that demanded that Nazi war criminals should’ve lived out the last of their days lounging on beaches rather than ~gasp!~ arrogant folks choosing to capture them. After all, we must have standards! And if a few war criminals live out their days sipping tropical drinks or a few nations need to endure sanctions or war, well, then at least we’ve at least behaved like gentlemen and avoided all that nasty extra-judicial behavior. The innocent who are harmed will no doubt thank us for sacrificing them on the altar of our self-righteousness. No doubt.
