Whether the guy deserved to die or not is beside the point.
What people are trying to explain again and again, is that it was done inappropriately.
Its not ok to forge a friendly nation’s passports and do a hit in Dubai.
That shows a particular disresepct for all nations involved, which is a little different to trying to steal secrets.
Its something that Israel promised not to do.
If you really thought the guy needed to die, and were confident in that assesment why couldn’t you ask for help and run a joint operation with whoever? With the other nation supplying the passports? Or maybe even the other country “letting” your operatives in?
Genuine question for you…
You seem to know so much - how many other countries have been caught murdering someone in a “neutral” country using forged passports?
Hate to (again) try to force logic and reason into the debate, but fuck no whether he was a valid target of war is not besides the point. Assassinating a terrorist leader is not the same as assassinating a school teacher and it’s the word kind of intellectual abrogation and moral relativism to suggest it is. Whether or not the target was a valid target of war is quite relevant, as is whether or not there was a more humane way to capture of kill him other than via assassination.
Whether or not he was a valid target, and especially if there was any other way to get at him without putting more innocent at risk is exactly the point.
I know you think very highly of yourself and that your personal opinions count as explanations. Really, I get that. Pat yourself on the back two, no, three more times, just for me.
Now, as nobody has answered the questions I have put forward numerous times, I’ll try again to see if I can get a rational discussion out of you other than “I disagree with this and don’t like it, and I keep repeating that, why oh why won’t you just agree?!?!?!?”
-Assassination is more moral, ethical and efficient than using war or sanctions, as war or sanctions are blunt instruments which, perforce, cause greater civilian suffering and/or death.
-Assassination is also more moral, ethical and efficient than letting terrorists go on planning and executing attacks while your own populace has to soak them up.
-The use of forged bona fides has been in use during the entire modern age of espionage and nobody has shown any real harm done to the nations whose documents have been forged. Nobody has suggested a tipping point or what its mechanism would be. That leaves us with the null hypothesis that such forgery does not, in fact, have a significant negative consequence associated with it.
-All of this taken together shows that the best, most ethical, least damaging method of effecting the elimination of valid targets of war who have gone to ground outside of an area you can easily work in, is targeted killings.
If you cannot address let alone deal with the above, then you can repeat “inappropriate” all you want. But what’s really inappropriate is asking for war/sanctions or simple inaction to stand in when assassination is cleaner, more efficient and less damaging to the greater civilian populace which should, ideally, be totally left out of such a conflict.
Fake passports, totally beyond the pale and disrespectful. I bet the Israelis (who haven’t been proven to be behind this anyways) first urinated on a picture of the queen before they cloned those passports. Then they made jokes about bad teeth.
But stealing secrets from those allied nations? Eh, boys will be boys.
Is your suggestion, really, that any time an intelligence service finds a target that they believe they can remove, they’re supposed to call in other groups to help? So when the US uses spy drones (itself bad because they don’t engage in sky-writing that says “Hello, I am a Predator Drone, I will be killing you today.”), we should first coordinate with, whom, exactly? Make sure we get a couple Brits and a German or two to watch the monitors as we drop the bombs? If we found Bin Ladin in a save tomorrow and could take him out with one precision guided bit of ordinance, we’d first have to get some folks from the Australian high command to sign off on it?
How do you know that the Brits didn’t, and then just wanted to maintain plausible deniablilty? They’d hardly announce it if they did allow their use, now would they? Hell, for all we know the Brits knew about and authorized the hit and not only got to help eliminate scum but then got good PR for being tough on the Little Satan. That’s part of the whole point of covert operations. We don’t know who’s involved in what, or what agreements are made under the table. In fact, there are several initial reports that state that Britain pretty much did just that.
When dealing with a nation like Dubai which bans Israelis or anybody who’s ever been to Israel and allows Hamas members in, should Israel just send a candygram and offer tickets to Cats if they would, pretty please, be allowed in to eliminate a terrorist leader?
You’re conflating two issues. Spies routinely travel under forged bona fides because, among other things, showing up in a place hostile to Americans carrying an American driver’s license from Langley, Virginia, is not exactly brilliant. As for how many nations have used false bona fides to carry out wetwork, that depends. Obviously all we know about is those who’ve been caught/exposed. The obvious greater issue is how often spies use fake bona fides to carry out any and all activities, ranging from recon to sabotage to coordination with opposition groups, and so on. The answer is that it’s pretty much standard.
It’s also a question that ignores a lot of the nuance involved, as we will often coopt assets who are already from other nations so that we don’t need to provide cover for our own. Even when we’re not using turned assets of foreign nations, using false identities to infiltrate in preparation of attacks is a tactic that our enemies have down pat. And the same exact reason why false bona fides are essential for our enemies is why our own forces (and those of any other nation engaged in espionage) do too. They allow agents to avoid detection, to conceal their real identity and purpose, and, if captured, to possibly stagnate any attempts to get at their true identity or mission.
It’s just how it works.
As the man said “All war is deception.”
Excuse me if I don’t take what’s “required” by an institute of vile murderers and warmongerers as the standards for actual civilized people to uphold.
If “nice” nations engage in this sort of thing, there’d be examples, now wouldn’t there? But there aren’t any in your cites.
Keep saying it. I’m sure that will make it true.
You really don’t get logic, do you? I don’t have to be smart for you to be stupid.
And? If using foreign identities isn’t intended for people to assume the assassins were citizens of those countries? At least for entry purposes?
But excuse me if I’m not using the correct warmongering assassin argot. I’ll concede and just say “covert operation” if that will make you happier.
Well, that’s just bullshit and you know it. Many spies operated under their own identities. Doesn’t take a fake passport to sell secrets.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? No-one’s disputing the definition of espionage.
It’s not “okay”. Just not the same as murder.
Not okay by me. But wartime actions are not the same as murder.
Well, let’s just examine all the myriad assumtions you just so glibly slipped in there, shall we? “valid target of war”? “avoiding greater suffering”? “civilians”? “totally eliminates collateral damage”? Talk about just assuming the antecedents, there
Hey, I think France acted plenty arrogant and entitled in your cite and the article it linked to. What’s your point?
As far as I’m aware, ECHELON doesn’t violate other countries’ sovereignty but listens in to broadcast communications in various media. So no, not really.
It is when you do it by unlawful murder, in a third country.
Murder isn’t war. Anyway, Israel has already shown they have no problem with collateral damage, so you saying that’s the reason here is just an ass-pull. They did it because it was opportune, not because it was damage-limiting.
Yeah, be sure not to fall into that giant hole in the Excluded Middle you just missed, there.
Yes, I did. And have I said different since, that you should bring this up? You do realise “and” is an inclusive conjunction, right? So if you fulfil just the false ID part, you still qualify:
God, you have no idea what an ad hominem fallacy is, do you?
But yes, it is a moral judgement not an argument on its “pragmatic effect”. Never said it was. Although I could go on at length as to *why * these types of covert operations are wrong, especially from an oversight perspective.
I dunno about Nazi war criminals. But I do know about plenty of South Africans who were killedandmaimed by the Apartheid government in *exactly *these kinds of extra-judicial assassinations. Not all of whom were “valid targets of war”. I mean, a fucking kindergarten!
So forgive me if I don’t take *your *word for it that Israel is in the moral right here. It wouldn’t be the first similarity between Israel and the old South Africa.
so then there is no need to try criminals anymore? just summarily kill the guilty?
and again, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. now i agree with you that this guy is a valid target of war. but he was not in the theatre of war. which means that you should adhere to law when you go after him. it is only rule of law that determines civilisation. and this should transcend individual guilt. Why have the geneva convention in the first place, or the ICJ, if everyone just does “whatever works”?
the palestinians are using the same justifications as you. both are acting illegally though. now i do think that your argument is more morally right, but thats hardly the point. summarily killing a murderer is also right, but we have a process of law for a reason. israel stepped outside that process, violated promises and violated the territory of another which is not right. if every country behaved that way we end up with anarchy. and your assertion that every country does it does not hold much weight when you can’t even provide one cite, whereas Israel has been caught at it FOUR times.
Some will believe that Britain was complicit, some Palestinians and some from the UAE. This will have some effect on how Britain is perceived. And the worst part is that it may not be known or measured.
This is the big problem that I, and I think some others have - offing the guy ius one thing, dragging in other countries, even if only peripherally and to some of the fringe elements is simply not on.
Some Palestinians may also believe that Dubai was complicit, which reduces a moderating influence,.
Sometimes a short term gain can be a long term loss.
Coincidence is the darndest thing… only last night I was thinking to myself, “Man, I could really do with a syphilis infected rabid cow turd right about now”. We’ve all been there, amirite?
There is no ‘theatre of war’ between Hamas and Israel. Where, exactly, would it be okay to go after him?
Seems to me a bit of a dilemma, to suggest that he’s a valid target, but that he cannot be hit. If the latter is true he’s not really a valid target at all.
Seems to me to be a bit disingenuous to try to pretend that Dubai is a valid place to go after him.
Besides, why is the onus on me to suggest a valid place? I know for sure that Dubai is not the place, neither is any other country that is not a party to the conflict. Are Dubai at war with Israel? Nope, didn’t think so, so don’t treat it like a battlefield
That’s the spirit! It’s a game! And suicide bombings and rocket attacks are part of how the game is played as well. That’s great thing about this game: NO RULES!
The winner is the first side to provoke the Second Coming of Christ. 'Till then is “game on”.
I dunno, maybe someplace, anyplace, that
a) doesn’t have a proper govt
or
b) doesn’t have a rule of law
or
c) is at some state of war with Israel
or
d) doesn’t have the expectation that random assasins will come and kill people in its territory
or
e) approves of israel playing their dangerous games within its borders
oh and just to add…can you telkl me where I should go to murder that nasty rapist that attacked my baby sister last year? Somewhere nice and easy to off him while I pretend to be my brother…
This amounts to “nowhere”, which is just what I thought.
Problem is that, assuming that some countries possessing the ‘rule of law’ do not see fit to prosecute those planning terrorism against certain targets, such a position gives these folks total freedom to do as they please.
Saying this guy is a “valid target of war” is essentially meaningless, if he’s alowed to operate with impunity and his victims cannot touch him.
If some fellow raped your sister, and planned to go on raping your sister, and the cops refuse to arrest him because the authorities where he happened to live hate your sister and don’t care about crimes committed against her, would you just throw up your hands in the air and say “too bad for her”?
I have very little knowledge of that paricular struggle, but the two cases are obviously dissimilar, as in the one case the targets of the state actions were clearly on their face illigitimate - including as they did kindergardeners, as you yourself point out.
Are you referring to '67 when the territories were offered back in their entirety but the response was no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Israel? Are you talking about any of the negotiations like Oslo, Wye, Clinton’s Bridging Proposal which were met with violence and renewed offensives by the Palestinian leadership, including a deal which would have given them roughly 97% of the land they wanted and which Arafat responded to by organizing, planning and launching the second Intifiada?
Maybe you’re referring to the fact that the vast majority of land that they’ve claimed was never privately owned in the first place and some of it is land which they ethnicaly cleansed the Jews from and now claim as their own historic land as it’s part of a Waqf?
But yes, rather obviously if the Palestinians present a credible force for peace there will be a negotiated two state settlement.
As is so often the case, what we have is a faux claim that Israel can defend itself against valid targets of war, constructed in such a way to make it physically impossible. Evidently under Ben’s plan, Israel cannot kill valid targets of war anywhere on Earth. Even within the PA’s of Hamas’ zones of influence, they don’t exactly “approve”, so by rhetorical magic, Israel can never defend itself from anybody, ever. This is the enlightened way to do things. It’s just like the claims that sure Israel can wage war if someone is constantly shooting rockets at it, it just has to be able to do so without any civilian casualties or property damage. And, sure Israel can directly follow the Fourth Geneva Convention and blockade an area and interdict the supplies that get through while interning the population for security reasons in order to guarantee its safety and security, but it’s evil Nazi apartheid and it can’t do it.
These little games do nobody any good.
What part of having someone beyond your jurisdiction is confusing you? If you have a criminal in your borders you can arrest them (although it should also be noted that sometimes, even then, you send in the SWAT team). But if they’re not in your jurisdiction and won’t be extradited, then you can’t use the legal system.
It’s a good thing some people have the courage to do what’s right even when the law actively opposes justice. There would’ve been a good few more Nazis lounging on the beaches sipping pina coladas if the Nazi-hunters weren’t quite so efficient at capturing them in ~shock, horror~ extra-judicial situations.
Yes yes, some moral relativists can’t tell the difference between someone who targets civilians and someone who does not. That doesn’t mean the rest of us need to turn our brains off and declare that, gee whiz, we just can’t figure out who’s a terrorist and who aint.
Well, as discussed in the other thread (I think) the ICJ is a kangaroo court when it comes to Israel. As for the GC, please cite, specifically, where it deals with valid targets of war who go to ground in other nations. Not to mention your claim is nonsensical and unworkable. You’re waging war against someone, and then high command hops across the border. Oops, now they’re on Home Base and you’re not allowed to do anything to them anymore. Shucks. Maybe you can call no-backsies to make sure if they return to their nation they can’t leave again?
I’ve provided the cites, some people just want to ignore anything that doesn’t conform to their argument. I’ve already shown that in order to conduct espionage nations must use false bona fides in order to disguise their agents’ identities. You think that only some nations need to do that, and the rest can, what, hypnotize people with their sexy, sexy eyes?
Here, you tell me, how do nations go about getting information about other nations that isn’t freely available? Seance? Telepathy? Tarot cards? Do they call them and nicely ask if, perhaps, they wouldn’t mind sharing their military deployment information? Perhaps they could just shoot over an email with their latest missile designs if they don’t mind?
Or, could it be, espionage?
Of course, you’re also committing the fallacy of equivocation. Israel is in a unique position where it’s facing several terrorist organizations who are armed, trained and given safe haven by numerous other nations and who can hide in those nations when they want and, not to mention, that any incursions into their normal area of operations produce an international outcry and claims of war crimes and significant civilian suffering as the terrorist organizations wear no uniforms and use human shields as a matter of policy.
In such a war, sometimes valid targets have to be hit where they are. Show me another nation in the same position and maybe you’ll be able to understand why they have to operate in the manner that they do.
A serious question for you, its been said many many times that the Palestinians don’t have the means to wage “conventional warfare”, so they should just throw up their hands and say “so be it”?
Do they have freedom of movement in their own territory? So they should just throw up their hands and say “so be it”?
Yes its distasteful that you can’t do anything to get this guy, but you don’t get to set the rules, or decide what’s “moral” anymore than the other party does.
The “rule of law” is there for a reason, not to be respected only when you feel like it, or only when the other side is “moral”. It cannot be circumvented just because you feel you have no option, or you feel that this is the “best” option.
I agree with you by the way, if I had the opportunity to petition my govt for his arrest I would, if I had the chance to join a protest that he had been granted a visa I would. What I am trying to say, is that no matter how distasteful a person is, you don’t get to break the rules of international relations as you go. That way lies disaster. That is what the Palestinians are doing, and you are only fighting fire with fire, making it worse.
The kindergarTen comment was a complete aside, in reference to my link, which has a whole list of people the Apartheid government attacked extra-judicially.
Are you asserting here that Israel has never killed any Palestinian toddlers? But that’s never-you-mind, the target, as I understand it, was a staff member at the kindergarten, not the kids themselves. So how dissimilar is it now?