Difficult situation. If it turns out that having your passport cloned really does represent some sort of serious rick to someone’s health and safety, then that too would have to take place in the calculus. I’m not an expert on passport forgeries, so maybe it’s possible to clone passports from dead folks or insert fake records into someone else’s passport system so you can make up names, or whatever.
Obviously the best situation will have to be one in which the absolute minimum (preferably zero) risk is transferred to civilians. Ideally that’s the situation if spies don’t get caught. But by the same token, since spying will go on and fake passports will be necessary, the process will generally be one of risk management and not risk elimination.
It’s an absurd point based on nothing more than radical relativism run amok. And it is, naturally, being selectively applied. Some nations (like Iran) murder their gays as a matter of policy. Does that mean when we say that murdering gays is wrong we’re just need help to find our noses since, after all, someone disagrees and we can’t possibly make our minds up if someone disagrees!
No, sorry, China, an autocratic state may or may not view a harmless man as a terrorist. That doesn’t mean we need to change the definition of terrorism to suit them any more than we needed to change the definition of ‘virtue’ to suit the Talaban. That you can’t differentiate what makes China’s definition of “terrorist”, meaning an old man who’s hurt nobody, less valid than other definitions is your own issue of course. Somehow I remain unconvinced that you really reserve judgment or, worse, go along with whatever others say as long as there’s disagreement. I think you’re rationalizing in order to try to find some way around the fact that the word “terrorist” has a fairly well understood and highly useful denotation.
But of course, I may be wrong. So prove me wrong. Many societies on the planet consider personal property to be nonsensical and would in fact have a totally different definition of what can or cannot be owned. As such, I trust that you’ll be sending me your computer in the mail ASAP since, as we all know, just like the word “terrorism”, there is substantial difference of opinion over what “property” means. And who are you to say otherwise?
When can I expect my new computer? I’d like to make sure I’m home to accept delivery.
Their moral code really doesn’t matter. If you want legitimacy, you need to act morally. Because your enemy is immoral, doesn’t mean you get to be immoral. Because your enemy is a terrorist, doesn’t mean you get to behave like a terrorist. The more you do, the longer the whole mess drags on, and the more the rest of the world condemns you - which you then just use as further justification that you “need” to act like a terrorist. Well I think this is a self fulfilling prophesy
What seems to be forgotten, is that this act by Israel (again if it was them) gives people in the UAE and England legitimate reasons to be angry at Israel. It diminishes support for Israel.
This has the flow-on effect of making the rabid anti-semites LESS of a fringe, and lowers the general support for Israel - so next time round it is harder for Israel to get support, and there is less condemnation of Israels enemies.
Can I measure and “prove” this? No I can’t - but just use your understanding of human nature, doesn’t it seem a rational argument?
Sure, I agree. The question of how much anti-Israel sentiment in any particular place and time is due to prejudice or antisemitism, and how much is due to legitimate reasons to be angry at Israel, is subject to debate, but it’s certainly true that legitimate anger at Israel and lessening of supportive feelings for Israel is a real phenomenon. Hell, it’s a phenomenon that has occurred in the feelings of many Jews, including Israeli Jews.
After reading so many of your posts, I see that two things pop up often: you refer to other’s arguments, opinions, facts, and conclusions as either silly or absurd quite often, and you argue constantly that anyone who doesn’t agree with you whole-heartedly is arguing “relativism”.
I can only conclude that you operate from a position of moral absolutism, where everything you think is right is right, and what you think is wrong is wrong, and you will brook no disagreement. At least, that’s what I get from your posts in this thread.
As such, I can see why you ignored my last questions directed to you.
Or any of several other questions that he has dodged in his “high dudgeon” nonsense. Aside from ridicule, misrepresentation, and dumbing down of others’ arguments, Finn has attempted to position his opponents as being in the anti-semitic conspiracy theorists camp. This has taken him into some pretty bizarre territory.
An example is his vitriolic refusal that a country’s and people’s reputations are harmed by such international incidents. You’d expect a supporter of Israel to consider such issues more carefully, instead of arguing in bad faith.
If they didn’t kill an arms smuggler this wouldn’t even be on our radar. This is similar to your average mob hit or drive by. So Israel doesn’t want Mossad smuggling in weapons to Gaza and he gets knocked off. They used passports from many countries. Illegal? yes, Did the guy have it coming? yes, who did it? I don’t know or care. A bad guy, kills another bad guy. It isn’t anti semetic it just is what it is, what it was, and what it will always be over there. A never ending turf war.
Pssst—Hamas. Hamas is the organization that Israel doesn’t want smuggling weapons to Gaza. Mossad is the Israeli agency that allegedly supplied the assassins to knock the guy off.
But, they like self-fulfilling prophecies! After all, they did invent the ultimate one, Armaggedon.
Just one thing that no one’s mentioned regarding what the UK etc can do in response.
It wouldn’t involve the UN imposing sanctions as someone mentioned. Since the countries involved are Ireland, UK, France and Germany there is the possibility of an EU response. Israel gets favoured status on its imports into the EU - it could lose this status. It’s highly unlikely it would go this far but I’m just pointing out what could happen.
I think you’re exaggerating the “virulent” anti-Israeli-ism in the UK. Trade unions and academic organisations are traditionally leftist groups and are not the government.
The BBC is an independent journalistic organisation - sometimes it’s critical of Israel, sometimes it’s critical of the Palestinians. Either way it’s not the government.
“British politicians” is a meaningless phrase. There are strongly pro-Israel politicians and strongly pro-Palestinian politicians. These people are not the government either. The government tends to take a fairly neutral view of the conflict itself while (of course) condemning terrorism.
Not sure which military officers were threatened with arrest. Maybe you’re referring to people involved with the Jenin incident?
I have argued that those people who say things like “woe is us, we cannot tell who is a terrorist. On one hand, we have a definition of people who deliberately target civilians in order to cause fear/terror and especially to effect political change, and on the other hand we have a definition of ‘people who China doesn’t like’.”
That’s the very definition of relativism. And we’ve seen a few others. I haven’t demanded that everybody agree with me totally, nor have I conformed to your wishes and said that anybody who doesn’t is engaged in relativism.
I didn’t respond because I have only so much patience with some questions repeated endlessly. You asked me if leadership was a fair target. I said yes, in a war and when it was a valid military conflict rather than attacking someone you were at peace with. Then you asked again, rephrasing slightly. Then you asked again.
After a certain point, it’s really not worth my time to keep pointing out “In a valid war leadership is a valid target.” It’s rather unreasonable of you to ask the same question again and again and then get annoyed when I decide to stop answering it after I’ve given you several answers and you keep asking the same question, just phrased slightly differently.
In point of fact, I have dodged none.
I will note, however, that the folks argue the other side in the thread have dodged mine, repeatedly. Or will you be the one to explain how war/sanctions which harm or kill dramatically more innocents than assassination, which ideally kills no innocents at all, is somehow more ‘moral’. Explain how unnecessary death and misery elevates your position to the level of morality.
As long as you’re concerned about dodging questions, that is.
As this never actually happened, it leaves us with an interesting situation.
We did have one poster post about how this incident was bad because, he claimed, it might lead to certain ramifications in the ‘Arab street’ due to the ZOG conspiracy theory. I refused to engage with such rationalizations for the same reason that I’d refuse to discuss abortion issues with someone who talked about how we really needed to rethink our policies because what might the abortion clinic bombers think?
But I do notice that we’ve now moved on to the classic “Ayieeeee, nobody can criticize anything Israel does without being called an anti-semite!” Unfortunately enough for your claim, nobody in this thread was actually called an anti-semite, let alone an anti-semite conspiracy theorist. Those who were, were the members of hypothetical ‘Arab street’ who we were told subscribe to the ZOG conspiracy theory. You now claim this was about folks in the thread.
I think there’s a message in there somewhere.
Cite me saying that, anywhere.
Not exactly responsive to the OP but a fascinating half hour of spliced surveillance tapes starting 19 hrs before the murder.
Oops! Thanks I get all the regimes mixed up.:smack:
How about if (pick a country)'s intelligence service used YOUR passport for a hit on someone?
I would hope my country would clear it up as soon as possible! I would think it was pretty cool that my passport took out a thug who was responsible for the killing of many people. In the US the person might sue the government agency that stole their passport and get a big settlement. I’m not sure with UK identity theft if you can sue the person or agency that stole your passport? Any lawyers out there?
Thanks for post #246, Finn, and confirming what I said in my previous post.
So by showing that you were completely wrong about everything you said, I confirmed everything you said (that was wrong). Interesting tactic. Not sure of its utility, but interesting. “Thank you for showing I’m wrong, that just proves how right I am!”
Good luck with that.
Oh my god, just thinking about it has given me the vapors!!!
If only dodging was an Olympic sport…
Of course, the claim was not that certain nations have laws that define certain things as murder. The claim was that it is a violation of international law. I take it that your act of changing the subject and trying to substitute a totally different example means that you can not, in fact, show the relevant international law?
Nothing. There are no standards, everything is totally relative, and we can’t even define terrorism if China defines it as whatever they don’t like.
Will you be sending me your computer then? No objective standard of personal property, cultures disagree, yadda yadda. You do really believe that, right? This isn’t a rationalization to avoid defining terrorism? So when can I expect you to send me your computer?
Wrong, bullshit, and nonsense. Nothing has been “pointed out”. In fact, in the fact of numerous challenges to show why, in the history of modern espionage this hasn’t caused problems for nations who passports were used, it suddenly would now, people have remained silent.
Because, the fact is, taking out a terrorist with zero civilian casualties is cleaner and more humane than war or sanctions. You can “point out” whatever you like, but as long as you avoid the very simple facts, you’re not refuting anything, only avoiding.
You haven’t been right about anything. You just declare yourself correct, and will brook no disagreement. You use the words “interesting” and “silly” to mock and show disdain, and your arguments are nothing other than you blustering on and on and on.
Other’s thoughts on the matter are “bullshit”, “wrong”, “nonsense”, “lack cogence”, or are too “relative” to matter.
You really have nothing here, except for volume and an unflinching confidence in your own beliefs.