# So if Mossad used UK passports whats the correct response?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-if-mossad-used-uk-passports-whats-the-correct-response/529459>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [February 18, 2010, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-if-mossad-used-uk-passports-whats-the-correct-response/529459 "2010-02-18T12:33:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 253

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-if-mossad-used-uk-passports-whats-the-correct-response/529459/253 "2010-02-20T19:53:44Z")

</div>

> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#):
>
> 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.

> [@Desert\_Nomad](#):
>
> How about if (pick a country)'s intelligence service used YOUR passport for a hit on someone?

Oh my god, just thinking about it has given me the vapors!!!

> [@Hawkeyeop](#):
>
> You need a cite that you aren’t allowed to commit murder in other sovereign nations? Really?

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?

> [@Hawkeyeop](#):
>
> You act like there is this official definition of what a terrorist is. To you he may be a smiling old man, but to China might be considered a terrorist. What makes China’s definition of a terrorist less valid than yours? Or Iran’s for that matter.

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?

> [@Hawkeyeop](#):
>
> That is flat out wrong as had been pointed out over and over again in the thread.

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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-if-mossad-used-uk-passports-whats-the-correct-response/529459)._