What is your take on targeted killings of specific folks your country does not like via remote drones? State-sponsored terrorism or not?
Murder? Yes.
Terrorism? No.
Terrorism requires targeting innocents for political purposes. This guy was no innocent, he was a leader of a terrorist organization, directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of many Israeli civilians. I kinda wish they’d wrapped his lifeless corpse in bacon, but I’m harsh that way.
Since when does any nation need proof to do anything? See last year’s hilarious ACORN video expose, the invasion of Iraq or the Vietnam War if you need to research the subject of taking action without any proof.
I think you’re close, but not quite right. Israel is not going to officially confirm or deny involvement in this incident. If pushed, they may say something like “Well, we do not admit responsibility, but we will consider your request when planning future operations…if we ever plan any future operations, by intelligence agents we may or may not have.” And then, if they get another shot at a high value target, they will take him out by any means necessary, and pay lip service to the diplomats as needed.
Behind the scenes, the conversation will likely be a little less formal:
UK: Goddammit, don’t embarrass us this way. It’s bloody inconvenient. But, unofficially and on the “down low” as the Yanks say, nice job.
Israel: Yes, Ma’am, your Queen-y-ness. We won’t never ever do that again. (Wink, nudge, fingers crossed, etc)
Seems to me that if actual proof or lack thereof makes no difference, that’s hardly an argument in favour of not committing the act, realism-wise. You will be blamed whether you commit the act or not, every time one of these shady mooks meets a gory end.
Piss poor argument here, what you are saying is immoral, in that it lacks a moral compass, and is mechanistic.
In one very serious sense, the risk posed to the passport holders is a side issue. What we have is one nation deciding to carry out extrajudicial killings (murder) and on the territory of other nations. In other words, Israel is prepared to follow the law when it suits them.
I don’t care how many other killings have ocurred, by other nations, heck I would not be surprised to find the UK had done it, and I would be utterly amazed to find the US has not done it, but it still is not within the law, not domestic, not international. If this were legal, then there would not have been an undercover element.
It does not matter which country does it, this is still a crime, it was not judicially endorsed and there was no due process. We are civilised or we are not, clearly Israel has signalled its intent, to follow the rule of law when it is convenient.
What we have is a self perpertuating justification for both sides of this divide to continue, and it cannot ever end, all Israel has done is feed the monster.The lot of them should probably go back to herding sheep, living in tents and roaming the deserts, they have not gotten past incidents that took place thousands of years ago, maybe they should live in the same way, the rest of the world hopes to move on.
So we drop down to the level of our enemies, is that the position you wish to hold?
Go back to talking about the ZOG.
I think you’re painting a more rosy picture of their working relationship because you greatly approve of what Israel did, I don’t think most citizens of these countries would agree with you. To the English, French, German, Irish people the death of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh means little to nothing, while the sovereignty (pumped chest, nationalistic flag waving) of their passports/country means a whole lot more (this is the same with Israelis and all other people). The governments’ will act/respond to this in a reasonable and measured way that includes getting Israel to stop forging their passports. Israel will move on, and the European nations will move on. Everyone will stay friends.
There is some differance, we are at war in Afghanistan, and wether I like it or not, the Taliban were actively supporting terrorists, who you will note have murdered people in the UK, Spain and a host of other countries.
We had an international mandate to take part in this Afghani war, nor was there any false justification.
The UK has not used the territory of a third nation to carry this out, and it does not deny its actions either, this is not covert action.
The problem with drones is simple, its all too easy to kill innocents, especially on the basis of false intelligence, but the main thing is this, the process is overseen and individuals are held to account.
Now if you had mentioned Iraq, well that is differant again, because it was all a lie, and I will sure hold them to account in a couple of months in our elections, I wish I could do more - posting on message boards is one very small thing. In the case of the Iraq war, the leaders who made those decisions should be in the Hague, and they should be held to account.
Sorry, I shall make my future posts far more simple, I had not realised your understanding was so limited, my bad.
The utility argument is not a very good way to run a nation. I’m so sorry that you cannot grasp this, my condolances.
No, seriously, don’t bother with these silly flames about how my ability to understand you is somehow limited.
Just go back to talking about the ZOG.
I’ve got no problem with the Israelis taking this guy out. I have a problem with them increasing the danger for British citizens in how they did it, and also in them breaking a direct promise given to the UK in the 1980s that they would not again use British passports for undercover operations.
It is bizzare to me to make any great distinction between Hamas and the taliban.
What of the killings in Pakistan - is that not a ‘third nation’? Indeed, a friendly one?
I see no effective difference between the killing of Mr. Mehsud and the one under discussion here. The article does not say whether or not the UK has carried out such attacks, merely that they have “no reports of killing civilians”.
Well, to be fair there are a lot of distinctions. But none that really matter when we’re discussing if the factions are valid targets and whether or not removing them with zero civilian casualties is better or worse than removing them with some (perhaps lots) of collateral damage.
Meh. IF this was a Mossad Operation–and despite many claims in this thread that it was, that has not been established–they’ll likely not use UK passports for another 20-30 years or so, unless they really need to do it. In which case they will, and nothing much will be done about it then either.
True 'nuff. What I meant was ‘for this purpose’.
If you don’t commit the act, what will you (or anyone else) be blamed for?
Obviously if a murder is committed the authorities present will try and establish who is responsible. What blame would there be for a non-murder, and why?
I’d point you to “The Philadelphia Experiment”, the “Zionists who control America”, “Chemtrails”, “Israeli sex gum and evil killer rats” and so on.
Nothing has to actually even exist for people to invent nefarious details about it.
You don’t get it.
For guys like this murder is an occupational hazard. They fight among themselves and have lots of nasty external enemies, including the Mossad.
If actual proof as to whether the Mossad did any particular murder is essentially irrelevant for blaming them and taking action against Israel, then what is to stop the Mossad from being blamed every single time one of these shady types ends up spectacularly dead, and no obvious suspect is collared?
And if so, why should the Mossad not carry out such operations - if they are to be blamed anyway?