Throughout this thread, the points raised above have been put, however the deniers steadfastly refuse to properly address them.
Still, perhaps a response to that post which puts things in about as plain manner as is possible deserves a proper reply.
I have no idea what your point was then.
I said:
You replied:
My point: if actual proof is irrelevant or unnecessary, then from a realism angle they have nothing to lose from committing the “offense”. They will be blamed (or take credit) for any and all misterious deaths anyway.
“I didn’t get a Harrumph out of that guy”-GOV
Your hypocrisy is staggering. No one has established that. You have said it repeatedly. Now this may come as a surprise to you, but your subjective (and not particulary cogent) opinion is not gospel truth.
Other people have repeatedly disagreed with you. But you carry on saying it has been “established” in some way.
I would argue it very much matters.
The issue of whether a particular person is, or is not, a terrorist isn’t purely a matter of opinion.
Killing a former foreign head of state is an act of aggression against a country, which creates very different ramifications.
Yet similar folks are summarily killed without trial in battle, or by use of remote drones targeting them.
The difference is surely clear: in the one case, you have power over them as they are captives: in the other, they are fighting against you and you don’t have power over them.
If nations did not shelter terrorists and instead arrested them and took them captive - if Dubai, for example, had arrested this fellow and tossed him in jail for his crimes - he could have all the due process anyone would want.
Slippery slope and moral equivalency. If you fight back, why, you are just as bad as the terrorists!
The problem here is that you have non-state actors who already fail to adhere to any moral standards and who are often supported or sheltered by states. How to deal with them? Wring hands, go to war with the states sheltering them? That was the US solution in Afganistan.
Which is better, to you - all-out war, in which thousands die and whole countries are trashed, or an assassination?
International law is a series of conventions between states. It has no independent existance. There is no sovereign enforcing it.
Its relevance to the murky world of spies and assassins is minimal. There is nothing in “international law” which makes any use of such figures “lawful” yet every state uses them.
The reason is simple - the alternative, where a country chooses to shelter terrorists who kill your civilians, is warfare, which is fully "lawful’ under “international law”. War, in which perhaps thousands of innocent civilians die, whole countries are trashed, etc.
That, or of course doing nothing - i.e., allowing terrorists to murder your citizens without recourse.
The middle ground between doing nothing and war is the use of spies and assassins. “International law”, which only recognizes war and peace, does not provide for this, yet it occurrs - because the alternatives are worse.
Hamas and their ilk already fail to adhere to any moral standards. Threatening us with a degeneration in their moral standards is hollow.
What other country? An autocratic government that suppresses the basic human rights of its own citizens vs. a democratic government? Not all things and governments are equal. Not all opinions are valid.
Compared to whom? Saddam? If there was no Saddam there probably wouldn’t have been an invasion. Will you compare a leader in a democratically elected liberal democracy with a totalitarian dictator and say they are equal? That Bush was a fuckup and couldn’t do the job properly with minimal loss is another issue. Maybe a hit squad would have been a better idea. How many less innocent Iraqis would have been killed if Saddam had been killed that way?
What other options are there? The UAE wasn’t going to deport the guy to Israel to stand trial. None of the other countries this guy probably traveled in would have likely done it, either. Should Israel sit still and let this guy continually plan to kill its citizens because the guy is smart enough not to be in a place he could be arrested?
What matters is who wins, not the ‘rightness’ of a particular cause. It would be better if those who won were people who valued an open society where people could live unafraid of their government, but that doesn’t mean it will happen. If that society has to kill everyone who wished to destroy it then that is better than if the other side wins.
What makes you think they DO adhere to any moral standard other than their own? To fire rockets indiscriminately into Israel to kill randomly. To use their neighbors as human shields. This is a moral standard? Better they are dead, along with those that support them is it not? You acting moral doesn’t make the guy wanting to kill you hesitate to do so. You having the power to fuck up his world if he attempts it does (at least to a certain extent).
Does anyone really believe this has come to the public’s attention against the Israeli’s wishes? It seems more like an intended slip just to show their enemies what capabilities they have, and how easily they can manipulate their Western allies. Think about it - this is as much a statement of Israel’s intent as any bomb in a market square.
Sounds like a plan that is both too smart and too stupid. 
The Israelis are fully capable of simply screwing things up - though this assassination isn’t nearly as screwed up as it could have been.
I’m confused. Which one of those is Israel?
In what decent, democratic country would the passport application office know an applicant was Jewish?
Good point and well-scored.
You are only saying this because your side is winning. However, if there were no sense of ‘rightness’ there would not be Israel to begin with.
Actually, it does. It’s just that definition of what constitutes ‘acting moral’ kinda differs and this topic alone shows how skewed that definition is.
But hey, enjoy while you can. Everyone would. And it appears it’ll be a long while.
So instead of following the due process of the UAE, Israel thinks they can forge British passports and subvert the laws of a soverign state (what is the correct way to describe the UAE?) that is not at war with Israel?
Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t that sort of state sponsored law breaking and assasination pretty much an act of war?
What if, the US was hosting the Dalai Lama and let’s say Syriah decided to assasinate him while there - what would the US response be?
You mention “what else are we to do to capture him”.
Well I put it to you, given the resources that the Palestinians have, what else are they to do but randomly lob rockets? Yes they are terrorists, but this assination violated the laws of Dubai and England, as well as went against their national interests (as they deem those interests to be), how is that not terrorism?
But I guess its ok, because the guy deserved to die, so you are allowed to do whatever is required to get the job done?
Sure, assassination of someone “hosted” by a state may well be an act of war against a state.
But then, so is “hosting” someone who is guilty of committing terrorist acts against a state. The UK is in Afganistan right now on just such justification.
By these measures, both Dubai and Israel now have just cause for war against each other, assuming they wished to engage in such.
But that brings me to my earlier point - in your opinion, is war the preferrable solution?
No its not, but there is one difference between the two causes. The guy was in Dubai, Israel doesn’t get to dictate laws to Dubai. Is there any sort of evidence, suggestion or anything that Dubai is sponsoring terrorism against Israel?
And by your measure, China now has a cause of war against the US.
I dunno. You are the one making the comparison between the US officially “hosting” the Dalai Lama and this situation.
I have no idea whatsoever whether this Hamas fellow was being "hosted’ by Dubai or not. To the extent he is, it’s a clear cause for war, exactly analogous to Afganistan.
Last I checked, the Dalai Lama wasn’t ordering Tibetian monks to blow up Chinese schoolkids.
The issue is, Israel doesn’t like the guy.
China doesn’t like the Dalai Lama.
If there is a case, then bring the case, as China has done to the US.
Don’t subvert the laws of another country. (or another TWO countries) Israel is not the world arbiter of justice, or of what is right and wrong. They should behave like “good citizens”, just as every other nation is expected to.
At the end of the day, every nation on earth survives and prospers based on the (collective) good will of the rest of world. Piss enough people off and then where will Israel be?
Just because they have the big brother in their corner, doesn’t mean they should get to act against the rest of the world with impunity. They should still show some modicum of respect for other nations.
That’s not the issue. If it was, I’d be agreeing.
The Dalai Lama is not comparable in his acts with a Hamas commander.
The one is a peaceful spiritual leader and the other a commander of terrorists. The two are not equivalent, and a theory that requires them to be for purposes of analogy is clearly flawed.
Problem here is that, apparently, there is nothing wrong in large parts of the world with being a terrorist against certain targets. What would happen if Israel asked Dubai to arrest a Hamas leader? a big fat rasberry.
Why did the UK not simply “bring the case” against Bin Laden & his crew in Afganistan?
Heh, same goes triple for the UK in Afganistan. They did not simply “subvert the laws” of Afganistan, they invaded the place, turfed out its government and pounded it into a shithole - all for the “crime” of supporting Bin Laden & Co.
Why can’t the UK be a good world citizen and leave poor Afganistan in peace? Just because they have the big bad US in their corner … etc.
Well for one, whether or not Dubai wants to take action is their decision and no-one else’s.
Now if Israel wants to come to the UN and say that Dubai has a responsibility to take action, and the rest of the world agrees, then Dubai either abides, or suffers the consequences.
And as to Afghanistan, wasn’t that pretty much approved by the UN? Or at least - it wasn’t the UK acting alone, as Israel has done here.
Going by your (seeming) argument, if I decide tomorrow that I don’t like Judaism, I have every right to kill Jews, so long as I have the might to carry it out.
Yes, there is little disagreement that this man was a terrorist. What wasn’t present was some form of hunting license on him, or a price on his head or anything similiar. And until such time, Israel should respect the laws of other nations - especially when they promised that they would do so (second such case perpetrated against the UK right?)
I can see how extra-judicial killing is attractive to Israel.
Imagine if it were possible to build a case against this person and have them extradited back to stand trial. Such a trial might involve dealing with some awkward questions, and would possibly become a platform for the accused.
There would be significant legal costs, there would also be a potential martyr/figurehead, and it might possibly provoke a Hamas abduction of Israeli citizens or soldiers in an attempt to trade.
Once sentenced, such a person would always be a security risk, and would always be a potential asset to be traded.
This would be quite inconvenient, for Israel, its far easier just to murder him on foreign soils, implicate or at least compromise the passports of others, and in the process break a whole host of nation laws and the the bonus is that they end up with a dead suspect.
I just wonder how much interest Israel really does have in bringing this sort of person to face justice, very little I would imagine.
Having a proper legal process means you have to obey your own laws and respect those of other nations, it means you cannot simply do what you want when you want, and you don’t always get the results you want, but Israel wishes to be considered a civilised nation, yet chooses not to behave as one.
Somehow Israel wants us to see it as being differant to Hamas and other terrorist organisations, but does not want due process to get in the way, but its due process that is one of the distinguishing features of a civilised nation.
Yet many other nations face such issues, there are plenty of terrorists locked up in prisons around the world, and there are plenty of terrorists that various nations would dearly like to apprehend - yet they do not seem to have this method as a national policy. Is Israel so special? Gods chosen people can justifiy anything it seems.