Let’s not overreact to Mossad’s hit on a terrorist

Bertrand says:

11:36am | 25/03/10

You seem to struggle to differentiate between killing terrorists, who would be happy to shoot you for a liberal who no doubt supports women and gay rights, democracy, freedom of religion etc, and Australian soldiers who are trying to kill terrorists (who would be happy to shoot you etc).

You see, people who don’t like us because we are western liberals, and who would kill us for it, should die. We are not obliged to defend those who would kill us if they had the opportunity.

You have made a mistake in thinking everyone has the same rights. They don’t. The Israeli’s should kill terrorists, and we should support them because we also hate terrorists. The Taliban should be killed, because we don’t like them. Rights don’t enter the debate at all.

Adam says:

08:49am | 26/03/10

It’s not murder when you squash a bug. And Cast Lead was something they should do more often.

Dan says:

03:31pm | 26/03/10

Adam, only a sociapath would say something like that.

Bertrand, simply because we don’t like something does not mean we should kill them. That reason is simply not good enough.

McDil says:

08:28am | 25/03/10

Precisely. If you don’t make a diplomatic song-and-dance (in your words) about the misuse of an integral national document like a passport then you might as well pack up the shop. It is obfuscation to discuss this solely in terms of the assassination. The problem is not about the hit, it is about how it was conducted.

Overflow says:

09:00am | 25/03/10

But will Australia promise never to use false foreign passports in any of our operations??

Bertrand says:

01:16pm | 25/03/10

I am sure the author would have written a similar article if the Iranians were killing Hamas terrorists. However, since Iran supports Hamas, i don’t think the author will ever be confronted with the ethical conundrum you describe.

Brendan Brown says:

01:40pm | 25/03/10

Yes, if the Iranians were to kill a terrorist then I may have written a similar article. However it was the Israeli’s that did. The Australian Government can’t condone the way it was conducted but it should appreciate why it was conducted and therefore temper its reaction.

iansand says:

02:53pm | 25/03/10

The Iranians might call Mossad operatives terrorists, or the blokes guiding the drones in Pakistan.  They would have a pretty good argument.  Would you condone those assassinations?

As always, the trick is identifying the terrorists.

Hades says:

03:17pm | 25/03/10

@ Brendan,

“The Australian Government can’t condone the way it was conducted but it should appreciate why it was conducted and therefore temper its reaction. “

The Israeli’s forged Australian passports to commit murder.  Does it really matter who the victim was?  Should our government say “Oh, the man was a terrorist!  In that case go ahead and forge Australian Passports.  That’s fine.”

If it’s okay for the Israeli’s to kill a terrorist, then let them use their own passports.

Jane says:

08:10am | 25/03/10

I agree with you David. Israel can not act outside of agreed international laws and conventions, or impede on state sovereignty without consequences. Australia and Britain have not over reacted at all in relation to the misuse of passports.

Brendan Brown says:

01:47pm | 25/03/10

You make your point well but I don’t agree that state sovereignty is more important than dealing with terrorism. The sanctity of a state’s passport system does not outweigh potentially saving innocent lives. The Australian Government has the right to protect its passport system but it shouldn’t berate Israel for an understandable action.

Adam says:

08:42am | 26/03/10

Allied countries? I think not. The only ally Israel has is the US which is why none of their passports were used.

Jim Wiggs says:

03:26pm | 25/03/10

I expect you’re right, but previously the fake passports were for fake identities, not theft of real identities.  Maybe with current-day systems and technology it’s too difficult to create truly fake passports, so they’re forced to resort to this caper.

Bertrand says:

09:49am | 25/03/10

Maybe you should read up about the 1967 war. Its important information to be across.

I read an interesting peace yesterday which has said that the reason there is continual violence in the region is because the rest of the world steps in, enforcing peace and leading to artificial resolutions.

The result is that the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab countries never accept that they lost the wars they have fought with Israel, and that there are consequences for losing wars.

(Note that the Palestinians and Arab states started all of of those wars, with the exception of the most recent Lebanese foray, unless of course you count Israel existing as a fundamental insult and prima facie act of aggression).

In each conflict, the international community has come in, enforced a peace and then paid the Palestinians huge amount of money to stay where they are. The end result is that the Palestinians hold out hope for receiving land which they never really owned.

Imagine if this had happened in the Balkans. In the 90’s, the Serbs invaded Croatia, and for a while the war was going very well for the Serbs. In the end, the Croatians rallied and the Serbs were forced to sign a peace treaty.

Many people lost their lives, some Croats in Serbia had to move to Croatia, some Serbs in Croatia relocated to Serbia, and now we have a reasonably stable situation in the Balkans.

Imagine now that instead of fighting until one side was forced to accept that they had lost, halfway through the war the international community came in decided that the serbs had won, and that they should receive the land that they had so far taken. Of course, in this situation the Croats would be very pissed off.

Now assume that the UN said that the felt badly for the Croats having lost, and as a consequence of feeling bad would pay them $10 billion per year to make it up to them. Now the Croats realize that not only do they think they have been badly done by, but the rest of the world feels a bit sorry for them too.

Of course in this situation the Croats would harbor terrible grievances, because they are being paid to do so.

Back to the Palestinians, its too late now to do anything very constructive. But after the 1948 war in which Israel was formed out of the British Protectorate, over a million Jews were expelled from Arab countries. They went and resettled in Israel.

It would have been much better for all concerned if each time Israel won a war it hadn’t started, the world had let Israel implement effective penalties on the losers. The Palestinians could then have gone to live in Jordan, Egypt, Syria (or pretty much wherever they wanted).

(Please note, this post is a very abridged view of the Balkans in the 90’s, and i have no interest in debating the history of the Balkans or respective ethnicities grievances)

AdamC says:

10:45am | 25/03/10

Bertrand, that is an interesting perspective, and has some merits. Of course, another difference between the Middle East and the Balkans is that the international settlements have never been effectively enforced. Certainly, the attempts to contain Israel have failed. It would have been far better if Israel had been allowed to fully annexe the West Bank at the time.

Still, we only have the ‘facts on the ground’ that we have ...

stephen says:

03:28pm | 25/03/10

The New Historians of Israel, which includes Tom Segev, has re-written the Israeli position in this matter.
Your info, Bertrand, is 20 years out of date.

BTS says:

09:38am | 25/03/10

How do you know the identities were stolen?

Dan says:

04:23pm | 25/03/10

Nobody said it was okay to use a Predator drone, however this isn’t abo the assassination. This is about forged passports. Also, the reason terrorists should get a fair trial is because society happens to believe that everyone are entitled to the rule of law. That does not mean it will always happen in practise, but if we can make it happen, then we must do so.

Zeta says:

10:48am | 25/03/10

So… Terrorists should receive a fair trial… and be excused for their crimes because some of them get assassinated?

If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Some dude in sandals said that.

Bertrand says:

11:27am | 25/03/10

I would be interested in hearing your plan to bring in other terrorists for fair trial.

Of course, at one stage Israel went to South America and kidnapped Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi architect of the Holocaust. They brought him back to Israel and he faced a properly constituted Court and was found guilty.

Bravo, you might say, thats how it should happen. But heres the catch. In carrying out this kidnapping (which is a crime, i might add), the Israeli’s used fake passports and fake identity’s. They probably had to; its unlikely Adolf Eichmann would have gone with a bunch of Israeli’s who claimed to be Israeli’s.

So would you agree that deceiving and kidnapping terrorists is alright, provided they receive a fair trial?

If you don’t agree (that kidnapping terrorists is permissible) and you won’t agree to killing them, and you accept that they probably won’t trundle down to the Court house under their own steam, i think it is fair to say that you don’t actually want the terrorists to face the consequences of their actions.

Zeta says:

12:24pm | 25/03/10

Actually Israel represents a stabilising influence. No one has been stupid enough to attack Israel overtly since the unpleasantness during Yom Kippur in ‘73. With no one willing to attack them, the Middle Eastern arms race plateued in the early 1980s. Why bother developing nuclear weapons or expanding armies if the Israelis will simply bomb them back into the stone age? Saddam learned this the hard way in 81 when the Israelis destroyed his first (and only) nuclear reactor.

When you think about it, it was probably only the ever present threat of a sudden strike from Israel that prevented a larger build up of arms in Iran and Iraq, thus limiting the damage done by the Iran / Iraq War.

Attacking Israel conventionally represents unilaterally assured destruction to the aggressor. That’s why anti-semites the world over have turned to terrorism and kidnapping to target them.

And that’s why Israel has turned to covert means of protecting their soverignty, such as assassination. Your statement that Israel is a failed experiment is simply laughable. They’re a successful experiment in creating a powerful, self-reliant, independent State. If anyone tries to wipe them off the map, they’ll kill them at the borders, chase them into their home country and kill them there, then they’ll kill their families in case their sons even consider revenge. Then they’ll go to work on whoever funded them.

If World War 3 started tomorrow, my money would be on Israel and Switzerland just kicking back after the dust settles, munching down on chocolate and latkas and high fiving each other because they’re the last people left.

Dan Lewis says:

12:33pm | 25/03/10

Isn’t it funny then, that Muslims are slaughtering non-Muslims in dozens of countries worldwide, without a single Jew or Israeli in sight.

I’m glad Israel is killing terrorists, so the rest of the world can sleep better at night.

Macon Paine says:

02:18pm | 25/03/10

How did this “Unzionist” with his/her very thinly veiled anti-semitism slip through the mods?

I dont expect you to answer any of my questions, your most likely one of those hit and run posters but anyway here goes.
“Israel is the number one reason there is so much strife in the world.”
Source please? Surely your not just making wild unsupported assertions? And let me guess, you question whether the holocaust really happened dont you?
“Israel is a failed experiment, wipe it off the map. “
How exactly do you propose Israel be “wiped off the map”?
Wait a minute, is that you Mahmoud Ahmadinajad? The president of Iran? Either way you are despicable Unzionist, hang your head in shame.

stephen says:

03:16pm | 25/03/10

One cannot live on Uzi’s and cookoo clocks alone, Zeta.

Hades says:

03:37pm | 25/03/10

Zeta.  My money’s on China.

Dan says:

04:27pm | 25/03/10

Zeta, ‘they’ll kill their families in case their sons even consider revenge”? Uh, no, but if they did, it would be indefensible murder. You do realise that killing civilians can not be justified?

Lewis, plenty of non-Muslims are killing Muslims (let’s not let facts get in the way of your Islamophobia.) If you really think that ‘Muslims are slaughtering non-Muslims in dozens of countries worldwide’’ (which being an Islamophobe you absoluely do), you need to do something foreign to yourself such as research!

You don’t have a issue with forged passports used in this way? Then you should have no problem with Hamas using your passport to kill an Israeli!

Shane From Melbourne says:

06:18pm | 25/03/10

Don’t think so Zeta. As far as I know the Palestinians are out populating the Isrealis and will roll over Isreal some day if the Iranians don’t nuke it first.

Hades says:

03:36pm | 25/03/10

Yeah, but they all used their own passports.  The Americans and South Africans didn’t forge Australian or British passports to get there.

If Israel wants to wipe out the terrorists, that’s fine.  I agree with that.  But, *don’t* forge our passports to do it.

Tina says:

02:01pm | 25/03/10

America do it from drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If someone planned to fire a rocket into Australia perhaps people would have a different reaction ...  it’s not clear to me that terrorists civil liberties should be respected.

Zeta says:

02:49pm | 25/03/10

Once you leave Australia, the world really isn’t that civilised. Barbarians are still at the gates… and the legislation enabling our Secret Intelligence Service specifically states they are immune from prosecution in Australia if they break foreign laws… A lot of respect there huh?

And contrary to popular belief, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs could authorise the assassination of a foreign national through a convoluted Ministerial process outlined in the Intelligence Services Act.

According to the Act: The responsible Minister may direct ASIS to undertake activities… if the Minister:

              (a)  has consulted other Ministers who have related responsibilities; and (b) is satisfied that there are satisfactory arrangements in place to ensure that, in carrying out the direction, nothing will be done beyond what is necessary having regard to the purposes for which the direction is given; and (c) is satisfied that there are satisfactory arrangements in place to ensure that the nature and consequences of acts done in carrying out the direction will be reasonable having regard to the purposes for which the direction is given.

Then section (4) states: in performing its functions, ASIS must not plan for, or undertake, activities that involve: (a) paramilitary activities; or   (b)  violence against the person; or (c) the use of weapons. Which would make it appear that assassination was forbidden until you get to:  Subsection (4) does not prevent: (a) the provision of weapons, or training in the use of weapons or in self?defence techniques, in accordance with Schedule 2; or (b) the use of weapons or self?defence techniques in accordance with Schedule 2.

So, if Schedule 2 is used by the Minister to order ASIS to undertake an action, they can use weapons to carry it out. The big teases leave what those directions and action might be to the imagination.

But consider this… Australia has never been successfuly attacked by terrorists. Just saying.

Dan says:

04:05pm | 25/03/10

Tina, it’s not about terrorists’ civil liberties. It’s about forging passports of people who weren’t involved. Also, using America as a comparison doesn’t really help your case. They do alot of things which most civilised nations would’t do.

Alexander says:

05:06pm | 25/03/10

To “the bigger issue is whether it’s actually effective in preventing future acts of terrorism. ”  I think we can pretty reasonably say NO!  Killing an arms dealer might slow things down a little, but it will not stop, and will most likely incite terrorism.  I still say that making such use of assassination as a tool of policy is a form of terrorism.  Do not stand up to us and try to fight us or we will kill you in your bed while you sleep.  I also remind you that in the British Mandate, the Zionists were the Terrorists.  One mans Freedom Fighter is another man’s Terrorist.

As for a rebuke in private, where is the sense in that.  Silence is seen to condone the action, inaction is to condone the action.  The rebuke MUST be public.  They already hold us in so little regard that they are willing to endanger the lives of 26 foreign nationals.  They have shown that even after being caught, in NZ, that they are willing to continue to do it.  I would suggest that the private rebuke’s that surely followed these and presumably other unreported incidents went unheard and thus escalation was required.

Dan says:

04:22pm | 25/03/10

Angela, the fact that it was so ‘sloppy’ is exactly why Mossad did it. Afterall, they can then turn around and say that ‘of course we didn’t do it, would we be so stupid? etc…’

Also, you don’t know how they would have done it. Unless you are an expert in the art of assassination. You also say that the Arb countries are ‘well know for sloppy Assassination attempts.’ Except what makes you think that Mossad aren’t sloppy themselves or that this wasn’t deliberately sloppy?

“And why is everyone whining abut some Hamas Leader who has blood on their hands,” Uh, nobody is whining about that. It is about forged passports. Perhaps you could read up on the issue?

“seems to me Western Governments are to Soft. Isreal has lived with terrorism for years its about time the rest of us woke to the reality that it not all about Stolen Passports.” We all aren’t as cold-blooded and murderous as you. Again, this is NOT about the assassination. This is about stole passports. Why don’t you wak up to the reality that you don’t know what the issue is and you need to do a bit of research?!

Alexander says:

05:34pm | 25/03/10

Oh Dear Angela…
can I summarise please,
You can’t trust the Arab’s because they are dirty. It wasn’t Mossad because they got caught.  Who cares anyway because the victim was a killer.  Israel is allowed to because they didn’t start it.
Please tell me if I am off target.
What can I say… leaving out the issues of bluff, double bluff and triple bluff in the spy game.  They almost got away with it.  Only a chance examination buy the coroner spotted the marks.  They were only caught because the primitive Arab’s had State of the Art surveillance systems everywhere and knew how to use them.  26 people involved now have their biometric scans on the Interpol watch list. 
The Passport’s were not Stolen they were FORGED.  Think about that next time you travel on your Australian Passport and have to go through extra security because they are not trusted anymore.
I admire your enthusiasm but I ask you to apply more rational thought to your arguments.  And I haven’t even started on the 6th.

Angela says:

07:33pm | 25/03/10

Seriously guys get a grip, and nobody said Dirty Arabs or anything of the kind.

I know its about Fake Passports but the issue is has Dubai produced anything any proof, no all names from fake passports of real people who I feel extremely sorry for.

If this constitues proof of Mossad then what are the real agents name, once again a Middle East Report without facts, I want the facts and nothing else. They have no provided this except some cockamamie picture supposedly showing Israel Mossad Agents I find it very hard to swallow they had so many agents in Dubai without their secret service knowing about it this is a joke from start to finish, show me the proof and then I will concede but its highly unlike you guys or the Dubai authority will produce anything lol.

But why so many people for one Hamas Militant who was by himself in Dubai, this does not fit this is what I am trying to wrap my head around its just not something the Israels are know for, and I do know what i am talking about guys when it comes to these kind of assassination.  I have never heard them use 30 Agents to get one Militant that was clearly traveling on his own, somebody set this guy up and it was not Israel.

Dan says:

02:13am | 26/03/10

Angela, you say that we don’t proof that it was Mossad, yet you don’t have proof that it wasn’t.

“I find it very hard to swallow they had so many agents in Dubai without their secret service knowing about it .” If you’re referring to the Dubai secret service, it’s not as if Mossad would advertise ‘we are Mossad agents out to committ an assassination.’ If you’re referring to Mossad, how do you know that Mossad are telling the truth?

“But why so many people for one Hamas Militant who was by himself in Dubai” To make it appear as such that they weren’t responsible.

“I have never heard them use 30 Agents to get one Militant that was clearly traveling on his own” None of us has, which is why it makes it is is entirely logical that Mossad was involved.

“show me the proof and then I will concede but its highly unlike you guys or the Dubai authority will produce anything lol.” Why do we need to provide you with proof? Whatever evidence the Dubai authorities have, they aren’t going to let you in on it lol.

BTW, I also know what I’m talking about myself when it comes to assassinations, and I am aware that ‘sloppy’ or ‘stupidly planned’ assasssinations are often deliberate.

“Somebody set this guy up and it was not Israel.” You know this how? Where are your facts? You say that you want facts to support the theory that Israel was involved, well, you need to provide facts and evidence to support your theory that Israel was not involved.

Macon Paine says:

08:54am | 26/03/10

Dan, Couple of points I want to bring up.
“Angela, you say that we don’t proof that it was Mossad, yet you don’t have proof that it wasn’t.”
Irrelevant, the onus is not on Israel to prove they didn’t do it. It’s called the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on whoever is making the allegation. It’s why we have the whole innocent until proven guilty thing in our court system. Heres an example, Dan you are an anti-semite, prove you are not. See how it works?
““But why so many people for one Hamas Militant who was by himself in Dubai” To make it appear as such that they weren’t responsible.”
Wasn’t the idea to prevent him from signing an arms deal in Dubai? If they where as competant and all seeing/knowing as you seem to believe then wouldn’t they have offed him without having to go through this whole charade of passport forgery etc long before he got to Dubai?

“show me the proof and then I will concede but its highly unlike you guys or the Dubai authority will produce anything lol.” “Why do we need to provide you with proof? Whatever evidence the Dubai authorities have, they aren’t going to let you in on it lol.”
Angela is 100% correct. If Dubai has proof they will have to disclose it eventually, so in the fullness of time (probably after they have ended their investigations) we can learn exactly what happened and who did what, it’s the whole innocent until proven guilty thing your discarding again Dan.
“BTW, I also know what I’m talking about myself when it comes to assassinations, and I am aware that ‘sloppy’ or ‘stupidly planned’ assasssinations are often deliberate.”
Can you please direct me to some sources that prove this, I would be very interested in this.
““Somebody set this guy up and it was not Israel.” You know this how? Where are your facts? You say that you want facts to support the theory that Israel was involved, well, you need to provide facts and evidence to support your theory that Israel was not involved.”
Angela does not have to produce any facts or evidence (if you can make unsupported accusations so can everyone else) considering you’ve failed to provide any evidence they are responsible (burden of proof again Dan) and especially when your line of proof boils down to “the fact that it was so ‘sloppy’ is exactly why Mossad did it” and “BTW, I also know what I’m talking about “. That doesn’t cut it Dan, we have to wait until Dubai has finished their investigations before we can know for sure.

Alexander says:

11:26am | 26/03/10

I have to apologise for the Dirty Arab comment Angela.  That was a cheap shot and I shouldn’t have taken it. 
You are talking like someone who has been involved in the international intelligence and counter-intelligence game, but what you are saying is not sounding quite right right. I wonder how many Mossad Covert Operations you are personally aware of.  I propose that if you were personally aware of many of them that you would not be talking about them.
Personally I am taking the professional opinions of the Intelligence and Diplomatic communities around the world that it was Mossad that was responsible.  The target fits.  The MO fits.  The crew size is correct for a Covert Op on a very wary target.  I doubt there will ever be proof one way or the other who was responsible.  The perpetrators will have to go to ground now that their biometrics are on record and they have Interpol Arrest Warrants for them.  Unless they are remarkably stupid they will simply not travel on international air flights and will never be caught.  If this is a frame job on Mossad then I am sure they will clear their name in time and we can all look a little embarrassed at accusing them unfairly.

Dan says:

03:34pm | 26/03/10

Paine, I don’t know why I would bother responding to you, but whatever,

” Irrelevant, the onus is not on Israel to prove they didn’t do it. It’s called the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on whoever is making the allegation. It’s why we have the whole innocent until proven guilty thing in our court system.” Uh, I know whay the burden of proof is, and I don’t need to be lectured from you on anything. However, if you think that it applies in an international context involving nations, then you are even more naive than I thought. When discussing things thatt particular nations do which will never go to court and will never be proved either way, a burden of proof isn’t so important; we can make logical assumptions that certain nations did certain things. I guess you think that the CIA hasn’t committ torture, since it wasn’t proven in a court of law? The reality is that we will never know for sure whether Israel did it, but we can presume. That is what this article is about. The author is making the valid assumption that Israel did it. Are you really that naive?

“Heres an example, Dan you are an anti-semite, prove you are not. See how it works?” LOL, are you serious? If you are going to use an analogy, at least use something that makes sense. That is so stupid it’s not worth responding to.

” Wasn’t the idea to prevent him from signing an arms deal in Dubai? If they where as competant and all seeing/knowing as you seem to believe then wouldn’t they have offed him without having to go through this whole charade of passport forgery etc long before he got to Dubai?” I never said they were all seeing/knowing, however the fact that so many people were used to kill him is not evidence they weren’t involved.

  “ Angela is 100% correct. If Dubai has proof they will have to disclose it eventually, so in the fullness of time (probably after they have ended their investigations) we can learn exactly what happened and who did what,” No, she is not correct. Do you really think that we will hear about the evidence? You are so naive!

“it’s the whole innocent until proven guilty thing your discarding again Dan.” You really need to learn about international relations. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t really apply.

”  “BTW, I also know what I’m talking about myself when it comes to assassinations, and I am aware that ‘sloppy’ or ‘stupidly planned’ assasssinations are often deliberate.”
  Can you please direct me to some sources that prove this, I would be very interested in this.” ? International relations is one of my specialites, however I was also responding to Angela’s “I know what I’m talking about when it comes to these kinds of assassination.”

” Angela does not have to produce any facts or evidence” You are the last person who should be making comments on debate and logic. However, I will say if someone says ‘somebody set this guy up and it was not Israel’, they absolutely should provide evidence.

“(if you can make unsupported accusations so can everyone else)” I wasn’t making any unsupported accusations. I was simply pointing out that the reality is that Israel was almost certainly involved.

Oh, and if you think I was, then you are on the wrong thread, as the writer seems to think that Israel did it, and they didn’t offer enormous evidence.

” ‘considering you’ve failed to provide any evidence they are responsible (burden of proof again Dan)’  ” Again, you are naive and you need to do some research.  This may shock you, but you are nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are, and you are certainly incredibly naive. Did you learn about the burden of proof yesterday? Is that why you are so fixated with it?

” ‘and especially when your line of proof boils down to “the fact that it was so ‘sloppy’ is exactly why Mossad did it”’ ” Actually, that wasn’t my line of proof. I was simply pointing out that these weren’t evidence that Israeld didn’t do it.

  ”  and “BTW, I also know what I’m talking about “

That doesn’t cut it Dan, we have to wait until Dubai has finished their investigations before we can know for sure.” ” Two comments. One I was responding to Angela, and two, you are nowhere near intelligent to presume that you have the capacity to judge whether it cuts it. Oh, and we will never know for sure.

I don’t know why I responded to you, since you are the last person to give anyone a lecture on this, considering you are clearly way over your head. I might not in future.

Macon Paine says:

09:32am | 29/03/10

@ Dan
Dan, Dan, Dan I’ll respond in point form:
1) Actually that seems reasonable on the face of it, although that is a form of special pleading which is dubious and should be taken with a grain of salt.
2) Fair enough Dan, then you shouldn’t have.
3) Read your exhange with Angela” “But why so many people for one Hamas Militant who was by himself in Dubai” To make it appear as such that they weren’t responsible.” You claim the use of a large amount of people is evidence they were involved, yet when someone disputes this you say it cant be used as evidence they weren’t involved.
4) Angela is correct. Whoever is responsible for this assassination has broken international laws and committed forgery, as you claim to be an authority on this perhaps you can tell us which ones exactly? Come on you’ve got plenty of time to do some investigoogling.
5) Yes I have much to learn, I freely admit that, im not claiming to be the authority here Dan, which brings me to my next point.
6) You appeal to your own authority which you have failed to establish. This makes it an “appeal to a questionable authority”. For all we know (and going by your reluctance to offer evidence to support your claims) your “authority” most likely consists of a pass mark in 2 unit modern history.
7) Thats a bit rich Dan, why does it seem as though you demand a higher standard of evidence from others. However, I will say if someone says “Angela, the fact that it was so ‘sloppy’ is exactly why Mossad did it. Afterall, they can then turn around and say that ‘of course we didn’t do it, would we be so stupid? etc…’”  they absolutely should provide evidence. So live up to your own standards Dan.
8) I may be naive Dan and we all need to do some reasearch but you dont know everything so please stop acting like some know it all and try to be more civil to people. I pointed out the burden of proof because on three occasions I noticed you attempted to shift it.
9) You state :“I wasn’t making any unsupported accusations.” Oh really? You said “Angela, the fact that it was so ‘sloppy’ is exactly why Mossad did it.”. Seems like a fairly unsupported accusation from here.
10) Great, you finish it all off with a personal attack! I wont bother to reply to any of your posts so now we are both happy!

Dan says:

10:30pm | 29/03/10

Pine, if you are going to respond to me, at least indicate what you are responding to!!!

1)  What the heck are you talking about?

2) What the heck are you talking about?
 
3) You should reread my exchange! I was simply pointing out that the reason Mossad would use so many people is to make it seem as if they weren’t involved.

4) Angela is not correct. Whatever evidence gets produced will not be shown to the public. You are so incredibly naive it’s not funny.
 
  5) “Yes I have much to learn, I freely admit that, im not claiming to be the authority here Dan, which brings me to my next point.” Yet, you always act as you are an authority; on anything. Whatever.

  6) “You appeal to your own authority which you have failed to establish. This makes it an “appeal to a questionable authority”. For all we know (and going by your reluctance to offer evidence to support your claims) your “authority” most likely consists of a pass mark in 2 unit modern history.” Uh, firstly, don’t try to bring any logical fallacies, it was proven long ago that you have no idea what they are. Secondly, I know quite a bit more than you do. Thirdly, I was responding to Angela’s “and I do know what i am talking about guys when it comes to these kind of assassination.”

  7) Firstly, I don’t demand a higher standard of evidence from anybody. Angela was the one who brought up the whole ‘it couldn’t have been Israel.’ Secondly, who cares if you thinks it’s rich? You are not the arbiter of logic and debate. Whether I was being inconsistent (and I wasn’t, if you followed the discussion) is actually irrelevent. I don’t answer to you, and I wasn’t responding to you. I was responding to Angela. Or is she you?

  8) ‘I may be naive Dan and we all need to do some reasearch but you dont know everything so please stop acting like some know it all and try to be more civil to people.’ lol. Coming from you, that’s a compliment. I should be more civil? Well, at least I’m not condescending like you. You are also not people. So if you want me to be more civil to you, then say so, but don’t speak on behalf of other people. As long as you’re condescending and arrogant, I have no desire to be civil to you. Oh, and compared to you I do know everything.

‘I pointed out the burden of proof because on three occasions I noticed you attempted to shift it.’ Actually, I didn’t. The burden of proof was never on me, but then considering how ignorant you are, I’m not surprised you missed it. You know absolutely nothing about logic and debate, yet you can not resist proving your ignorance. You also can not resist posting on discussions which don’t concern you.  I don’t know what you do for a living, but if involves discussing logic and debate, god help us all.

  9) “You state :“I wasn’t making any unsupported accusations.” Oh really? You said “Angela, the fact that it was so ‘sloppy’ is exactly why Mossad did it.”. Seems like a fairly unsupported accusation from here.” Sigh. Not quite, I was pointing out that being sloppy is not a reason why Mossad didn’t do it. It was probabably deliberately sloppy.

  10) “Great, you finish it all off with a personal attack! I wont bother to reply to any of your posts so now we are both happy!” Good for you. If only you hadn’t responded to a post, which didn’t actually concern you.

However it wasn’t simply a personal attack; it was the truth. You are incredibly ignorant (not just about international relations but also about logic and debate), and you are arrogant enough to think that you can intervene in discussions which don’t concern you and judge other people. Well, you don’t have the capacity to do so. When it comes to international relations and the discussion of logic and debate , you are out of your depth.

Dan says:

06:25am | 30/03/10

Paine, do whatever you want. However, you have only proved how ignorant you are (not just about international relations but about logic and debate), and how arrogant you are to think you have the capacity to judge other people, especially when they are involved in discussions which do not concern you! You say that I’m not civil? This coming from someone who is incredibly condescending and arrogant.

I know a heck of a lot more than you do, your post is absurd and you really need to stay away from discussing logic, debate and international relations; you’re in way over your head!

Justin says:

11:42pm | 28/03/10

Barzin, on point 1, a government will never be comfortable with assassination because of the sentiments of the people. So it’s about public relations: easier to do it on the sly and not stir the masses. Society would need to be educated on the necessity of targeted assassinations and maybe not worth the trouble.

On the second point, the difference between state terrorism and non-state terrorism is the means to carry out the end goal. Both have an end goal that is political (or ideological) in intent. But non-state terrorism uses the means of intentionally attacking innocent civilians. This happens with state terrorism, but normally because of “collateral damage” (so not directly intended).

Having said this, given the increasing technological “sophistication” of weapons, over the last 100 years the proportion of civilians killed in any combat has drastically increased. So any form of war will lead to these kinds of undesirable consequences.

Therefore we need to promote forms of governance that are less likely to resort to any kind of warfare. The question of the Mossad agents assassinating a known terrorist then becomes: do actions like this lead to greater or less warfare down the track? Is it worth knocking off fanatical terrorists that resort to this kind of violence? Or does the highly publicised actions of Mossad give further support and legitimacy to the terrorists themselves?

The sentiments of the people…and the troublesome need to appease.

Dan says:

07:10pm | 27/03/10

You know this how? Considering what happened in NZ some years ago, how do you know that this wasn’t Mossad? Right, whatever you say.