• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Under Suspicion It Killed Hamas Man

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Israel Under Suspicion It Killed Hamas Man

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUD1fpp23f4"]YouTube- Israel Under Suspicion It Killed Hamas Man[/ame]

Israel isn't confirming or denying whether it killed a Hamas commander in Dubai last month. But evidence is mounting that the country's Mossad spy agency may have been involved. (Feb 17)

I'd like to believe Mossad did it.
 
Under a baseless accusation is more like it.
The British and Irish governments have already summoned the Israeli diplomat, and all of the journalists in the world react as if Israel is already proven to be behind this.

It could have been anyone for all we know.
 
Does it really matter who did it?
 
Does it really matter who did it?
No, it shouldn't matter.
All that matters is that someone out there has successfully taken out a high-ranking terrorist that was responsible for a lot of blood shedding.

That's not the opinion coming from the UK, however.
 
No, it shouldn't matter.
All that matters is that someone out there has successfully taken out a high-ranking terrorist that was responsible for a lot of blood shedding.

That's not the opinion coming from the UK, however.

No, it isn't. BBC News - UK calls in Israeli ambassador over Dubai Hamas murder

Fighting terrorism with terrorism only breeds more terrorists. Perhaps you're happy because this was an action by your "good" terrorists against "bad" terrorists but that doesn't really cut any moral ice with most of the World.

The UK government (and opposition, for once they are in agreement) arre furious that Mossad should have used forged British passports in the commission of this act of terrorism.
 
No, it isn't. BBC News - UK calls in Israeli ambassador over Dubai Hamas murder

Fighting terrorism with terrorism only breeds more terrorists. Perhaps you're happy because this was an action by your "good" terrorists against "bad" terrorists but that doesn't really cut any moral ice with most of the World.
Which is quite funny because Britain itself provides assistance to the US when they both assassinate terrorists across Afghanistan and Iraq.

I couldn't give a damn about your opinion here, really. It's meaningless to me and to those who oppose terrorists all over the world.
The UK government (and opposition, for once they are in agreement) arre furious that Mossad should have used forged British passports in the commission of this act of terrorism.
It could just as well be that the MI5 was behind it.
They have no evidence that points towards Israel, they act on baseless and pure opinions.
 
The UK government (and opposition, for once they are in agreement) arre furious that Mossad should have used forged British passports in the commission of this act of terrorism.

So what if they did? The Brits are hardly in a position to scream about this considering their culpability in the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Which is quite funny because Britain itself provides assistance to the US when they both assassinate terrorists across Afghanistan and Iraq.

I couldn't give a damn about your opinion here, really. It's meaningless to me and to those who oppose terrorists all over the world.
It could just as well be that the MI5 was behind it.
They have no evidence that points towards Israel, they act on baseless and pure opinions.

Believe me, I'm well aware how little you care for my opinions. I couldn't give a stuff.

I'm sure UK and US agents do kill terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they don't pretend to be Israelis while doing it. If Israel weren't behind it all they have to do is deny it. They haven't done that.

I think the point is that your so-called "War on Terrorism" is a sham. You have no objection to terrorist acts provided you and your kin aren't the target. A suicide bomber kills 20 innocent people in Iraq and that's an horrific terrorist act. A US combat drone kills 20 innocent people in Afghanistan, well that's just too bad. Hypocrisy is never pretty.
 
Believe me, I'm well aware how little you care for my opinions.
Good.
I'm sure UK and US agents do kill terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they don't pretend to be Israelis while doing it.
A moment ago your opposition was to the actual act of taking the life of the high-ranking terrorist.
Now you've supposedly changed your stance to a more moderate stance and less terrorist-supportive that the wrong thing here is that the hit squad has used foreign passports.
Well, that's extremely fine with me, as the identity of the party behind it is unknown and will probably stay unknown, and hence no one can really be blamed with it.
If Israel weren't behind it all they have to do is deny it. They haven't done that.
You are unaware of the fact that Israel has a very well known policy to neither deny nor confirm it when they make a covert operation.
So they haven't denied, but haven't confirmed as well.
Leaving it as that currently Israel cannot be accused of the action.
Furthermore, Israel's foreign minister has came out with a statement that there is no proof Israel is behind it.
I think the point is that your so-called "War on Terrorism" is a sham.
I think your war for terrorism is a sham.
You have no objection to terrorist acts provided you and your kin aren't the target.
You don't know me, lower your ****ing tone down.
A suicide bomber kills 20 innocent people in Iraq and that's an horrific terrorist act.
And I completely agree.
A US combat drone kills 20 innocent people in Afghanistan, well that's just too bad. Hypocrisy is never pretty.
Hypocrisy is referring to two similar situations with two different sides with a different attitude.
I refer to two different situations with two different sides with a different attitude.
When a US drone takes out a terrorist, and unfortuantely, kill civilians unintentionally, it's a saddening and untold tragic.
When a terrorist low-life decides to murder innocent people because of their nationality, he is a low-life murderer and his life is meaningless to us on the moral-abiding side of the moral-meter.
 
Last edited:
No, it isn't. BBC News - UK calls in Israeli ambassador over Dubai Hamas murder

Fighting terrorism with terrorism only breeds more terrorists. Perhaps you're happy because this was an action by your "good" terrorists against "bad" terrorists but that doesn't really cut any moral ice with most of the World.

The UK government (and opposition, for once they are in agreement) arre furious that Mossad should have used forged British passports in the commission of this act of terrorism.
Oh pullleazze, cry me a river over Hamas. If we could kill them all I'd be for it.
 
Good.
A moment ago your opposition was to the actual act of taking the life of the high-ranking terrorist.
Now you've supposedly changed your stance to a more moderate stance and less terrorist-supportive that the wrong thing here is that the hit squad has used foreign passports.
Well, that's extremely fine with me, as the identity of the party behind it is unknown and will probably stay unknown, and hence no one can really be blamed with it.
You are unaware of the fact that Israel has a very well known policy to neither deny nor confirm it when they make a covert operation.
So they haven't denied, but haven't confirmed as well.
Leaving it as that currently Israel cannot be accused of the action.
Furthermore, Israel's foreign minister has came out with a statement that there is no proof Israel is behind it.
I think your war for terrorism is a sham.
You don't know me, lower your ****ing tone down.
And I completely agree.
Hypocrisy is referring to two similar situations with two different sides with a different attitude.
I refer to two different situations with two different sides with a different attitude.
When a US drone takes out a terrorist, and unfortuantely, kill civilians unintentionally, it's a saddening and untold tragic.
When a terrorist low-life decides to murder innocent people because of their nationality, he is a low-life murderer and his life is meaningless to us on the moral-abiding side of the moral-meter.

Lower your tone? "Hello, kettle? It's pot"

I have not changed my position, but nice rhetorical trick there. I deplore any action that perpetuates conflict, alienates one people from another and in fighting violence with violence only succeeds in breeding more violence.

The point about the US/UK was to draw a distinction between acting yourself and acting but trying to switch the blame onto someone else.

Israel can have any f***ed up policy it wants, it just can't expect the World to believe a word it says: too much water under too many bridges. You think the UK just plucked the name of Israel out of the air and said "Yeah, must've been them". Read the story, they had intelligence reports too.

You'll have to try much harder if you expect anyone to see a major difference between accidental and intentional killing. Can't you see that no one is interested in "unfortunate collateral damage" arguments when they keep happening, and people keep dying. Who is interested in intentions when outcomes are the same?
 
I deplore any action that perpetuates conflict, alienates one people from another and in fighting violence with violence only succeeds in breeding more violence.
What part do you not understand in "I do not care"?
Israel can have any f***ed up policy it wants
Blame game, you're doing exactly what you're blaming Israel for, you're pointing fingers.
it just can't expect the World to believe a word it says: too much water under too many bridges. You think the UK just plucked the name of Israel out of the air and said "Yeah, must've been them". Read the story, they had intelligence reports too.
I read nearly every article on the subject, and yes, the possibility that it was the Mossad is quite a logical one. They, however, have no intelligence reports that point towards the Mossad.
And that doesn't mean that they can simply point fingers without finding out who's actually behind it. I've expected you to know that as well, I guess I was just overestimating you, if that's even possible.
You'll have to try much harder if you expect anyone to see a major difference between accidental and intentional killing.
Anyone is not you, and I do not expect you to see a major difference here.
I do not expect this 'anyone', too, but anyone would expect from you to see so.
Immorality also has one definition to it that says that a person cannot separate between different levels of moral, as you so obviously demonstrate here.
Can't you see that no one is interested in "unfortunate collateral damage" arguments when they keep happening, and people keep dying. Who is interested in intentions when outcomes are the same?
The majority of the people in the world, who support giving murderers a way-tougher punishment than to those who kill unintentionally?

You simply debunk your own words here.
 
They should have used false US passports, preferably with the names of the usual suspects on these boards....wonder what the tune from the usual suspects would be then..
 
Immorality also has one definition to it that says that a person cannot separate between different levels of moral, as you so obviously demonstrate here.
The majority of the people in the world, who support giving murderers a way-tougher punishment than to those who kill unintentionally?

Well, we're making progress. At least now you are accepting that collateral damages killings are crimes. The difference between these crimes and other "unintentional" killings are that these go unpunished. Everyone knows the perpetrator but no one's interested in the justice.

Is there a moral equivalence between suicide bombers and US drone pilots? No. But are the crimes morally comparable? Yes. You can compare them and find one more heinous than the other but they are both still morally reprehensible.

There hasn't been a war in history in which both sides haven't claimed the moral high ground. There hasn't been a single war in which that high ground wasn't crumbly under foot.
 
Under a baseless accusation is more like it.
The British and Irish governments have already summoned the Israeli diplomat, and all of the journalists in the world react as if Israel is already proven to be behind this.

It could have been anyone for all we know.

It's pretty sad that allegations are being treated as proved facts in a rush to judgment. Yet, Britain still has taken no meaningful action whatsoever to address the flaws in its legal system under which judges can assume extraterritorial jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants to serve the purely political interests of various parties.
 
When a US drone takes out a terrorist, and unfortuantely, kill civilians unintentionally, it's a saddening and untold tragic.

When a terrorist low-life decides to murder innocent people because of their nationality, he is a low-life murderer and his life is meaningless to us on the moral-abiding side of the moral-meter.

Unfortunately, even as intent is a vital element for assessing such casualties under international law and, any reasonal criteria for that matter, the assumption among some that intent does not matter seems all too common. Among some pundits and commentators, one often finds a bias toward moral equivalency.
 
Unfortunately, even as intent is a vital element for assessing such casualties under international law and, any reasonal criteria for that matter, the assumption among some that intent does not matter seems all too common. Among some pundits and commentators, one often finds a bias toward moral equivalency.

The unfortunate thing about your position is that you seem to be saying that intent is the ONLY criteria for judging these acts. If you didn't mean to kill these specific people then if they get killed as a direct result of your actions that is unfortunate, but no crime.

Re: moral equivalency, see previous post.
 
The unfortunate thing about your position is that you seem to be saying that intent is the ONLY criteria for judging these acts. If you didn't mean to kill these specific people then if they get killed as a direct result of your actions that is unfortunate, but no crime.

Re: moral equivalency, see previous post.

Intent is vital. It isn't the only criteria e.g., negligence could be present.

Anytime innocent people die, it is a tragedy.

Ignoring intent would establish a dangerous precedent. For example, let's say someone lost control of their car during an ice storm and had an accident in which a fatality resulted. If intent were treated as irrelevant (and assuming there was no negligence e.g., speeding, etc.), then that person should be charged with murder. Aside from ethical issues, treating accidents in which there is no intent to cause harm (or other relevant elements) as crimes would be unworkable legally.
 
Intent is vital. It isn't the only criteria e.g., negligence could be present.

Anytime innocent people die, it is a tragedy.

Ignoring intent would establish a dangerous precedent. For example, let's say someone lost control of their car during an ice storm and had an accident in which a fatality resulted. If intent were treated as irrelevant (and assuming there was no negligence e.g., speeding, etc.), then that person should be charged with murder. Aside from ethical issues, treating accidents in which there is no intent to cause harm (or other relevant elements) as crimes would be unworkable legally.

It's not that simple. We are not talking about someone going out on a simple errand and then, by accident, something awful happens. Those drones are not going out to pick up a litre of milk and the morning paper. They are going out with deadly intent. When, by accident, negligence, incompetence or expediency, they kill innocent civilians this is not something to be ignored, but that is what happens. These killings are going entirely unpunished and destroying any chance of building trust and confidence amongst the people you are supposedly there to liberate from the evil, violent Islamists.

People who kill others in traffic accidents are usually prosecuted, often convicted on dangerous or careless driving.

You'd think they'd drive a little more carefully with a full, missile payload, wouldn't you?
 
People who kill others in traffic accidents are usually prosecuted, often convicted on dangerous or careless driving.

However, they are not charged with MURDER, which would be equivilent and potential for "hypocrisy".

I'll give you another thing. A man kills a shop keeper as he robs the place. A polie officer, after said man begins to fire upon him, attempts to return fire and has a stray bullet hit a civilian he was unaware of hiding behind an isle of goods.

To you, apparently, both the robber and the police officer should be brought up on murder charges because the Cop did fire his gun with "harmful intent", just not for the innocent caught in the crossfire.

Your disgusting act of trying to pretend you're saying this stuff on moral grounds when its an obvious attempt to simply demonize the west and prop up people who purposefully, willfully, and without prejudice aim for civilian targets is sickening.
 
They are going out with deadly intent.

Deadly intent toward whom? Not the Afghan people, but specific terrorist targets (Al Qaeda or Taliban).

International Law also recognizes that it is unrealistic to impose a zero civilian casualty standard. Hence, even as civilians must not be deliberately targeted or subjected to indiscriminate bombardment (the drones do not deliberately target civilians nor carry out indiscriminate bombardment), it is also noted that anticipated harm to civilians must not be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage from the operation.

People who kill others in traffic accidents are usually prosecuted, often convicted on dangerous or careless driving.

In my hypothetical example, I specifically stated that there was no negligence.

You'd think they'd drive a little more carefully with a full, missile payload, wouldn't you?

NATO has made changes in operating procedure to try to further reduce civilian casualties.
 
I hope andalublue is a vegan, because next time he chomps down on a Whopper he should be brought up on murder charge for malicious intent of eating the bull.
 
When a US drone takes out a terrorist, and unfortuantely, kill civilians unintentionally, it's a saddening and untold tragic.

Just note that if you commune with a high-value target you do so at your own risk. As far as the American government is concerned, you're not an innocent civilian:

On August 5th, officials at the Central Intelligence Agency, in Langley, Virginia, watched a live video feed relaying closeup footage of one of the most wanted terrorists in Pakistan. Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, could be seen reclining on the rooftop of his father-in-law’s house, in Zanghara, a hamlet in South Waziristan. It was a hot summer night, and he was joined outside by his wife and his uncle, a medic; at one point, the remarkably crisp images showed that Mehsud, who suffered from diabetes and a kidney ailment, was receiving an intravenous drip.

The video was being captured by the infrared camera of a Predator drone, a remotely controlled, unmanned plane that had been hovering, undetected, two miles or so above the house. Pakistan’s Interior Minister, A. Rehman Malik, told me recently that Mehsud was resting on his back. Malik, using his hands to make a picture frame, explained that the Predator’s targeters could see Mehsud’s entire body, not just the top of his head. “It was a perfect picture,” Malik, who watched the videotape later, said. “We used to see James Bond movies where he talked into his shoe or his watch. We thought it was a fairy tale. But this was fact!” The image remained just as stable when the C.I.A. remotely launched two Hellfire missiles from the Predator. Authorities watched the fiery blast in real time. After the dust cloud dissipated, all that remained of Mehsud was a detached torso. Eleven others died: his wife, his father-in-law, his mother-in-law, a lieutenant, and seven bodyguards.

Read more: The risks of the C.I.A. : The New Yorker

The hypocrisy comes in when a liberal says BObama is restoring America's image in the world by "upholding American values" like due process. BObama's version of "due process": Don't take prisoners. Just send them to Paradise with a Hellfire missile, or make sure they're captured by Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, where they'll undoubtedly receive a prayer blanket, a copy of The Holy Koran, three squares a day, and several ACLU attorneys.
 
The hypocrisy comes in when a liberal says BObama is restoring America's image in the world by "upholding American values" like due process.

The U.S., like any other nation, has an inherent right of self-defense. Throughout its history, when involved in conflict, it has targeted enemy combatants. No nation, no matter how liberal (classical liberal not the political definition) its values has ever adopted a posture that it could not use deadly force against enemy combatants. Indeed, such a posture would be a suicide pact, as it would free enemy combatants to use deadly force against it, while it refrained from responding in kind in self-defense.
 
Last edited:
Under a baseless accusation is more like it.
The British and Irish governments have already summoned the Israeli diplomat, and all of the journalists in the world react as if Israel is already proven to be behind this.

It could have been anyone for all we know
.

"baseless accusation" seems a very strong description for a situation where the identified perps insist that the photos/videos we saw of them are actually their "stolen" identities. that even tho it appears we saw them, that was not they that we saw
being able to identify the assassination team from the videos would seem to provide basis to the allegations of mossad involvement in this covert act
or maybe we should not question how seven individuals with mossad connections just happened to have their identities stolen
what organization would have had the motivation and capability to carry out this murder of a hamas operative where that organization also sought to give the "false" appearance that it was a mossad action
maybe there is a good explanation why this was not a mossad hit ... to date, that argument has not been proferred
 
Back
Top Bottom