PDA

View Full Version : The Killer Who Stole My Name



arosar
17-02-2010, 12:20 PM
I've gotta admit that when news of Israeli agents/assassins apparently posing as tourists to kill a Hamas leader first broke out, I thought that the Dubai police were just going cuckoo. Yet now it seems that the allegations were well-founded.

From The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/16/dubai-killers-identities-uk-citizens): "A hit squad that murdered a senior Hamas official in Dubai used the stolen identities of six British citizens and faked at least five other European passports, it emerged today."

I don't mean to make light of this, but I really had to laugh at the comment by Ronen Bergman, quoted in the SMH: "The good news is that even someone who looks like a 40-year-old accountant from Haifa has a chance of being accepted to a Mossad commando unit."

Anyway, I just can't believe that these sorts of things still happen today. What is your opinion of Israel after this?

AR

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2010, 12:56 PM
Anyway, I just can't believe that these sorts of things still happen today. What is your opinion of Israel after this?

Much better. For too long, Israel has tried the neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of their enemies by giving "land for peace", but the terrorists immediately turned this land into rocket-launching pads. No other country would tolerate continual attacks on its civilians by an enemy sworn to its annihilation. Hamas is just that, and according to the article referenced:


Mabhouh was one of the founders of Hamas's military wing and had been wanted by Israel for his role in the 1989 kidnapping and killing of two Israeli soldiers on leave. His participation was acknowledged by Hamas last month.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-02-2010, 01:32 PM
From The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/16/dubai-killers-identities-uk-citizens): "A hit squad that murdered a senior Hamas official in Dubai used the stolen identities of six British citizens and faked at least five other European passports, it emerged today."


All secret services around the globe use faked and/or stolen passports for covert operations. And who said it was done by Israel?

arosar
18-02-2010, 06:05 PM
And who said it was done by Israel?

What...you think a random group of 11 or more people just decided to form some kinda hit squad and somehow had the logistical skills to pull off the kill? Not only that, your beloved Jew state has a past history of forging passports. They even once managed to piss off the Kiwis over the same sorta racket!

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
18-02-2010, 06:28 PM
What...you think a random group of 11 or more people just decided to form some kinda hit squad and somehow had the logistical skills to pull off the kill? Not only that, your beloved Jew state has a past history of forging passports. They even once managed to piss off the Kiwis over the same sorta racket!

AR
And your beloved Arab gang decided to get rid of the other gang leader, they could not have done the same?
I'll say French did it , just try to prove me wrong. Same level of evidences anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2010, 08:12 PM
The murderous Arabs don't even want the Jews to have this tiny strip of land. But as shown by Jordan and Egypt, if a country leaves Israel alone, Israel will leave that country alone.

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2010, 11:05 AM
Melanie Philips has sensible comments[/URL] on this in Another genocidal murderer wiped out? Britain knows who's really guilty (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5784131/another-genocidal-murderer-wiped-out-britain-knows-whos-really-guilty.thtml):

Only in Britain could the eradication of someone who was planning to murder untold numbers of innocents (Tom Gross reports he was apparently en route to procure Iranian missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv from Gaza) be deemed worthy of censure by western hypocrites. If, apart from eradicating a terrorist before he could further assist mass murder, the operation was intended to give a message to bad guys everywhere that they will be successfully hunted down, it was a striking success for whoever carried it out – so much so that if Israel was not behind this, it would undoubtedly want its enemies to think that it was.

...

Certainly, Dubai seems to have gone to great lengths to incriminate Israel. Why, after all, did it publish the passport details like this? If it wanted to catch the real agents, this was hardly going to advance this aim for which it obviously needed merely to go through the usual channels of inter-state police and intelligence agencies. Dubai is now going out of its way to point the finger at Israel, with its police chief Dahi Khalfan Tamim calling upon Interpol to issue a ‘Red Notice’ to arrest the head of Mossad.

There are many unanswered questions arising from Dubai’s claims. It is possible that Israel was responsible alone for this operation; it is possible that it was not involved and it is being set up; it is possible that Mossad was one of a number of state actors which are now setting up Israel alone to take the rap. Who knows?

Only the British media, it seems, for whom Israel is always guilty of bad deeds.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-02-2010, 08:34 AM
Dubai police is very busy trying to incriminate Israel (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/australian-passport-holders-linked-to-hit-on-hamas-militant-in-dubai/story-e6frg6so-1225834134484)
Actual investigation of the murder does not seem to be high on their priority list.

arosar
25-02-2010, 12:17 PM
Well now even the Aussie PM is pissed off: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8535728.stm.

I dunno, but this little state is really behaving like a rogue, pissing everybody off.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
25-02-2010, 01:33 PM
Well now even the Aussie PM is pissed off: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8535728.stm.
Who cares? KRudd's a megalomaniac spendthrift lacking in principles.


I dunno, but this little state is really behaving like a rogue, pissing everybody off.
Yeah, how dare it actually exist and want to live in peace rather than be the destination of rockets and terrorists.

Rincewind
25-02-2010, 02:52 PM
Yeah, how dare it actually exist and want to live in peace rather than be the destination of rockets and terrorists.

As Spiderman might say... sarcasm sensors are tingling.

pax
26-02-2010, 01:13 PM
Much better. For too long, Israel has tried the neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of their enemies by giving "land for peace", but the terrorists immediately turned this land into rocket-launching pads.

So you approve of the approach of implicating innocent Israeli Australians in murder?

Basil
26-02-2010, 02:44 PM
So you approve of the approach of implicating innocent Israeli Australians in murder?
Hey, no one's implicating (unless one is being particularly pointy). It's quite clear that Mrs Bloggs from Essendon wasn't the shooter. Clearly just a ruse to work for the five minutes to clear the authorities. I haven't formed aposition on the whole yet but posting now for the sake of erasing hyperbole.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2010, 05:07 PM
Dubai police published photos, names and passport details of 26 suspects.
1. Publishing names and passport details of people who are very likely to be innocent is a gross violation of their privacy. Nobody seems to care.
If police was serious about finding the killers, they would approach respective embassies first.
2. Why 26? I find it hard to believe that so many participated in liquidation of that terrorist.
3. Did Mahmoud al-Mabhouh travel with passport issued in his name? Personally I doubt it, most likely he (like all other terrorists) used a fake passport. Nobody gives a damn about it.
4. Millions of people travel through Dubai each year. Some of them use fake passport (for whatever reasons). I have a feeling police just published what they knew to be faked passports, to squirt dirt over Israel and create tensions between Israel and Western countries.
5. Vast majority of faked passports were issued to dual-citizenship Israelis. For citizens of Israel travelling through Arab world is difficult and fraught with danger, even on a Western country passport. If Mossad gave it's agents those passports, it's quite stupid. If PLO (or Fatah, Hamas or something like this) gave it's agents those passports, it's very smart.
6. Two Fatah palestinian Arabs were arrested.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-02-2010, 05:15 PM
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was in the middle of major financial operations. IMHO his assassination is more likely to be financially, rather then politically, motivated.
Causing troubles to Israel would be a nice "side-effect".

pax
01-03-2010, 11:06 AM
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was in the middle of major financial operations. IMHO his assassination is more likely to be financially, rather then politically, motivated.
Causing troubles to Israel would be a nice "side-effect".

Nobody knows the facts yet, but IMO you are drawing a very long bow here.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-03-2010, 01:19 PM
Nobody knows the facts yet, but IMO you are drawing a very long bow here.
I doubt we ever will know the facts.

AFAIK nobody objects targeted killing of terrorists in Afghanistan. Nobody seem to grieve over Mabhuh either (or at least publicly admit to grieving). The row over the usage of the passports alone is overblown and, as noted by many commentators, purely for domestic/Arab countries consumption.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-03-2010, 01:22 PM
AFP agents in "hit-and-run' accident outside embassy in Tel Aviv (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/afp-agents-in-hit-and-run-accident-outside-embassy-in-tel-aviv/story-e6frg6so-1225836798573)

So far AFP was doing reasonably good job at weeding out terrorist threats on Australian soil. May I suggest they continue their good efforts instead of wasting time in Israel.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2010, 05:47 PM
Alan M. Dershowitz punctures the hypocritical hysteria about all this in A Spy Scandal About Nothing (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/04/a-spy-scandal-about-nothing/):

The complaints leveled against Israel by European countries and Australia, regarding the alleged misuse of passports by the Mossad in the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, ring hollow and smack of blatant hypocrisy. Whoever did kill Mahmoud al-Mabhouh—whether it was the Israeli Mossad or someone else—clearly did have their agents use stolen or forged passports. Big deal.

...

Shortly after the terrorist attacks in Bali, which killed a large number of Australian tourists, I had the opportunity to meet with the Australian Prime Minister. I was writing a book at the time on preemption, and I asked him whether he would have authorized a preemptive attack on the terrorist who killed Australian citizens, if such an attack would have saved their lives. His response was that Australia would have done anything it could, to prevent these terrorist attacks. Anything, I guess, except misusing passports? Is there anybody who believes that Australia would not have used forged or stolen passports to prevent the Bali massacres?

If Great Britain could have stopped the London subway attack by misusing passports, would M6 have allowed the terrorism to go forward in the name of preserving passport integrity? Of course not. The same is true of Spain with regard to the Madrid bombing and to every other country in the world that seeks to prevent terrorism. Well, if the Mossad did in fact kill al-Mabhouh, they too did it to prevent the killing of their innocent civilians.

The Israelis are always accused by their enemies, and sometimes even by their friends, of taking “disproportionate” action to stop terrorists. But what could be more proportionate than a carefully planned and specifically targeted attack on an admitted terrorist who boasted of being an active combatant? Whoops! I guess I forgot about those darn passports. That must be the disproportionate action complained about. Saving innocent lives, on the one hand—misusing passports on the other. I guess the right moral resolution, according to some foreign ministries, is to let innocent victims die—at least as long as its only Israeli victims.

...

antichrist
06-03-2010, 04:32 PM
Israeli Mossad can criminally enter foreign states and commit murder on false passports, but now UK Govt is making it illegal for individual Britains to take visiting Israeli war criminals to court in Britain for their war crimes. They can come and go anywhere an commit murder, war crimes etc with complete and compliant immunity - Chosen People all right - cant argue with that.

But I repeat I believe many liberal/progressive Israelis are amongst the best people in the world for their empathy for the suffering/persecuted Palestinians. I do not advocate at all stereo-typing of Jews or in any way discriminating against them.

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2010, 04:41 PM
Israeli Mossad can criminally enter foreign states and commit murder on false passports,
Including assassinating murderers who are on false passports, you big wuss. Once again, who would have a problem if Aussies knew of the Bali bombing plot and used false passports to take out the scumbags?


but now UK Govt is making it illegal for individual Britains to take visiting Israeli war criminals to court in Britain for their war crimes.
You mean, stopping antisemitic activist judges from ordering arrests of Israeli politicians and diplomats, for the "crime" of defending their country from mass-murdering thugs who want to annihilate it.


But I repeat I believe many liberal/progressive Israelis are amongst the best people in the world for their empathy for the suffering/persecuted Palestinians. I do not advocate at all stereo-typing of Jews or in any way discriminating against them.
Yeah yeah, Israel is such an evil country that it allows morons to root for the enemies. Israeli rule and Hamas rule have this in common: both allow people to praise Arab terrorists and insult Israeli leaders.

Adamski
06-03-2010, 06:43 PM
Alan M. Dershowitz punctures the hypocritical hysteria about all this in A Spy Scandal About Nothing (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/04/a-spy-scandal-about-nothing/): ...I own a good book by Dershowitz. It is called The Case for Israel. Good mix of history and current affairs- a recent publication.

Oepty
06-03-2010, 11:42 PM
Including assassinating murderers who are on false passports, you big wuss. Once again, who would have a problem if Aussies knew of the Bali bombing plot and used false passports to take out the scumbags?


I would. People should not be killing other people no matter what the circumstance is.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2010, 01:09 AM
I would. People should not be killing other people no matter what the circumstance is.
Not so. It is justifiable to kill in self-defence or defending others' lives.

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2010, 01:11 AM
I own a good book by Dershowitz. It is called The Case for Israel. Good mix of history and current affairs- a recent publication.
Indeed, that is excellent. I want to get his more recent book as well, The Case Against Israel's Enemies; see review see review (http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/book-review-alan-dershowitz-the-case-aga):


“Israel is the only country in the world that is accused by its enemies of practicing apartheid without racism; of perpetrating a Holocaust without gas chambers; of engaging in genocide without mass murder; of committing war crimes without targeting civilians; and of being the worst human rights violator in the world, while having one of the most responsive legal systems in the world. This is accusation by metaphor, prosecution by propaganda, trial by bigotry, guilt by hyperbole, and sentence by sloganeering.”

Oepty
07-03-2010, 07:56 AM
Not so. It is justifiable to kill in self-defence or defending others' lives.

In your opinion, not in my oponion.
Scott

Spiny Norman
07-03-2010, 09:45 AM
Scott, perhaps you can answer then this hypothetical:

You are standing by a window. In front of you, on a desk, is a large red button. Outside the window you can see a large crowd of people. You estimate that there are 4,000 people in the crowd (close enough).

Off to one side you can see another man. He has a large red button on a desk in front of him. You realise suddenly that pressing his red button will set off a large bomb underneath the crowd of 4,000 people, killing all of them instantly.

You also discover that the red button in front of you will set off a small bomb underneath that man, killing him instantly.

The man turns to you and you hear his voice clearly: "I will now press my red button and the 4,000 will be killed. I am a terrorist and I care nothing for my own life. I only wish to harm other people."

He reaches for the red button.

Do you:
(A) press your red button, killing the man, and saving the lives of 4,000 people
(B) refrain from pressing your button, and by your conscious inaction allowing the man to kill 4,000 innocent men, women and children

Your statement above indicates that you believe that it is not morally right to kill any person. I think killing is wrong too ... in the vast majority of cases.

In the scenario above, do you believe that it is more morally upright to cause the deaths of 4,000 people by conscious inaction, in preference to causing the death of a single, wicked individual by conscious action?

Do you perhaps think, as I do, that there are circumstances in life where it is simply not possible to act in perfect moral uprightness, but rather, that there are circumstances where we are forced to choose between one form of evil and another?

Adamski
07-03-2010, 10:50 AM
Indeed, that is excellent. I want to get his more recent book as well, The Case Against Israel's Enemies; see review (http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/book-review-alan-dershowitz-the-case-aga):


“Israel is the only country in the world that is accused by its enemies of practicing apartheid without racism; of perpetrating a Holocaust without gas chambers; of engaging in genocide without mass murder; of committing war crimes without targeting civilians; and of being the worst human rights violator in the world, while having one of the most responsive legal systems in the world. This is accusation by metaphor, prosecution by propaganda, trial by bigotry, guilt by hyperbole, and sentence by sloganeering.”Thanks, Jono. I'll look out for the book.

Oepty
07-03-2010, 12:48 PM
Scott, perhaps you can answer then this hypothetical:

You are standing by a window. In front of you, on a desk, is a large red button. Outside the window you can see a large crowd of people. You estimate that there are 4,000 people in the crowd (close enough).

Off to one side you can see another man. He has a large red button on a desk in front of him. You realise suddenly that pressing his red button will set off a large bomb underneath the crowd of 4,000 people, killing all of them instantly.

You also discover that the red button in front of you will set off a small bomb underneath that man, killing him instantly.

The man turns to you and you hear his voice clearly: "I will now press my red button and the 4,000 will be killed. I am a terrorist and I care nothing for my own life. I only wish to harm other people."

He reaches for the red button.

Do you:
(A) press your red button, killing the man, and saving the lives of 4,000 people
(B) refrain from pressing your button, and by your conscious inaction allowing the man to kill 4,000 innocent men, women and children

Your statement above indicates that you believe that it is not morally right to kill any person. I think killing is wrong too ... in the vast majority of cases.

In the scenario above, do you believe that it is more morally upright to cause the deaths of 4,000 people by conscious inaction, in preference to causing the death of a single, wicked individual by conscious action?

Do you perhaps think, as I do, that there are circumstances in life where it is simply not possible to act in perfect moral uprightness, but rather, that there are circumstances where we are forced to choose between one form of evil and another?

TSK. It would be wrong to kill the person by pressing the button. God has the power to stop that man killing the 4000 and if He doesn't intervene then who am I to double guess Him and commit murder to stop the people dieing. I believe everybody is under a death penalty for sin. As sad as it is that people, persumably including all ages, will die, it is God's just punishment for sin and who I am to sin to interfer when it is going to happen.
This is simply a case of trying to use an end, the saving of 4000 lives, to justify means, the murder of one man.
However you put this scenario, I will answer the same, although if you take it to the ultimate of suggesting someone kills everyone on earth then I would have additional reasons not to press the button.
Scott

Oepty
07-03-2010, 01:02 PM
I will just add that if the scenario was changed to a scenario where I was called upon to give up my life to save 4000 people then it would be wrong for me not to do so. A person must do everything they can to protect another persons life that does not involve commtting a sin.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
07-03-2010, 04:58 PM
TSK. It would be wrong to kill the person by pressing the button. God has the power to stop that man killing the 4000 and if He doesn't intervene then who am I to double guess Him and commit murder to stop the people dieing.
If God decided to stop the murderer, he might've chosen you to carry his will (by giving you the red button).

Oepty
07-03-2010, 05:06 PM
If God decided to stop the murderer, he might've chosen you to carry his will (by giving you the red button).

Igor, maybe, stop and murder are too different things. Maybe there is a way to stop the terrorist without using the button, although I don't think that is what is intended by this scenario.
God would have to be pretty stupid to put me in a position to do something I believe He has commanded me not to do, and He is not stupid.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2010, 09:06 PM
In your opinion, not in my oponion.
The Bible forbids murder. It specifically allows killing in war and self-defence. God even commanded some killing.

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2010, 09:09 PM
If God decided to stop the murderer, he might've chosen you to carry his will (by giving you the red button).
Exactly. Just as God has said that the government does not bear the sword in vain, giving it the right to kill to protect people both from outside armies and inside criminals.

SC has under the misapprehension that God forbids killing, but has no justidication for this. The commandment forbade ratsach, the Hebrew for murder.

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2010, 09:10 PM
Igor, maybe, stop and murder are too different things. Maybe there is a way to stop the terrorist without using the button, although I don't think that is what is intended by this scenario.
God would have to be pretty stupid to put me in a position to do something I believe He has commanded me not to do, and He is not stupid.
Scott
Indeed He is not. This means that what you think He has commanded you not to do, He has not.

Oepty
07-03-2010, 11:39 PM
The Bible forbids murder. It specifically allows killing in war and self-defence. God even commanded some killing.

Define murder.

I define murder as being at least, and maybe more, a deliberate act which is intended to kill another person and kills that person.
Attempted murder is really not morally any better, because the thought process is the same and incomptence in carrying it out does not make the act any better.
I am not arguing against the fact God allowed killing in wars in the past, but that was only when the Israelites fought with God on their side as they were fighting for the Kingdom of God, and a throne that Jesus Christ will sit upon when he returns to the earth. There were times when the Israelites battles were not sanctioned by God and they lost those battles. The enemies that they fought were just murders, like any modern day soldier.
Self defense is the most stupid justification for a person who has a belief in a future life to kill another person who might not have that hope. Killing them snuffs out any opportunity they might have to come to know God and His offer of salvation. A believer giving up there life, and perhaps making that known to the person why they are diong it might be the thing that brings the murderer to God. This is the spirit of Jesus on the cross and Stephen as he was being stoned asking that their killers be forgiven.
I know you have argued that the murderer has forfieted his life by killing and I agree with that. Committing murder does deserve death, but that is the same for all sin. 'The wages of sin is death' and we earn death with ANY and ALL sin that we commit. It is not for us to carry out that punishment, either in the death penalty or by turning the incident into attemped murder by getting in first and killing the person in self defense.

Well I have rambled on a bit, but hopefully my point is clear.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 01:32 AM
I define murder as being at least, and maybe more, a deliberate act which is intended to kill another person and kills that person.
The law defines murder as such killing of an innocent person.


I am not arguing against the fact God allowed killing in wars in the past, but that was only when the Israelites fought with God on their side as they were fighting for the Kingdom of God, and a throne that Jesus Christ will sit upon when he returns to the earth. There were times when the Israelites battles were not sanctioned by God and they lost those battles. The enemies that they fought were just murders, like any modern day soldier.
There is no evidence that the right to kill in war has been abrogated. The Bible allows the government to use lethal force to restrain crime and invaders, hence the government “does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4).

Jesus also commended a centurion for his great faith (Mt. 8), and the first gentile Christian convert was Cornelius, a centurion in the Italian regiment. There isn’t the slightest hint that they were expected to give up their military profession, which entails the use of lethal force at times.

Jesus also endorsed the reality of deterrence through strength, where a king facing a much stronger army will sue for peace (Luke 14:31–32). Churchill and Reagan certainly recognized this principle, and the corollary that weakness and appeasment embolden evil regimes.


Self defense is the most stupid justification for a person who has a belief in a future life to kill another person who might not have that hope. Killing them snuffs out any opportunity they might have to come to know God and His offer of salvation. A believer giving up there life, and perhaps making that known to the person why they are diong it might be the thing that brings the murderer to God.
This argument is not only unbiblical, but what about Snail King's example? Don't you care about the thousands of terrorist victims who might thus not get a change to know God and His offer of salvation? By being a neo-Chamberlainite and refusing to kill the would-be mass murderer, you are snuffing out any opportunity. Also, what if a scumbag was about to kill a believer's wife and kids, and the salvation of the kids, say, was uncertain? Once again, I'd rather take the risk of sending the scumbag to a swift judgement than risk that for the kids.


I know you have argued that the murderer has forfieted his life by killing and I agree with that. Committing murder does deserve death, but that is the same for all sin. 'The wages of sin is death' and we earn death with ANY and ALL sin that we commit.
But God has delegated the responsibility to the government to take life under some circumstances. These circumstances do not include all sins, but do include capital crimes and invading enemy soldiers.


It is not for us to carry out that punishment, either in the death penalty or by turning the incident into attemped murder by getting in first and killing the person in self defense.
Killing in self-defence is not punishing per se, but preventing my life from being taken.


Well I have rambled on a bit, but hopefully my point is clear.

Rather a lot of thread drift.

Oepty
08-03-2010, 02:25 AM
The law defines murder as such killing of an innocent person.

I hate the term innocent person. No one is innocent, everyone has sinned, everyone is guilty of something. To use the term in the total sense is just wrong. We all are alive because God is merciful, every breath is more than we deserve.



There is no evidence that the right to kill in war has been abrogated.


What proof is there that there ever was a general right to kill in war? By that I mean all wars between any two countries. I don't think it ever existed. The Israelites where given God's support to fight to fight battles, but what about Joshua attacking Ai. Certainly did not have God's support in that instance.




The Bible allows the government to use lethal force to restrain crime and invaders, hence the government “does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4).

Romans 13 is not instruction to governments on what they should do, it is instruction to the Roman believers has to how they were to interact with the Roman Rulers. Yes God has allowed governments to have the death penalty, but He allows me to sin, so it does not mean it is the right thing for them to do, or the right thing for a believer to take part in or to support.




Jesus also commended a centurion for his great faith (Mt. 8), and the first gentile Christian convert was Cornelius, a centurion in the Italian regiment. There isn’t the slightest hint that they were expected to give up their military profession, which entails the use of lethal force at times.


While I agree we are not told that the centurions left the army, we are also not told that they stayed in the army. It is just pure speculation as to what happened and whether what they did was the right thing or the wrong thing. It proves absolutely nothing relevant to this subject.



Jesus also endorsed the reality of deterrence through strength, where a king facing a much stronger army will sue for peace (Luke 14:31–32). Churchill and Reagan certainly recognized this principle, and the corollary that weakness and appeasment embolden evil regimes.


Not a passage I am immediately familar with and it is too late (or rather early) for me to look it up at the moment sorry.



This argument is not only unbiblical, but what about Snail King's example? Don't you care about the thousands of terrorist victims who might thus not get a change to know God and His offer of salvation? By being a neo-Chamberlainite and refusing to kill the would-be mass murderer, you are snuffing out any opportunity. Also, what if a scumbag was about to kill a believer's wife and kids, and the salvation of the kids, say, was uncertain? Once again, I'd rather take the risk of sending the scumbag to a swift judgement than risk that for the kids.


Would it upset me if I was witness to 4000 people dieing, of course it would. It would upset anybody. The issue is not about whether 4000 people should die, but rather whether it is right for me to murder another person. If it is wrong it is wrong and no amount of emotional inducement should change that. God requires everyone to take responsibilities for their own actions and everyone is held guilty for there own sins. I would not be responsible for the deaths of those 4000 people, it is the the terrorist who is. I would though be guilty of murder if I killed the terrorist. In a more realistic scenario there could be other options, and even in the restrictions of this one, there is always prayer, a very sinless option.



But God has delegated the responsibility to the government to take life under some circumstances. These circumstances do not include all sins, but do include capital crimes and invading enemy soldiers.


So you claim. This claim is what we are discussing.



Killing in self-defence is not punishing per se, but preventing my life from being taken.


True, but I think my point still stands. We should be prepared to give our lives for others if it might lead to their salvation, even for someone who is our enemies. That is what Jesus did for us, and he is the example we need to follow in our lives. I still stand by my words that killing in self defense is a totally stupid justification for a believer to kill another person.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 02:56 AM
I hate the term innocent person. No one is innocent, everyone has sinned, everyone is guilty of something. To use the term in the total sense is just wrong. We all are alive because God is merciful, every breath is more than we deserve.
Yes yes; obviously I was using the word in the original meaning of in nocens = not harming, not sinless.


What proof is there that there ever was a general right to kill in war? By that I mean all wars between any two countries. I don't think it ever existed. The Israelites where given God's support to fight to fight battles, but what about Joshua attacking Ai. Certainly did not have God's support in that instance.
But God gave general laws about conduct in wars.


Romans 13 is not instruction to governments on what they should do, it is instruction to the Roman believers has to how they were to interact with the Roman Rulers. Yes God has allowed governments to have the death penalty, but He allows me to sin, so it does not mean it is the right thing for them to do, or the right thing for a believer to take part in or to support.
Paul said "The Government does not bear the sword in vain". Clearly not just an allowance but an endorsement of its function to use force to restrain wrongdoing, even lethal force.


While I agree we are not told that the centurions left the army, we are also not told that they stayed in the army. It is just pure speculation as to what happened and whether what they did was the right thing or the wrong thing. It proves absolutely nothing relevant to this subject.
It's up to you to prove that they left the army. What certainly is clear is that the first centurion was praised for his faith while still in the army, and Cornelius was called a devout God-fearer while still in the army. He was also baptized while in the army. No hint at all that they needed to repent of their profession.


Would it upset me if I was witness to 4000 people dieing, of course it would. It would upset anybody. The issue is not about whether 4000 people should die, but rather whether it is right for me to murder another person.
It is not. But you have your own pet definition of murder that matches neither Scripture nor our laws. Killing to prevent a mass murder is not murder.


If it is wrong it is wrong and no amount of emotional inducement should change that. God requires everyone to take responsibilities for their own actions and everyone is held guilty for there own sins. I would not be responsible for the deaths of those 4000 people, it is the the terrorist who is.
Doesn't do those 4000 any good.


I would though be guilty of murder if I killed the terrorist.
Only under your strange re-definition.


In a more realistic scenario there could be other options, and even in the restrictions of this one, there is always prayer, a very sinless option.
It is not. Compare James 2:15–16:

If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "(AB)Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?


True, but I think my point still stands. We should be prepared to give our lives for others if it might lead to their salvation, even for someone who is our enemies.
What about giving up the life of a murderous scumbag which might lead to the salvation of those he is about to kill?


That is what Jesus did for us, and he is the example we need to follow in our lives.
Jesus died for our sins. We do not die for anyone else's sins; this would be impossible; cf. Hebrews 7:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%207:27&version=NASB).

Spiny Norman
08-03-2010, 07:29 AM
Scott, I think you are caught in a moral wasteland. Here's why:

* you state that murder is wrong (I agree)
* you state that killing another human being is wrong (for the most part, I agree)
* you say that you would willing sacrifice your own life for the lives of 4000 others (I agree)

yet

* you do baulk at sacrificing yourself (morally) by killing a murderer

I would call your decision not to prevent the murder of 4000 other individuals selfishness, because you would protect yourself morally at the expense of thousands of others' lives.

Thus you would be committing a sin in order to prevent yourself committing a sin. So it would seem that there are situations where one cannot avoid sinning, despite best efforts.

Basil
08-03-2010, 08:59 AM
Isn't there a belief that the Devil exists and that a slaughterer of 4,000 lives is surely the Devil's work, and therefore the killing is the killing of the Devil?

Oepty
08-03-2010, 09:22 AM
Scott, I think you are caught in a moral wasteland. Here's why:

* you state that murder is wrong (I agree)
* you state that killing another human being is wrong (for the most part, I agree)
* you say that you would willing sacrifice your own life for the lives of 4000 others (I agree)

yet

* you do baulk at sacrificing yourself (morally) by killing a murderer

I would call your decision not to prevent the murder of 4000 other individuals selfishness, because you would protect yourself morally at the expense of thousands of others' lives.

Thus you would be committing a sin in order to prevent yourself committing a sin. So it would seem that there are situations where one cannot avoid sinning, despite best efforts.

It is not sin to decide not to commit a sin, it is what God commands. Doing what God wants is not selfishness it is selflessness. We must strive to do the right thing, not strive to find justifications for doing the wrong thing.
Scott

Desmond
08-03-2010, 10:01 AM
Geez I'm gonna stay away from red buttons when u guys are about.

Oepty
08-03-2010, 01:14 PM
Yes yes; obviously I was using the word in the original meaning of in nocens = not harming, not sinless.

Not obvious to me.



But God gave general laws about conduct in wars.


Where?



Paul said "The Government does not bear the sword in vain". Clearly not just an allowance but an endorsement of its function to use force to restrain wrongdoing, even lethal force.


I disagree.



It's up to you to prove that they left the army. What certainly is clear is that the first centurion was praised for his faith while still in the army, and Cornelius was called a devout God-fearer while still in the army. He was also baptized while in the army. No hint at all that they needed to repent of their profession.


What are you going on about? I don't have to prove anything. We have no idea what Cornelius or the other centurion did with there lives, and whether what they did was right or wrong. I hope they were faithful but I have no way of telling that. Even if they did leave the army it doesn' prove in its self that it was absolutely necessary.



It is not. But you have your own pet definition of murder that matches neither Scripture nor our laws. Killing to prevent a mass murder is not murder.


I disagree.



It is not. Compare James 2:15–16:

If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "(AB)Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?


James is not discussing prayer.



What about giving up the life of a murderous scumbag which might lead to the salvation of those he is about to kill?


I can not control what he desires to do AS MUCH AS I WISH I COULD in this scenario.



Jesus died for our sins. We do not die for anyone else's sins; this would be impossible; cf. Hebrews 7:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%207:27&version=NASB).

Diliberately twisting my words does you no credit at all. I was NOT saying that we die for other peoples sins, but that someone still alive gives that someone an opportunity to gain salvation and forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ. Please never twist my words like that again it is highly insulting to me.

Scott

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 01:29 PM
It is not sin to decide not to commit a sin, it is what God commands. Doing what God wants is not selfishness it is selflessness. We must strive to do the right thing, not strive to find justifications for doing the wrong thing.
Some question-begging here. SC claims, without the slightest evidence, that all killing of humans is murder. I am with SK, that not pressing the red button and allowing the terrorist to kill 4000, would be a horrific sin of omission.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 01:35 PM
Scott, I think you are caught in a moral wasteland. Here's why:

* you state that murder is wrong (I agree)
* you state that killing another human being is wrong (for the most part, I agree)
* you say that you would willing sacrifice your own life for the lives of 4000 others (I agree)

yet

* you do baulk at sacrificing yourself (morally) by killing a murderer

I would call your decision not to prevent the murder of 4000 other individuals selfishness, because you would protect yourself morally at the expense of thousands of others' lives.

Thus you would be committing a sin in order to prevent yourself committing a sin. So it would seem that there are situations where one cannot avoid sinning, despite best efforts.
I agree with all the above except the last. I don't believe that it is a sin in such circumstances. Not all killing is murder. Furthermore, the Bible teaches a hierarchy of morals or graded absolutism, where duty to the higher moral law exempts one from the duty to obey the lower one. The hierarchy is: a) God comes before people b) People come before things c) Moral laws take precedent over civil laws. The following comes from Norman Geisler's book Christian Ethics:


Examples of the Six Major Ethical Views

Corrie ten Boom tells how she lied to save Jews from the Nazi death camps. During U.S. Senate hearings on the Iran-Contra issue, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North testified that he had, in the process of performing his duties, lied to save innocent lives. North said, ‘I had to weigh lying and lives.’

In a number of biblical stories, people lied to save lives. The Hebrew midwives lied to save the baby boys Pharaoh had commanded them to kill (Exod. 1:15–19). Rahab lied to save the lives of the Jewish spies in Jericho (Josh. 2).

Is it ever right to lie to save a life? This issue will serve to focus the differences among the six basic ethical positions.
Lying is neither right nor wrong: There are no laws. Antinomianism asserts that lying to save lives is neither right nor wrong. It affirms that there are no objective moral principles by which the issue can be judged right or wrong. The issue must be decided on subjective, personal, or pragmatic grounds, but not on any objective moral grounds. We are literally without a moral law to decide the issue.
Lying is generally wrong: There are no universal laws. Generalism claims that lying is generally wrong. As a rule, lying is wrong, but in specific cases this general rule can be broken. Since there are no universal moral laws, whether a given lie is right will depend on the results. If the results are good, then the lie is right. Most generalists believe that lying to save a life is right because in this case the end justifies the means necessary to attain it. However, lying in general is wrong.
Lying is sometimes right: There is only one universal law. Situationism claims that there is only one absolute moral law, and telling the truth is not it. Love is the only absolute, and lying may be the loving thing to do. In fact, lying to save a life is the loving thing to do. Hence, lying is sometimes right. Indeed, any moral rule except love can and should be broken for love’s sake. Everything else is relative; only one thing is absolute. Thus the situationist believes lying to save lives is morally justified.
Lying is always wrong: There are many non-conflicting laws. Unqualified absolutism believes that there are many absolute moral laws, and none of them should ever be broken. Truth is such a law. Therefore, one must always tell the truth, even if someone dies as a result of it. Truth is absolute, and absolutes cannot be broken. Therefore, there are no exceptions to telling the truth. Results are never used as a rationale to break rules, even if the results are desirable.
Lying is forgivable: There are many conflicting laws. Conflicting absolutism recognizes that we live in an evil world where absolute moral laws sometimes run into inevitable conflict. In such cases it is our moral duty to do the lesser evil. We must break the lesser law and plead mercy. For instance, we should lie to save the life and then ask for forgiveness for breaking God’s absolute moral law. Our moral dilemmas are sometimes unavoidable, but we are culpable anyway. God cannot change his absolute moral prescriptions because of our moral predicaments.
Lying is sometimes right: There are higher laws. Graded absolutism holds that there are many moral absolutes and they sometimes conflict. However, some laws are higher than others, so when there is an unavoidable conflict, it is our duty to follow the higher moral law. God does not blame us for what we could not avoid. Thus he exempts us from responsibility to follow the lower law in view of the overriding obligation to obey the higher law. Many graded absolutists believe that mercy to the innocent is a greater moral duty than telling truth to the guilty. Hence, they are convinced that it is right in such cases to lie in order to save a life.
In summary, antinomianism sets forth its view to the exclusion of all objective moral laws. Generalism claims that there are exceptions to moral laws. Situationism holds one moral absolute to the exclusion of all others. Unqualified absolutism insists that there is always an escape from the apparent conflict in absolute moral laws. Conflicting absolutism contends that when moral laws conflict then doing the lesser evil is excusable. And graded absolutism holds that when moral laws conflict, God grants an exemption to the lower in view of our duty to obey the higher.

....

Graded absolutists point to three senses in which it is still legitimate to call such a view absolute. First, the moral laws are absolute as to their source (God). Second, each moral law is absolute in its sphere. For example, lying is always wrong as such. When it conflicts with life-saving, however, one is exempt from truth-telling, even though the duty remains in force. Just as a magnet overpowers the pull of gravity without gravity ceasing its pull, even so the duty to love God overpowers the duty to love human beings. Third, each moral law is absolute in its hierarchy. That is to say, for a Christian the hierarchy of values is set up by God in accordance with His nature and is therefore absolute. God has established that He is first, persons are next, and things are last.

Oepty
08-03-2010, 02:33 PM
Some question-begging here. SC claims, without the slightest evidence, that all killing of humans is murder. I am with SK, that not pressing the red button and allowing the terrorist to kill 4000, would be a horrific sin of omission.

This topic disgusts me, upsets me and angers me. How can people just do away with others lives? How can people cause so much hurt, pain and suffering? I wish no one died ever, but I can not stop people dieing as much as I wish I could, but I am certainly not going to join in the mass murdering society we have which dismisses deaths as being justified. I hate this world - really really hate it. PLEASE STOP KILLING PEOPLE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. I just want it to stop.
Scott

Oepty
08-03-2010, 03:22 PM
I should never have started this discussion, discussions like this take to much of an emotional toll on me these days. I just get too upset, I am out of here for now, very upset about things.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2010, 03:49 PM
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.” — Golda Meir (former Prime Minister of Israel)

Spiny Norman
08-03-2010, 04:43 PM
Scott, don't despair ... believe it or not, I know how you feel. More and more often these days I sit at home and have to turn off the TV because I cannot bear to watch the images. We all long for a world where such horrors do not exist. The truly sad thing is that some are no longer affected by horrors. What kind of a world are we leaving our children?

Jono, I take your point about the hierarchy of morals. If one is absolutist (in the truly absolute sense!) then my point holds, but as you correctly point out there are many nuances of moral views. I would lie in a heartbeat to stop Nazis from doing their evil deeds, and for me there are doubtless other scenarios where I might find myself in a moral quandary.

One thing I do know; my personal moral standard is that I would never knowingly break a moral law to save my own skin, but I can foresee circumstances in which I might do it to save others. There have been times where I have done the wrong thing and have had to own up to these things later at some personal risk when my conscience got a hold of my. I now protect my personal integrity to a degree that sometimes makes others uncomfortable.

antichrist
08-03-2010, 05:28 PM
[QUOTE= snailking
One thing I do know; my personal moral standard is that I would never knowingly break a moral law to save my own skin[/COLOR.[/QUOTE]


One thing I know for sure, speaking as a person who has faced death a few times, is that you cannot predict what reaction you will have when having to save your own skin.

And don't fool people that you do know because they may rely on it and get fooled and suffer accordingly.

Spiny Norman
08-03-2010, 07:20 PM
One thing I know for sure, speaking as a person who has faced death a few times, is that you cannot predict what reaction you will have when having to save your own skin.
And don't fool people that you do know because they may rely on it and get fooled and suffer accordingly.
I've only faced death or serious injury a couple of times, so I am working on a small sample.

The first time was when I was in my very early 20's. A man who I had been witnessing to in a street outreach held a knife to my chest and told me he was going to stab me and send me to meet my God. I just looked him in the eye and told him that whether he stabbed me or not it would make no difference, that whether I lived or died I would remain a Christian. He made a sudden move as if to stab me, but turned his hand at the last moment and so punched me instead of striking me with the knife. I told me that I wasn't scared of him because I trusted my God. He then turned and ran off.

The second time was in my mid twenties, when a friend of mine was being harassed in the street (in Abbotsford, inner Melbourne). I went out to his aid and confronted the small group of people who were about to assault him, placing myself between them and him. They turned on me of course. While they were distracted my friend ran off, leaving me on my own (thanks mate!). The leader got right in my face and said "I'm going beat the sh*t out of you four-eyes". I didn't flinch, but just said straight to his face "I bind you in the name of Jesus. You won't lay a finger on me." After making more threats for a minute or so, he eventually gave up and they walked away.

So, sample of 2 (ignoring a few things that happened to me in the Philippines) ... and if my family was threatened, not just myself or a friend, I expect I would be even more adamant. Sure, its not possible to know 100% how you'd react prior to any given situation. But so what?

Adamski
08-03-2010, 07:29 PM
Those are encouraging testimonies, TSK. Thanks.

Scott, I agree with TSK - don't despair. We all hope we are never called upon to have to decide between taking one life and saving others or not taking that life and dooming others to die. None of us want to kill people, even in a military scenario.

Desmond
08-03-2010, 08:13 PM
The first time was when I was in my very early 20's. A man who I had been witnessing to in a street outreach held a knife to my chest and told me he was going to stab me and send me to meet my God. I just looked him in the eye and told him that whether he stabbed me or not it would make no difference, that whether I lived or died I would remain a Christian. He made a sudden move as if to stab me, but turned his hand at the last moment and so punched me instead of striking me with the knife. I told me that I wasn't scared of him because I trusted my God. He then turned and ran off.As someone who has often answered the door and found a JW there, I think I have found my kindred spirit.

Spiny Norman
09-03-2010, 04:55 AM
If I ever visit you Boris, I hope someone will put the sharp implements out of your reach! But you can rest easy; I would NEVER hassle people in their homes, and the "street outreach" to which I refer was simply a group of us with a bus handing out free tea, coffee and biscuits to street people. If they wanted a chat, or if they didn't, it was really up to them. The guy in question was known to me and had visited us in that same location numerous times over many months, all of his own free will. After the incident, I did see him again on occasions and we actually developed a bit of a friendship.

Desmond
09-03-2010, 12:16 PM
If I ever visit you Boris, I hope someone will put the sharp implements out of your reach! But you can rest easy; I would NEVER hassle people in their homes, and the "street outreach" to which I refer was simply a group of us with a bus handing out free tea, coffee and biscuits to street people. If they wanted a chat, or if they didn't, it was really up to them. The guy in question was known to me and had visited us in that same location numerous times over many months, all of his own free will. After the incident, I did see him again on occasions and we actually developed a bit of a friendship.
Fair enough

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2010, 02:56 PM
Sir
Given the reaction to a Hamas terrorist leaders assassination, can we
expect stark raving moral indignation should anything befall Osama bin
Laden
Yonatan Silver
Jerusalem
Jerusalem Post, International Edition Feb 26–March 4.

Ian Murray
14-03-2010, 11:03 AM
It is deplorable that any state professing to abide by the rule of law employs death squads

Spiny Norman
14-03-2010, 12:51 PM
It is deplorable that any state professing to abide by the rule of law employs death squads
I agree. But if the alternative is to go to war outright, perhaps judicious assassinations are the lesser of two evils.

I am wondering whether it has actually been shown that it was Israel that did this? Or is the jury still out? There have been plenty of things that have happened in that part of the world (or at least, reported as having happened) which later have been shown to be fiction. I take all news reports from the Middle East with a large pinch of salt.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-03-2010, 04:52 PM
It is deplorable that any state professing to abide by the rule of law employs death squads
Does it mean it's less deplorable for the states not professing to abide by the rule of law?

Ian Murray
14-03-2010, 09:53 PM
I agree. But if the alternative is to go to war outright, perhaps judicious assassinations are the lesser of two evils.
The end justifies the means? Unlike the "red buttons" scenario, the death of Mabhouh will not stop Hamas terrorism, nor will it leave an unfillable vacancy in its hierarchy. If an Israeli operation, the end would seem to be vengeance more than strategy.


I am wondering whether it has actually been shown that it was Israel that did this?
The last I heard was that Israel neither confirmed nor denied its involvement. If innocent, one would expect an outright denial. While not beyond doubt, it is hard to imagine how anyone else could access the passport details of Israelis with dual citizenships.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-03-2010, 08:37 AM
The end justifies the means? Unlike the "red buttons" scenario, the death of Mabhouh will not stop Hamas terrorism, nor will it leave an unfillable vacancy in its hierarchy. If an Israeli operation, the end would seem to be vengeance more than strategy.
For me there are two parts in the question related to targeted killing.
1. Does Israel have a moral and legal right to kill terrorists like Mabhouh?
My answer is YES
2. Is it a good policy to kill single HAMAS terrorists in a commando-like raids?
IMO NO, even though in the context of generally toothless Israel policy they don't have much left.


The last I heard was that Israel neither confirmed nor denied its involvement. If innocent, one would expect an outright denial.
The general policy of never confirming neither denying involvement does not allow for exception, otherwise it would be very easy to tell whether Israel was involved or not.
Another reason is not answering to rumours. So far nobody officially accused Israel. Dubai police speeches of Israel involvement/proof so far hasn't been confirmed by anything.

While not beyond doubt, it is hard to imagine how anyone else could access the passport details of Israelis with dual citizenships.
Israel is a home to about one million Arabs who, unlike their brethren in neighbouring countries have a freedom of movement.
I would not be surprised if Dubai police picked every false passport used by Dubai visitors (and there are many people travelling through Middle East on faked passports for variety of reasons) that they know to be stolen from Israel.
By the way, which passport did Mabhouh use?
And why Dubai allowed known terrorist to travel it's country?

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2010, 12:20 PM
The end justifies the means?
Well, the usual antisemitic Israel-hating suspects soft-pedal terrorism because the end, extinction of Israel Palestinian self-determination justifies it.

But in the case of Mabhouh, the means are justifiable: assassinating a murderer before he kills again.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2010, 12:21 PM
It is deplorable that any state professing to abide by the rule of law employs death squads
Why? If the Allies had been able to use a death squad to assassinate Hitler, then WW2 might have ended much sooner.

Desmond
15-03-2010, 12:28 PM
Deplorable but perhaps necessary.

Basil
15-03-2010, 12:34 PM
Simply necessary. I'm presently ploughing through the Vince Flynn series. Escapist pap that IMO should should be force-fed to western lefties and wets around the world.

arosar
15-03-2010, 01:28 PM
...then WW2 might have ended much sooner.

How do you know this?

AR

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2010, 01:34 PM
How do you know this?
Are you seriously disputing it?

TheJoker
15-03-2010, 04:37 PM
Interestingly enough in discussing the morality and effectiveness of Israeli sponsored assasinations, nobody seems to have mentioned the Lillehammer affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair)

Ian Murray
16-03-2010, 05:34 PM
Why? If the Allies had been able to use a death squad to assassinate Hitler, then WW2 might have ended much sooner.
On the other hand, the Serbian assassination of Ferdinand in Sarajevo triggered WW1

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2010, 06:42 PM
On the other hand, the Serbian assassination of Ferdinand in Sarajevo triggered WW1
So it's important to know the difference between a radical assassination of a figurehead of a dwindling empire during peacetime with a powderkeg of alliances ready to explode, and one during war of a fanatical war-monger and Jew-hater.

Ian Murray
17-03-2010, 10:25 AM
So it's important to know the difference between a radical assassination of a figurehead of a dwindling empire during peacetime with a powderkeg of alliances ready to explode, and one during war of a fanatical war-monger and Jew-hater.
Killing during war is not particularly controversial. It is speculative whether the assassination of Hitler by the Allies would have brought the war to an earlier end, considering there were still millions of fanatical Nazi supporters in Germany.

Conversely it would seem unlikely that the Allies would have lost the war had one of the assassination plots against Churchill been successful.

Desmond
17-03-2010, 11:07 AM
Killing during war is not particularly controversial. It is speculative whether the assassination of Hitler by the Allies would have brought the war to an earlier end, considering there were still millions of fanatical Nazi supporters in Germany.

Conversely it would seem unlikely that the Allies would have lost the war had one of the assassination plots against Churchill been successful.
I would suggest that the two are not really analogous on account of one being a dictator and the other being part of a democratic party.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-03-2010, 03:06 PM
Killing during war is not particularly controversial. It is speculative whether the assassination of Hitler by the Allies would have brought the war to an earlier end, considering there were still millions of fanatical Nazi supporters in Germany.

It would, which might be a reason neither Allies nor USSR tried it.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2010, 10:32 PM
Killing during war is not particularly controversial. It is speculative whether the assassination of Hitler by the Allies would have brought the war to an earlier end, considering there were still millions of fanatical Nazi supporters in Germany.
It probably would have made other high commanders realize the futility and surrender earlier. That's probably why Stauffenberg et al. plotted to kill Hitler.


Conversely it would seem unlikely that the Allies would have lost the war had one of the assassination plots against Churchill been successful.
Not sure about that either. There were many who wanted to make peace with Hitler, especially after the Frogs collapsed so quickly.


I would suggest that the two are not really analogous on account of one being a dictator and the other being part of a democratic party.
Exactly.

Ian Murray
17-03-2010, 10:46 PM
It probably would have made other high commanders realize the futility and surrender earlier. That's probably why Stauffenberg et al. plotted to kill Hitler.
That was an attempted military coup more than an assassination plot - Operation Valkyrie included the disarming of the SS and SA by the Wehrmacht immediately following Hitler's death


Not sure about that either. There were many who wanted to make peace with Hitler, especially after the Frogs collapsed so quickly.
Certainly the crushing French defeat boosted Hitler's popularity enormously at home


Exactly.
The death of a dictator doesn't necessarily end that political system. The Soviet Union survived intact after Stalin's death

Ian Murray
17-03-2010, 11:01 PM
Apropos of nothing in particular, I am reminded with a smile of a wartime newspaper cartoon - a schoolboy is showing his teacher a drawing of Hitler and the teacher is saying: "I told you to draw a wicker basket!"

Basil
17-03-2010, 11:09 PM
Apropos of nothing in particular, I am reminded with a smile of a wartime newspaper cartoon - a schoolboy is showing his teacher a drawing of Hitler and the teacher is saying: "I told you to draw a wicker basket!"
I don't follow. A wicked bastard? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2010, 11:17 PM
Hamas used kids as human shields (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171009)—what a surprise. But the usual antisemitic antizionist suspects will still condemn Israel for their deaths.

Ian Murray
18-03-2010, 04:56 PM
I don't follow. A wicked bastard? :hmm:
You got it. Rather risque in its day.

arosar
07-04-2010, 07:42 AM
Most times the assasins don't even bother stealing your name. They just hide the evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?hp).

AR

arosar
24-05-2010, 12:27 PM
The Aussie foreign minister makes a decision to expel an Israeli diplomat. It's dead cert: the Israelis faked passports.

Read here (http://www.smh.com.au/national/israel-responsible-for-faking-aussie-passports-smith-20100524-w5a3.html).

AR

antichrist
24-05-2010, 01:02 PM
The Aussie foreign minister makes a decision to expel an Israeli diplomat. It's dead cert: the Israelis faked passports.

Read here (http://www.smh.com.au/national/israel-responsible-for-faking-aussie-passports-smith-20100524-w5a3.html).

AR


Well for years they also spied on America in spite of USA giving them about $10B a year for weapons. People who believe that God gave them a Promised Land conquered by genocide can do and justify anything.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2010, 01:09 PM
The Aussie foreign minister makes a decision to expel an Israeli diplomat. It's dead cert: the Israelis faked passports.

Read here (http://www.smh.com.au/national/israel-responsible-for-faking-aussie-passports-smith-20100524-w5a3.html).

AR
Another sign Rudd government does not feel confident with super-tax. Any detraction will do.

arosar
24-05-2010, 01:09 PM
Another sign Rudd government does not feel confident with super-tax. Any detraction will do.

Makes sense.

AR

antichrist
24-05-2010, 01:18 PM
Makes sense.

AR

AR, you are falling for a Fool's Mate if you take that on board. Australia was '"forced" to after Britain had already done so. They would have agreed upon before budget came out.

arosar
24-05-2010, 01:27 PM
Sarcasm.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2010, 11:57 PM
This stupid expulsion is probably KRudd's ploy to distract press attention from his continual economic bungling:

Ww_PIhF2Lqg&feature=player_embedded#!

A more sensible and traditional Laborite, AWU boss Paul Howes, wrote Dubai killing strikes blow for decency (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/dubai-killing-strikes-blow-for-decency/story-e6frezz0-1225837698809) a couple of months ago:


The question of the use of Australian passports in the operation in Dubai raises many issues for the Australian Government.

Traditionally, Australia has been a loyal friend of Israel, no matter which party is in government…

Some have argued that if Israel has illegally used Australian passports, this is not the action of a friend. Maybe.

But in my view, friends stand by each other in the good times and the bad, and a friend is someone who lends a hand when the going gets tough.

That’s why I’m proud that our nation has played a small, and accidental role, in the removal of the terrorist al-Mabhouh from our planet…

Al-Mabhouh will be mourned only in the capitals of the despotic Middle East regimes such as Iran and Syria.

Many anti-Israel activists around the world, and in Australia, have seized on the passport issue to develop a new front to push their anti-Israeli propaganda. That, too, is to be expected.

But Australians shouldn’t fall for the giant lie they are pushing. Israelis are actually allied with a clear majority of the Arab world fighting a war against the forces of anti-democratic Islamo-fascism.

The world defeated Nazism. Now the world must support those countries fighting Islamo-fascism…

The Australian Government has a responsibility to protect Australian interests abroad and while some may say the possible illegal use of Australian passports in the Dubai operation is against our national interests, I say they are wrong.

It is in our nation’s interest and the interests of the world as a whole, to ensure democracy, liberty and freedom thrives.

antichrist
25-05-2010, 12:44 PM
But Jono, how did the Palestinian/Israeli problem come about? Land was stolen from the Palestinians and given to people who claimed God had promised it to them. How is that a workable manner to conduct international affairs.

And the Israeli case is only based on a genocide committed about 3,000 years ago when God supposedly made the sun stand still so the genocide could be complete. (Joshua's Day I believe it is called)

No morality based on this claim at all.

Now that same genocide is used as a basis to justify a "genocide" for the past 70 years.

Call a spade a spade.

Even many fair-minded liberal Jews living in Israeli can see the injustice done to Palestinians and try to alleviate all the suffering done in their name.

Before you demonise the Palestinians resistance fighters walk a mile in their shoes. Just as the Jewish resistance fighters committed whatever violence they could against the Nazis during the War - and good on them for it.

If the Israel only stole a name it would not be that bad, but they stole a whole ruddy country and have terrorised the previous inhabitants ever since.

Otherwise I love youse

Davidflude
25-05-2010, 01:11 PM
Why? If the Allies had been able to use a death squad to assassinate Hitler, then WW2 might have ended much sooner.

Hitler was stuffing things up big time. If Hitler was taken out then the following changes would probably have been made

1) Germany would have put the economy on a war footing. That is right. Germany was running one shift a day in the factories and women were kept out of the work place.

2) The Me262 would have been raced into production as a fighter.

3) Enormous effort would not have been wasted on theV! and V2 rockets.

4) there would not have been a crazy man giving stupid orders to the generals. He cost Germany whole armies at Stalingrad and in Normandy and in the Ardennes counter offensive (CKA the battle of the bulge).

Remember if Speer had not been put in charge of production and the allies had continued to bomb only ball bearing factories German war production would have collapsed in 1942 or 1943.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2010, 12:42 AM
Hitler was stuffing things up big time. If Hitler was taken out then the following changes would probably have been made

1) Germany would have put the economy on a war footing. That is right. Germany was running one shift a day in the factories and women were kept out of the work place.

2) The Me262 would have been raced into production as a fighter.

3) Enormous effort would not have been wasted on the V1 and V2 rockets.

4) there would not have been a crazy man giving stupid orders to the generals. He cost Germany whole armies at Stalingrad and in Normandy and in the Ardennes counter offensive (CKA the battle of the bulge).

Remember if Speer had not been put in charge of production and the allies had continued to bomb only ball bearing factories German war production would have collapsed in 1942 or 1943.
David, those are excellent points. Hitler was indeed a grossly incompetent Commander-in-Chief. The Allies were most fortunate not to lose the war. All the same, assassinating Hitler would be like checkmate; it's most likely that other generals would sue for peace without the overwhelming conquest ambitions of Hitler and his fanatical antisemitism.

antichrist
26-05-2010, 12:23 PM
Julia Bishop is not related to Barnaby JOyce is she - they share the same initials and blow the same gaskets

arosar
26-05-2010, 12:48 PM
Julia Bishop is not related to Barnaby JOyce is she - they share the same initials and blow the same gaskets

Well, I dunno what JB's been blowin', but BJ definitely likes to blow them miners, doesn't he?

AR

antichrist
27-05-2010, 04:23 PM
That Julia Bishop has really put her foot in and never could be trusted for any ministerial position. She has sprung the lid on that Australia issues passport for foreign agencies. No one dare say anything about women not being able to keep their mouths shut.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2010, 04:20 AM
That Julia Bishop has really put her foot in and never could be trusted for any ministerial position. She has sprung the lid on that Australia issues passport for foreign agencies. No one dare say anything about women not being able to keep their mouths shut.
She was pointing out that it was hypocritical of Chairman KRudd to punish Israel for allegedly using faked passports (and in the excellent cause of getting rid of a mass-murdering terrorist), since Australia does the same if the cause is right. But KRudd is trying to appease the Jew-hating Arab nations so they might support a cushy UN sinecure for him later. This also explains his wasting more foreign "aid" on African despots and sending Quentin Bryce to Africa with our money.

Ian Murray
28-05-2010, 08:48 AM
...Israel for allegedly using faked passports (and in the excellent cause of getting rid of a mass-murdering terrorist), since Australia does the same if the cause is right...
Settle down, Jono. Australia does not resort to using assassins for political purposes

antichrist
28-05-2010, 05:09 PM
She was pointing out that it was hypocritical of Chairman KRudd to punish Israel for allegedly using faked passports (and in the excellent cause of getting rid of a mass-murdering terrorist), since Australia does the same if the cause is right. But KRudd is trying to appease the Jew-hating Arab nations so they might support a cushy UN sinecure for him later. This also explains his wasting more foreign "aid" on African despots and sending Quentin Bryce to Africa with our money.

But how come when NZ was having similar problems a few years ago they broke off relations off for 6 months I think until an apology was issued - and they were not crawling up the Arab backsides like you accuse Rudd of.

Also a few years back Howard, of advice of our security agency, also sent off one of the Israeli diplomats for wrongful behaviour and it was not an issue at all.

NO, this issues only proves that some Australians of various backgrounds have more loyalty to Israel, a war criminal nation and state terrorist organisation, than to their own country of Australia. Their is a word beginning with "t" to describe such?

antichrist
28-05-2010, 05:28 PM
I see that Elvis Costello and Bono have cancelled tours of Israel in sympathy with the Palistinian cause. Also that a flotilla supported by Turkey is taking off tomorrow to try to break the seige of Gaza - how Hitlerite is Israel in putting a seige of Gaza - because they voted in a govt not of Israel's liking.

And this is after years of Israel boasting that it was the only democratic country in the Middle East. How bigga hypocrites.

Spiny Norman
29-05-2010, 07:34 AM
Settle down, Jono. Australia does not resort to using assassins for political purposes
Mmmm ... I wonder ... since Australia is known to provide Australian passports to other spy agencies in friendly countries, are you certain that none of these other agencies have ever used those passports in an assassination? Guilty by association? Accessory before the fact?

Ian Murray
29-05-2010, 02:07 PM
Mmmm ... I wonder ... since Australia is known to provide Australian passports to other spy agencies in friendly countries, are you certain that none of these other agencies have ever used those passports in an assassination? Guilty by association? Accessory before the fact?
"Ever" covers a long time - who knows what might have happened way back when. However friendly intelligence agencies like CIA and DI6 eschewed assassination decades ago. I don't know what other friends you have in mind (New Zealand?) but nowadays the possibility of our Foreign Minister authorising ASIS to assist in any assassination plot is inconceivable (in the real world at least - different story in Axiom's world).

Igor_Goldenberg
29-05-2010, 10:52 PM
AFP agents in "hit-and-run' accident outside embassy in Tel Aviv (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/afp-agents-in-hit-and-run-accident-outside-embassy-in-tel-aviv/story-e6frg6so-1225836798573)

Happened three months ago, was reported in few newspapers followed by complete silence. I wonder what's the full story?

antichrist
31-05-2010, 06:36 PM
[31-05-2010 05:57 PM] JaK: At least 16 dead as Israel storms Gaza aid boat: media reports. Hamas claims at least 20 dead.... I am getting sketchy details from European agencies! Israeli commandoes acted in defence, according to Tel Aviv sources who refers to casualties without specific Nos.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AC
I would have been on this boat if they would have allowed me. Now we know why Malta sabotaged many VIPs getting on - maybe they knew what Isreael was up to.

(if Garratt, Igor etc want to finance a late trip for me its on - I promise I will stir those Isreali shooters as much as I do you guys))

Spiny Norman
01-06-2010, 10:33 AM
... different story in Axiom's world).
Speaking of which, one of the twitterers on Q&A last night signed off as "axmcc" ... I assumed Axiom/Melbourne Chess Club ... ???

arosar
01-06-2010, 10:42 AM
No man...I just checked. That handle is a journo's.

AR

antichrist
01-06-2010, 03:31 PM
David, those are excellent points. Hitler was indeed a grossly incompetent Commander-in-Chief. The Allies were most fortunate not to lose the war. All the same, assassinating Hitler would be like checkmate; it's most likely that other generals would sue for peace without the overwhelming conquest ambitions of Hitler and his fanatical antisemitism.

What I have had a few Jewish friends tell me that Hitler made a big mistake in not taking the Jews in with him, then he would have won the War. How cynical!