- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 24,677
- Reaction score
- 8,658
- Location
- Israel
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
There's absolutely no way in hell that you've had enough time to read my comment before replying to it.You are making an assumption, that Britain has no evidence. This assumption is false. Blind nationalism is an ugly thing. Face it, you guys got caught, there are repercussions. Boo and hoo.
There's absolutely no way in hell that you've had enough time to read my comment before replying to it.
This is nothing but trolling, and I do not have any further credibility for you as a poster.
Whatever, the UK made a just and accurate response, lets not be apologists here.
Just? Not really, where is the evidence against Israel?Whatever, the UK made a just and accurate response, lets not be apologists here.
You have given up on the stance of a reasonable and rational debater - and for what?Another false assumption. Keep up the good work.
You have given up on the stance of a reasonable and rational debater - and for what?
For the meaningless and pathetic fear from being wrong?
Alright, may you please back that up with sources, so I'll have something to actually reply to?I explained to you my position. There is a wealth of public evidence that Israel forged British passports
Sure, I agree with that.it is perfectly reasonable that a country act to protect it's laws. That is a reasonable and rational position, and one you have made zero effort to counter.
Alright, may you please back that up with sources, so I'll have something to actually reply to?
Sure, I agree with that.
As I've stated earlier, my disagreement is with their decision to act against Israel while not having any actual evidence to present us with.
The above is not an evidence(and certainly not public evidence) - but an assumption.The original article is one piece of evidence, unless you believe the British government is lying. If you believe that, then no evidence is going to work for you. Further reading: Israeli immigration officials copied British passports used by hit squad, ministers told - Telegraph
The above is not an evidence(and certainly not public evidence) - but an assumption.
I do not have to believe that the British officials ("Diplomatic Sources") are lying, but that their conclusions drawing from the incident is wrong.
They have assumed that Israel has gained the copies of the passports that were used in the assassination through airport officials that have taken pictures of the passports during the routine check-ins by the identities-holding individuals in foreign airports.
That is of course not backed by real evidence, and is merely the logical assumption they have reached on the method that Israel has allegedly used.
Please elaborate, with links.
The UK is weak, what they did here was wrong. The hug the terrorists and kiss the "Palestinians." Sadly, my country now too is attacking Israel. The world needs to take a hard stance, not the soft stance and the falsely accusing eye of focusing on the "evils" of Israel and the "plight" of the Palestinian people. Nations are acting in an anti-Israeli fashion to improve relations with the Arab states who hate Israel.
You know, I should have read the entire article before spouting off. If I had, then I would have known that I am wrong here. Naturally, I ass-umed that the British government would only export the Israeli diplomat if he had himself broken the law, so I (say the word with me, folks) ass-umed that the fake passports had been in the diplomat's possession. I ass-umed wrong. I stand corrected, and thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Now I have something else to say - Is the British government ****ing stupid? :mrgreen:
Never assume.You know, I should have read the entire article before spouting off. If I had, then I would have known that I am wrong here. Naturally, I ass-umed that the British government would only export the Israeli diplomat if he had himself broken the law, so I (say the word with me, folks) ass-umed that the fake passports had been in the diplomat's possession. I ass-umed wrong. I stand corrected, and thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Now I have something else to say - Is the British government ****ing stupid? :mrgreen:
Just? Not really, where is the evidence against Israel?
Accurate? absolutely.
I believe the response was quite softened up, and could have been much worse.
As I said in the beginning of this thread, this is not a big issue.
Umm, enough, i guess. They caught a few people in disguise on camera, who came in with fake passports, to kill a Hamas leader. Now, say it wasnt neccessarily anything to do with Israel, but imo i think it was pretty obvious Mossad had a hand in this affair. Also i heard there method of execution, i believe, was common in Mossad assasinations.
It should be treated like a big issue, allied Agents taking the piss out of our trust, undermiming our security, we should tell there ambassador to piss off too. This isnt the first time its happened.
Again, where is the evidence?They caught a few people in disguise on camera, who came in with fake passports, to kill a Hamas leader. Now, say it wasnt neccessarily anything to do with Israel, but imo i think it was pretty obvious Mossad had a hand in this affair. Also i heard there method of execution, i believe, was common in Mossad assasinations.
It's not a big issue, merely a use of foreign passports by foreign agents, something that happens every ****ing day.It should be treated like a big issue, allied Agents taking the piss out of our trust, undermiming our security, we should tell there ambassador to piss off too. This isnt the first time its happened.
British officials have stated that while they have "compelling reasons" to believe Israel is behind the assassination of the terrorist chief, there is no direct evidence that leads towards Israel.For the passports the evidence is circumstantial but compellingly circumstantial. They know it was Israel.
Frame you?I agree it is an important issue - almost like trying to frame us and undermines the worth of our passports.
British officials have stated that while they have "compelling reasons" to believe Israel is behind the assassination of the terrorist chief, there is no direct evidence that leads towards Israel.
Frame you?
By using the passports of 5 different nations?
Clearly whoever was behind this has done a lot to ensure that nobody would be framed with the terrorist's killing, including Israel.
Did they really present any kind of evidence, though?Thye say they have circumstantial evidence and it is compelling. I think in the US, indeed even in England, though not in Scotland, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to win a trial.
They have also used Israeli citizens' identities, Austrian phone lines, American credit cards, and Irish, German, Australian and French passports.By using the passports of British people you intended to leave a trail that led to Britain, not Israel.
Most of the countries wouldn't care, since the assassins of the terrorist chief(that you accuse of being Israeli) have targeted a terrorist chief.A British passport is respected all over the world. You have undermined its integrity. Countries will not know if a British passport is a British passport or an Israeli assassin.
Their lives were never at risk, certainly they are not at risk now.In addition you put at risk the lives of the people whose identity you stole.
And as far as Israel is concerned, this has never happened ever since.No it was to put the blame on other countries than Israel. Not the way to treat allies.
As Kaya has already said you have done this before in the 80's. We were as cross then and you gave your assurance this would never happen again.
...Just when I thought you couldn't go any lower.So you're saying, Apoca, that the UK must have political reasons for doing this, versus solid evidence? It's basically just another anti-Jew conspiracy?
Have I accurately summed up your argument? England just hates the Jews?
I'm afraid this one has to do more with Britain's own citizens.
The Labour party faces a hard election, and a populist action was needed to boost its popularity.
It's not a big deal, however, and cannot be compared with the diplomatic crisis(that is hopefully behind us) with the US.
No more than it was your intention to imply that 9/11 was an inside job and that you believe Osama bin Laden is motivated by just causes.So, it wasn't your intention to imply that this was an anti-Semitic political position designed to appeal to the far left?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?