Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mossad Australian Passport Scam - How not to win friends and influence countries

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    To be completely honest, I've got a lot of friends in Australia that I met during my travels, and I also met a lot of Germans, Brits and Irishmen, the main groups of people whose passports were used. Out of all my friends, only 3 or 4 had even heard of the hit, and after I explained what happened, the vast majority of all my friends didn't really care that their country's passports were used.

    Yes, we choose our friends by how close their opinions are to ours, but I haven't heard anything in the news of any massive uproars by civilians of said countries protesting the usage of their passports. Most civilians are perfectly content to let their governments handle these kind of things.
    BR,

    Don't want to get in the way here, but I think there is a point in here worth addressing. I don't think the issue here is public 'uproar'. There probably won't be one. As issues in the public mind go this isn't a big one, but it doesn't have to be to do Israel damage.

    As you are no doubt aware, Israel has image problems (fairly or otherwise - not the issue here). This adds a potential negative, if only a small one. The fact that it is necessary to explain anything is immediately an issue because many/most of those who find out about the use of passports won't hear the explanation - it will take more time than they can be bothered with. Better not to create the problem in the first place (ie, use someone else's passports).

    The second issue here is probably more problematic. The people who will probably be most p1ssed off about this are actually the people in a position to cause Israel the most problems - politicians & government officials. They are much more likely to get upset about the misuse of their official documents. They are the ones who handle the relationship between the two nations. They are the ones who might feel that they are being disrespected by a nation they have strongly supported in an unfriendly world.

    Few people are going to weep for our dead terrorist, but it strikes me that the potential irritation to friendly nations was unnecessary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Ben,

    It doesn't work that way. The Israelis would have screwed up the air campaign up the ying-yang. There was an ongoing campaign with over 2000 sorties a day. Those things are planned out. To suddenly throw the IsAF in there with no area assignment would just screw things up the ying-yang.

    At the very least, the entire air campagin had to be delayed while we sort out who is who ... and give more time for the Iraqi SCUDs to reposition and fire. NOT A GOOD IDEA.

    Not only that, you have to have our IFF codes as well. Or were the Israelis going to blast Canadian or Turkish birds out of the sky? Which in that case, you might as well give us yours. It's going to be faster than trying to reprogram all your birds.

    Lastly, pilots are not idiots. If you do not fit their mission profile, at the very least, they are going to investigate. Israeli birds in the sky who does not match any mission profile that they were briefed on are going to be at least painted. That many birds with that much going on, something somewhere is going to get itchy fingers and a disaster about to happen.

    The simple fact remained. The Israelis were not going integrated into our battle management nor our mission profile. Until that happenned, they were not going to bomb anything in Iraq.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    After the first Scuds landed in Israel the IAF had sortied it's jets and were already on the way to Iraq. They were called back due to US pressure and promises, in order not to disrupt the Coalition.

    As for the IFF Codes, that was one of the sticks used by the US, that they wouldn't supply Israel with the proper codes, therefore they would be counted as bogies. Israel did not need to give the whole coalition Israeli IFF Codes (something that would be very dangerous and have bad reflections for future operations), the US just had to give the IAF American codes, since the American codes are already integrated into everyone else's systems.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I know the Canadians didn't have Israelis IFF codes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by Genosaurer View Post
    Uhm... Coalition forces went Scud-hunting as part of an agreement to keep Israel out of the Gulf War - since it was figured, probably correctly, that if Israel came into the fighting the OIC coalition members would leave. It wasn't something that was done out of the goodness of their hearts for love of freedom and democracy.

    (The fact that a Scud strike hitting a barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia caused more allied casualties than any other single enemy action no doubt was also a contributing factor.)
    The Coalition could just have said to Israel "if you operate over Iraq we will just shoot your aircraft down" and then let them suffer the Scuds, so the effort was something that the Coalition did for Israels benefit and Australia didn't have to participate in that, but we did. Whatever you think of the motivations the Coalition probably saved Israeli lives and the Israeli Foriegn Minister acknowledged and thanked Australia for its part of the effort. Stealing our passports and potentially drawing us into their problems is a poor way to express gratitude.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Genosaurer View Post
    Uhm... Coalition forces went Scud-hunting as part of an agreement to keep Israel out of the Gulf War - since it was figured, probably correctly, that if Israel came into the fighting the OIC coalition members would leave. It wasn't something that was done out of the goodness of their hearts for love of freedom and democracy.
    There was a primary reason that the Israelis had to stay out. They were not integrated into our battle management system and had they flown, they would have been targetted as boggies and blasted out of the sky.

    Leave a comment:


  • Genosaurer
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    In this specific instance I don't care which is better. When it comes to compromising my country's security when we have no reason to be drawn into your affairs yet we choose to support you because we believe in freedom with that support including sending our troops to destroy missiles in Iraq that were threating your lives, I don't want you to be an asshole at all thankyou very much.
    Uhm... Coalition forces went Scud-hunting as part of an agreement to keep Israel out of the Gulf War - since it was figured, probably correctly, that if Israel came into the fighting the OIC coalition members would leave. It wasn't something that was done out of the goodness of their hearts for love of freedom and democracy.

    (The fact that a Scud strike hitting a barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia caused more allied casualties than any other single enemy action no doubt was also a contributing factor.)
    Last edited by Genosaurer; 28 Mar 10,, 03:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    However, sometimes silence speaks louder than words. Rather than admit it, first of all it goes away quicker, second of all it lets people know that it can be done again and keeps people guessing.
    Yes I know that that is what they are doing, but it is still BS.

    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    As evidenced when 2 more Israeli soldiers were killed in ambush yesterday in the Gaza Strip, believe it or not, not involving rockets. Besides, those few unguided rockets can still kill people like we saw last week, what's worse is that it is in an indiscriminate matter. Ask anybody was in the Blitz in WWII or was under attack from V1 or V2 rockets. Even more, if you allow "a few unguided rockets", than soon it becomes more than just a few, as the people of Sderot have seen for a decade, with over 8,000 rockets and mortars launched from the Gaza Strip since the year 2000
    .

    Yup and that sucks and naturally you are going to try to stop it. That doesn't mean you have the right to compromise the security of citizens from my country to do so and if you continue to do so there likely to be consequences that are far more serious than this.

    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    Al-Mabhouh was not killed because of his involvement with rockets, rather because he was responsible for the kidnapping and murdering of two Israeli soldiers. From the psychological aspect, it's not just satiating the revenge desire, it also gives the people themselves a morale boost and let's the enemy know that no matter where you are or no matter how long ago it happened, if you piss us off we will be there one day to get you. When a people are subjected to long periods of conflict like the Israelis are, keeping high morale is extremely important
    .

    Fair enough, so he was involved in something other than rocket firing and it makes Israelis feel better to kill him. I fully support you doing so in a way that doesn't compromise the security of citizens from my country.

    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    To be completely honest, I've got a lot of friends in Australia that I met during my travels, and I also met a lot of Germans, Brits and Irishmen, the main groups of people whose passports were used. Out of all my friends, only 3 or 4 had even heard of the hit, and after I explained what happened, the vast majority of all my friends didn't really care that their country's passports were used.

    Yes, we choose our friends by how close their opinions are to ours, but I haven't heard anything in the news of any massive uproars by civilians of said countries protesting the usage of their passports. Most civilians are perfectly content to let their governments handle these kind of things.
    .

    I'd suggest that since they are your friends they are probably either pretty pro-israel or too polite to say to your face what they really think. You are probably right though that this hasn't really hit the public conciousness here. The national daily had a few letters to the editor the day after the issue arose and the opinion was split down the middle, though a number of the pro-israeli letters were written by somebody with a name like Rosenblum or the like. For the general public it is more likely to be a case of an insidious undermining of the Israeli public image over time, as they come to realise the potential implications for them.


    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    The main problem with this hypothesis is A: It is not a potential sea of enemies. It is a sea of enemies, period. B:Israel does not use it as an excuse. Israel truly believes in that.

    Besides, Jews were able to exist just fine from agriculture and other things well before the country was founded, given no help from either the Arab or British governments in pre-1948, and also managed to do fairly well before the Americans actually pledged to support Israel against the Arabs in 1973. Yes, the Americans were selling arms to Israel even before 1967, but they were playing even handed, dealing equally with Israel and the Arab countries. It was in 1973 that Nixon decided to stick up for Israel and stare down the Soviets.
    I say potential enemies now because they are currently ineffectual, don't count on it always being the case. As for Israeli's believing that they can do whatever they like to survive because that happenned, they need to start unbelieving it because it won't wash with the rest of the World. You can point to the degree of economic autonomy they had in times gone by if you like, but small countries in the 21st century that have burned their trade and security bridges and have no natural resources to speak of can't generate the economic prosperity to survive in the sea of enemies that you speak of. Basically you guys need to look less at history and more at what the World is likely to be like in the future. The game has changed and so have the necessary responses.

    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    Two problems with the above statement. A: he was not a two bit rocket firer, like I said before, he was involved in kidnapping, torturing and murdering Israeli soldiers. As a former active soldier and current Reserve solder myself, I full well want someone to kill my captors if something should happen to me, even if it's 20 years after I die.

    B: 95% of the time Israel is the one who exemplifies the moral high ground, as evidenced time and again by operating procedures in Gaza and the West Bank, by the unilateral withdrawal in 2005 from the Gaza Strip, and from the numerous and various peace overtures offered to the Palestinians, including 2 very generous offers offered to Yassir Arafat from Ehud barak, and to Mahmoud Abbas from Ehud Olmert, both of which were turned down.

    An example of moral high ground: Two terrorists, one Israeli and one Arab, Baruch Goldstein and Dalal Mugrabi.

    Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Muslims in the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in Hebron in 1994. Dalal Mugrabi participated in the Coastal Road Massacre in Israel in 1978 resulting in 38 Israeli dead, including 13 children.

    Baruch Goldstein is indeed venerated by some people in Israel, but the government condemns his actions, and 5 years after his actions passed a law and has torn down a shrine and monument to him and his actions next to his grave site. Dalal Mugrabi is not only venerated and revered by many on the Palestinian side, but two weeks ago, 32 years after her involvement in the massacre, a traffic circle was named after her in Ramallah. This during Joe Biden's visit to Israel. Not only that, but according to Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, and former General Intelligence Services director,"we are all Dalal Mughrabi" and "for us she is not a terrorist." And this is supposedly the "moderate" Fatah, and not the extremist Hamas.

    So who exactly holds the moral high ground here? You can be the moral superior 95% of the time and be an asshole in the 5% when it's needed, or be an asshole 100% of the time. Which do you think is better?
    In this specific instance I don't care which is better. When it comes to compromising my country's security when we have no reason to be drawn into your affairs yet we choose to support you because we believe in freedom with that support including sending our troops to destroy missiles in Iraq that were threating your lives, I don't want you to be an asshole at all thankyou very much.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
    The notion that is being peddled by the Israeli Government and our Israeli posters here, that there isn't any proof that this was Israel, is just a very lame attempt at obsfuctation. What other nation or group has the motivation or means to send a bunch of people, many of whom had a European appearance (including one blonde woman) into another country to knock off a Hamas leader? It will probably never be proven to a level that would stand up in court, but I think anybody with a brain knows that the notion that it was anybody but Israel is unadulterated guff.
    However, sometimes silence speaks louder than words. Rather than admit it, first of all it goes away quicker, second of all it lets people know that it can be done again and keeps people guessing.

    Benefits: The militant who was killed belonged to a group that at the most now days can fire a few unguided rockets from the Palestinian territories into Israel. This threat can be countered by just not having settlements so near the Palestinian territories, or if Israel must by deploying the various new anti-rocket systems that are being developed.
    As evidenced when 2 more Israeli soldiers were killed in ambush yesterday in the Gaza Strip, believe it or not, not involving rockets. Besides, those few unguided rockets can still kill people like we saw last week, what's worse is that it is in an indiscriminate matter. Ask anybody was in the Blitz in WWII or was under attack from V1 or V2 rockets. Even more, if you allow "a few unguided rockets", than soon it becomes more than just a few, as the people of Sderot have seen for a decade, with over 8,000 rockets and mortars launched from the Gaza Strip since the year 2000


    Conversely there is bugger all that Israel can do to stop Hamas getting the rockets, one little assasination isn;t going to going to make a difference to their military capacity and the Palestinians militants have proven that they won't be cowed by violence (because they are nuts, not because they are brave). The only "postiive" outcome that this is likely to achieve is to satiate the desire for revenge that people get when they are subjected to long periods of conflict. That doesn't seem like a big win to moi.
    Al-Mabhouh was not killed because of his involvement with rockets, rather because he was responsible for the kidnapping and murdering of two Israeli soldiers. From the psychological aspect, it's not just satiating the revenge desire, it also gives the people themselves a morale boost and let's the enemy know that no matter where you are or no matter how long ago it happened, if you piss us off we will be there one day to get you. When a people are subjected to long periods of conflict like the Israelis are, keeping high morale is extremely important

    Costs: The short term costs aren't likely to be big either, a few diplomatic expulsions or even severing of diplomatic relations or a santion from the UN aren't going to be a big deal for Israel. However, if this sort of behavior continues, and Israel doesn't seem to have given us reason for us to believe that it will be abated, there will be an insidious effect on public opinion in countries that are now friendly to Israel who have been burned by this sort of behaviour. In the long term that has to effect the ability of the body politic in those countries to adopt pro-israeli views.
    To be completely honest, I've got a lot of friends in Australia that I met during my travels, and I also met a lot of Germans, Brits and Irishmen, the main groups of people whose passports were used. Out of all my friends, only 3 or 4 had even heard of the hit, and after I explained what happened, the vast majority of all my friends didn't really care that their country's passports were used.

    Yes, we choose our friends by how close their opinions are to ours, but I haven't heard anything in the news of any massive uproars by civilians of said countries protesting the usage of their passports. Most civilians are perfectly content to let their governments handle these kind of things.

    When there are only a few million Israelis in a potential sea of enemies, being entirely isolated from the developed World in a way which will undermine your economic strength and ultimately your ability to survive isn't a place where you want to be. I'd suggest that while the World's memories and sympathy of what has happenned to the Jewish people over the last century fades, that this risk will increase. Israel won't be able to fall back on the "we sufferred in the Holocaust so doing whatever we need to do to survive is ok" excuse any more, you will be increasingly be expected to comply with international law.
    The main problem with this hypothesis is A: It is not a potential sea of enemies. It is a sea of enemies, period. B:Israel does not use it as an excuse. Israel truly believes in that.

    Besides, Jews were able to exist just fine from agriculture and other things well before the country was founded, given no help from either the Arab or British governments in pre-1948, and also managed to do fairly well before the Americans actually pledged to support Israel against the Arabs in 1973. Yes, the Americans were selling arms to Israel even before 1967, but they were playing even handed, dealing equally with Israel and the Arab countries. It was in 1973 that Nixon decided to stick up for Israel and stare down the Soviets.

    If I were an Israeli citizen I'd be encouraging my Government to worry less about assasinating two-bit rocket firers and more about being a model international citizen who exemplifies the high moral ground, or else others might not feel the need to do the same when it comes to helping you out.
    Two problems with the above statement. A: he was not a two bit rocket firer, like I said before, he was involved in kidnapping, torturing and murdering Israeli soldiers. As a former active soldier and current Reserve solder myself, I full well want someone to kill my captors if something should happen to me, even if it's 20 years after I die.

    B: 95% of the time Israel is the one who exemplifies the moral high ground, as evidenced time and again by operating procedures in Gaza and the West Bank, by the unilateral withdrawal in 2005 from the Gaza Strip, and from the numerous and various peace overtures offered to the Palestinians, including 2 very generous offers offered to Yassir Arafat from Ehud barak, and to Mahmoud Abbas from Ehud Olmert, both of which were turned down.

    An example of moral high ground: Two terrorists, one Israeli and one Arab, Baruch Goldstein and Dalal Mugrabi.

    Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Muslims in the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in Hebron in 1994. Dalal Mugrabi participated in the Coastal Road Massacre in Israel in 1978 resulting in 38 Israeli dead, including 13 children.

    Baruch Goldstein is indeed venerated by some people in Israel, but the government condemns his actions, and 5 years after his actions passed a law and has torn down a shrine and monument to him and his actions next to his grave site. Dalal Mugrabi is not only venerated and revered by many on the Palestinian side, but two weeks ago, 32 years after her involvement in the massacre, a traffic circle was named after her in Ramallah. This during Joe Biden's visit to Israel. Not only that, but according to Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, and former General Intelligence Services director,"we are all Dalal Mughrabi" and "for us she is not a terrorist." And this is supposedly the "moderate" Fatah, and not the extremist Hamas.

    So who exactly holds the moral high ground here? You can be the moral superior 95% of the time and be an asshole in the 5% when it's needed, or be an asshole 100% of the time. Which do you think is better?

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    My friend, I like the way you've written your post, well thought out and articulated. I'll hit you up with a response later today, unfortunately I've got a lunch meeting I'm late for. Just wanted to let you know I saw it.

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • Aussiegunner
    replied
    The notion that is being peddled by the Israeli Government and our Israeli posters here, that there isn't any proof that this was Israel, is just a very lame attempt at obsfuctation. What other nation or group has the motivation or means to send a bunch of people, many of whom had a European appearance (including one blonde woman) into another country to knock off a Hamas leader? It will probably never be proven to a level that would stand up in court, but I think anybody with a brain knows that the notion that it was anybody but Israel is unadulterated guff.

    Bigross at least seems to be prepared to entertain the possibility that this might just not be the right thing to do, though Coup De Grace seems quite happy to argue that drawing British and Australian people into Israel's conflict without their consent is justified. The only thing that he and others like him are likely to understand are the potential benefits and costs of this for Isreal, so let me spell them out for their benefit.

    Benefits: The militant who was killed belonged to a group that at the most now days can fire a few unguided rockets from the Palestinian territories into Israel. This threat can be countered by just not having settlements so near the Palestinian territories, or if Israel must by deploying the various new anti-rocket systems that are being developed. Conversely there is bugger all that Israel can do to stop Hamas getting the rockets, one little assasination isn;t going to going to make a difference to their military capacity and the Palestinians militants have proven that they won't be cowed by violence (because they are nuts, not because they are brave). The only "postiive" outcome that this is likely to achieve is to satiate the desire for revenge that people get when they are subjected to long periods of conflict. That doesn't seem like a big win to moi.

    Costs: The short term costs aren't likely to be big either, a few diplomatic expulsions or even severing of diplomatic relations or a santion from the UN aren't going to be a big deal for Israel. However, if this sort of behavior continues, and Israel doesn't seem to have given us reason for us to believe that it will be abated, there will be an insidious effect on public opinion in countries that are now friendly to Israel who have been burned by this sort of behaviour. In the long term that has to effect the ability of the body politic in those countries to adopt pro-israeli views. Coup de Grace can say that people like Australians are being stupid by making such a fuss of the issue if he/she likes (I don't know your gender sorry), but the fact of the matter is that we DO take it seriously and that he/she just had to deal with that.

    The real risk for Israel is that if global sentiment shifts against it, then there will be real repercussions in terms of security co-operation and trade. This will especially be the case if the Arab and wider Muslim world ever get their act together and realise how much more economic power they have than Israel, and start favouring nations that restrict trade and security co-operation with it, so that nations like Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand decide to stop taking the high moral ground and look after thier own economic interest instead. While Israel has the US onside Israel might be shielded but they won't give unconditional support forever, expecially with the pretty strong isolationist streak amongst them. This is especially the case given the way Israel has abused the US with technology tranfers to China and the like.

    When there are only a few million Israelis in a potential sea of enemies, being entirely isolated from the developed World in a way which will undermine your economic strength and ultimately your ability to survive isn't a place where you want to be. I'd suggest that while the World's memories and sympathy of what has happenned to the Jewish people over the last century fades, that this risk will increase. Israel won't be able to fall back on the "we sufferred in the Holocaust so doing whatever we need to do to survive is ok" excuse any more, you will be increasingly be expected to comply with international law.

    If I were an Israeli citizen I'd be encouraging my Government to worry less about assasinating two-bit rocket firers and more about being a model international citizen who exemplifies the high moral ground, or else others might not feel the need to do the same when it comes to helping you out.
    Last edited by Aussiegunner; 27 Mar 10,, 05:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coup De Grace
    replied
    With all honestly, if anyone used my passport (even Dubai.. I believe they have troubles with Islamic fanaticism too) to eliminate someone who is responsible for so many unnecessary deaths I'd only be glad I could help as much, even if without knowing.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    Go ahead, use Israeli passports. One of the nations in the world with the most travel restrictions on it's passport. Plus, Israeli's are usually more suspect, especially after Dubai. You wanna use an Israeli passport? Have fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Sorry Coup De Grace , I didn't explain myself clearly enough. What I meant to say was:

    If Israel (assuming it is responsible for the Dubai incident) argues that for national security reasons it has the right to conduct covert operations and assassinations in other sovereign states with whom it's not at war then it has to concede the right for other nations to do the same within its borders.
    It can't commit wholesale passport fraud without ceding the "right" for other nations (who arenít Israelís enemies) to forge its passports.
    Dubai despite the fact it may not recognise Israel is still part of a sovereign nation in good international standing (as opposed to Hamas in the Gaza strip).
    Finally, just because a habitual criminal (Hamas) commits felonies that is not an excuse of a law abiding citizen to do the same. Although perhaps the above only applies in a perfect world. Perhaps where nations are concerned the only rule is ďdonít get caught.Ē

    Leave a comment:


  • maverick
    replied
    Seriously, why does this issue bug the Aussies so much. The Israelis (Peace Be Upon Them) did the civilized world a huge favour in fixing this guy, who is probably enjoying his 72 virgins now....
    I hope his 72 virgins are all Hamas guys who have never had sex. :P

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X