Or, rather, in this more refined place, debate.
A piece in the Times today notes that our schoolboy foreign secretary is waxing wroth over the supposed use of forged British Passports by Israel’s Mossad. (Nothing about the proven use of forged British Passports by criminal wannabe terrorists, it is noted.) ‘Supposed,’ because there is as yet not one shred of evidence linking the Israeli foreign intelligence service to the attack in Dubai. (And, please, not a word about the fact that the passports were all forged documents of people with British citizenship living in Israel. For the sum of 250 Euros and the price of a First Class air ticket and two or three nights in a 4 star hotel – I’m not greedy – in Bucharest or Sofia, I can get you a passport in the name of a British Citizen living just about anywhere in the World you like.) Anyhoo, all that aside, there’s more.
The article goes on to discuss whether or not targetting terrorist leaders can be regarded as moral or not:
Quote: ‘State-backed assassination — the extrajudicial killing of an enemy outside a war zone — has long been regarded as illegal and immoral.’
It could be said, however, that, in operations of war, all Armies devote an inordinate amount of time and resource to finding and destroying enemy command centres and commanders. There is a case to be argued that international terrorist organisations have defined the bounds of their war zone to be worldwide, and striking wherever the whim takes them, London, Madrid, New York, Dubai, Mumbai…
There is also a common suggestion that political leaders would not be so keen on starting wars if they had to expose their own shrinking bodies to the dangers into which they send their soldiers – in which case, knowing that their own Rses are on the line ought to concentrate minds on exactly what they are doing, i would have thought.
However, there’s the debate; kill the brains behind the murderers, or concentrate on the misguided individuals who are doing their bidding?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article7074776.ece
Boadicea's Chariot 
The Geneva Convention, Bravo was an attempt, albeit doomed to failure, to draw up some “moral” guidelines to this whole business of warfare. It is history.
So, do we stoop to the level of so called enemies, or do we attempt to take the high moral ground? We all know the realities of the situation, the justification and so forth, but how does one resolve this?
Are we really at war, is another question? I don’t believe we are, Mossad may believe differently.
You’re absolutely right, Bravo, that there is no proof at all that the Mossad carried it out this assassination. The whole thing, with twenty something agents, is just so clunky. It must be Hamas or Fatah getting rid of one of their own who had become a liability and leaving a trail they thought would lead to Israel. Enter the Dubai police chief, eager to help fellow muslims and ready to swallow almost any story. And the stories! Talk about conflicting, with no clear account of how the victim died – poison, suffocation, knife, drugs – and then two of the alleged Mossad agents making their escape to Iran. And our pathetic Foreign Secretary swallows it all.
Bravo – Perhaps people have lost sight of the definition of “war”, which, to me, is one country declaring “war” on another – rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention to apply. What we have now, and what we had in Northern Ireland to be honest, are groups of terrorists who are quite happy to blow up British soldiers and civilians, yet when cornered throw their hands up and claim “human rights” and the protection of said Geneva Convention.
Correct me if I’m wrong (you having been under the Colours), but I believe in fighting fire with fire. British troops are dying in the ‘stan because of inadequate equipment and the rules of engagement and all supposedly to protect the UK from fundamentalist attacks. Bolleaux! Just quietly insert a few specialist teams and take out the ringleaders and their followers. Problem sorted and to hell with the liberals, bleeding hearts and the fifth column.
OZ
Araminta, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. I published the relevant articles from the Conventions in another place. Look it up. Stooping to the level of our enemies would be mounting indiscriminate attacks on railway stations, markets, buses, etc, wouldn’t it?
Sheona, not only is there no proof, there is no evidence, either, just speculation.
OZ, the problem is, finding the leaders 🙂
Bravo, I find your confident critique of the world of Mossad and assassination disturbing.
Janus, sorry, I don’t understand. What critique of Mossad?
Proof? Hmmm. We are talking about secret services, aren’t we?
And, “For the sum of 250 Euros and the price of a First Class air ticket and two or three nights in a 4 star hotel – I’m not greedy – in Bucharest or Sofia, I can get you a passport in the name of a British Citizen living just about anywhere in the World you like.) ” Glad I learnt that. Might need someday. 😉
Janus, you may be thinking of my comments about Mossad. From all I have read, the Mossad is a very competent organisation which would not use an excessive number of agents and would certainly not try to escape to Iran.
Er, yes, Bravo; that was rather my point, which you obviously misunderstood.
Araminta, obviously. So we agree, then.
levent. The way things are going, who needs help from whom may be a matter for discussion 🙂
Levent, PS. I mean with the EUSSR, of course.
Bravo: I wouldn’t go quite that far, but yes, on that point we do. 🙂
Araminta, we have some common ground, then. Perhaps you would like to expand on your point about ‘stooping to the level,’ of our enemies?
I will, thank you Bravo, but it will have to be later.
I wrote ‘the world of Mossad and assassination’, meaning the dark side of international relations.
Janus, fair enough. Still not sure I quite understand. Perhaps you might care to expand?
Bravo, I’ll try again. It disturbs me that you can confidently rubbish the statements of a gubmint minister in matters of secret services and assassination and announce that you can get illegal passports at the drop of a few quid. You are obviously well connected but not to people I can respect. Btw, the fact that the gubmint has not published the evidence for associating Mosad with the crimes in question does not mean there isn’t any; more likely it is secret. 8)
Mossad. sp.
Ah, I see. Does it also disturb you when someone confidently rubbishes the statements of government ministers in matters other than those of secret services and assassination? For example, on taking the country to war with suspect legality?
How do you know you cannot respect people you don’t know?
Bravo, by their deeds shall ye know them.
So, is killing a terrorist a plus or a minus (deed, that is)? In your view. And, is killing a terrorist leader bettter than killing a dupe in an explosive weskit? That was the question in the blog.
Bravo, are you sure those are the only options?
There is no room for morality in war, I say we kill the terrorists wherever they are and by whatever means possible.
Janus, I asked first.
In light of the events in Moscow, particularly since it appears that the two suicide bombers were females, any more thoughts on the killing of the old men with beards who send these dupes out to do their dirty business, instead of the poor suckers who fall for the superstitious bullshit?
The guy who sent these two out, it would seem, though there is as yet no confirmation, is called Doku Umarov. A suitable case for treatment,