They used the identities of dead people. Nothing else about them is really important.

True....but according to your mate, because I reported it as a handicapped child (and dead), it made the entire story BS. Very sad fellow.

You don't know what I'm posting since you can't read my posts unless someone else you haven't put on your ignore list quotes them first.

Since I declared my "truce" about 10 days ago or so I haven't gone after anyone here. In that time, you've had "battles" with several other posters here. Sounds to me like you might be the sad fellow here.

Mossad agents have been caught here again trying to obtain NZ passports using dead handicapped children's identities.

I think the Mossad Nazi hunters are a law unto themselves with no respect for life or foreign boundaries.

Sorry, but this stinks to high heaven of bullshit. They didn't just use dead people's identities, it was dead children. And not just any dead children, but dead handicapped children! Well, when you have big noses and horns on your head, I guess that's what you have to resort to, eh? Gimme a break.

Yes, but at least those minions of Satan did not use identities of dead, handicapped, orphaned children!

My point was that it is credible. It is indeed credible. Sure it is possible that it was a number of other people....it could have been me, it could have been his wife's lover, it could have been his jilted gay lover, it could have been a mistake....Indeed there are many possiblities.

There is a difference in meaning AND in connotation between "credible" and "possible".

When one implies that it is not credible that the culprit is Israeli, one loses credibility.

 

Remember I told that my DOD had to withdraw their reason mentioned for going into Afghanistan, (to go after people that were involved in the 9/11 attacks), they had to change it into a peace building and reconstruction mission statement. Now this statement is also questioned as these soldiers are now and were actively engaged in combat operations there.

And Kohee and perhaps some others please just only look at part 6 of the rethink Afghanistan docu. It is just ten minutes of your life and it shows American soldiers, generals and American CIA peeps telling there is no Al Quiada in Afghanistan anymore and seriously asking why they are there.

Lets be a little more accurate with our phrasing, please.

The US did not "have" to change its mission statement.  The mission statement merely evolved, which is a normal and planned progression. And yes, there are still combat ops as the Taliban (not Al Qaida) attacks all aspects of the current government and the coalition forces.  You can't build infrastructure if some people attack the workers and destroy what is being built.  And you can't hold elections without troops there to maintain order of the Taliban kills voters and blows up polling places (or threatens to do so, which also keeps people away from the polls.)

I did not say that the US had to change their MS. I mentioned the DOD of my HC (Home Country) had to.

Bad people have been using the names and DOBs of deceased children for years to otain false identies. This is nothing new and certainly not restricted to the Mossad.

I first heard about it in the 70's. I guess NZ is a little behind the times, being so far down under.

Hardly an "outspoken critic"!!! Who IS actually sensationalising things here?

In fact, "....State broadcaster IRIB described him as a "committed and revolutionary" professor, suggesting he backed the government of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad......" ( http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/us-israel-bla...an-bomb-3328949 )

The questions is, why would Israel (or less likely America) take out an Iranian theoretical particle physics

specialist?

It's not a big leap to think of an answer.

An Iranian nationalist and committed revolutionary yes, but still a critic of Ahmadinejad.  And Ahmadinejad has shown himself to be able to tough action against his critics while also being a little loose with facts and truth.

So the Israelis have a motive?  OK, I can accept the possibility.  The US.  OK.  Ahmadinejad, sure.  I have also spoken to Sunni who absolutely fear an Iranian bomb. How about Saudi?  How about any EU member just anxious to keep things from boiling over?

Finding a possible motive goes along way from showing an actual connection to his murder.  So unless shown credible evidence, it is really silly to rush to judge another nation's complicity in it, and using the French bombing of the Rainbow Warrior as any sort of indication of Israel or the US's complicity is really reaching.

Now the exact same build up of media & security fear is starting again.... I may not believe everything I read but I have eyes,ears & a memory.

I may be misreading you, but it seems to me that you are willing to believe what is coming out of the Iranian press, though.

Mossad agents have been caught here again trying to obtain NZ passports using dead handicapped children's identities.

I think the Mossad Nazi hunters are a law unto themselves with no respect for life or foreign boundaries.

Sorry, but this stinks to high heaven of bullshit. They didn't just use dead people's identities, it was dead children. And not just any dead children, but dead handicapped children! Well, when you have big noses and horns on your head, I guess that's what you have to resort to, eh? Gimme a break.

Yes, but at least those minions of Satan did not use identities of dead, handicapped, orphaned children!

My apologies...he wasn't dead. I wan't trying to sensationalise it.....merely bad recall.

http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr32-123b.html

That's a very odd and sceptical view....just because it was a child and dead and handicapped makes it BS?

No, that does not make it BS, just indicative of hyperbole.  

I don't think that anyone doubts the the Mossad does many things in the pursuit of their mission, and faking passports would certainly fall into that, as has been proven by historical fact.  But taking the fact that some Mossad agents tried to obtain a passport using the identity of a New Zealand citizen who suffers from cerebral palsy and sensationalizing it to the Mossad  going after passports of "dead handicapped children" is the very definition of hyperbole.

They used the identities of dead people. Nothing else about them is really important.

True....but according to your mate, because I reported it as a handicapped child (and dead), it made the entire story BS. Very sad fellow.

You don't know what I'm posting since you can't read my posts unless someone else you haven't put on your ignore list quotes them first.

Since I declared my "truce" about 10 days ago or so I haven't gone after anyone here. In that time, you've had "battles" with several other posters here. Sounds to me like you might be the sad fellow here.

Now the exact same build up of media & security fear is starting again.... I may not believe everything I read but I have eyes,ears & a memory.

I may be misreading you, but it seems to me that you are willing to believe what is coming out of the Iranian press, though.

No not at all....meaning I do not as I said believe everything I read. That article as I said was something another member pointed out. But in the overall scheme of things it is just another brick in the wall.

I'm sure we will shortly

They used the identities of dead people. Nothing else about them is really important.

True....but according to your mate, because I reported it as a handicapped child (and dead), it made the entire story BS. Very sad fellow.

You don't know what I'm posting since you can't read my posts unless someone else you haven't put on your ignore list quotes them first.

Since I declared my "truce" about 10 days ago or so I haven't gone after anyone here. In that time, you've had "battles" with several other posters here. Sounds to me like you might be the sad fellow here.

Good man UG. Thanks.

Firstly, you are my only "ignore" poster.

Secondly, if you know I'm not reading your posts, what good is your truce to me if I am ignorant of it?

Thirdly, I don't consider I have had "battles" with anybody, certainly not "several" people. Disagreements with UG, and the interactions with Chuck are not worth mentining....definietely not "battles"! Just me responding to his silliness.

Fourthly, since reading the above I have given you a fair go and read some of your posts....you call a truce and post that thread about NZ? What was your motive there? What was your motive in posting about my spelling again?...

Fifthly, you called what I said BS because I used evocative words like "handicapped" etc.....there is not alot of rationale to accuse me of lying just because the bad guys did bad things by taking advantage of a handicapped person. You really need to check your facts before calling me a liar.

Good man UG. Thanks.

Firstly, you are my only "ignore" poster.

Secondly, if you know I'm not reading your posts, what good is your truce to me if I am ignorant of it?

Thirdly, I don't consider I have had "battles" with anybody, certainly not "several" people. Disagreements with UG, and the interactions with Chuck are not worth mentining....definietely not "battles"! Just me responding to his silliness.

Fourthly, since reading the above I have given you a fair go and read some of your posts....you call a truce and post that thread about NZ? What was your motive there? What was your motive in posting about my spelling again?...

Fifthly, you called what I said BS because I used evocative words like "handicapped" etc.....there is not alot of rationale to accuse me of lying just because the bad guys did bad things by taking advantage of a handicapped person. You really need to check your facts before calling me a liar.

First, I'm honored.

Second, you're the one who blocked the posts, not me.

Third, you get into with just about everyone on here that has an opposing view. Everyone can read and decide for themselves.

Fourth, what's wrong with the New Zealand thread? Was there anything nasty in it? Someone posted in the "I like America because..." thread all about killing Indians and stealing their land, etc. Did I post anything about what you guys did to the Maori? No, I posted about LOTR - which is a fantastic film trilogy. Oh, and the koala joke. Oooo. It took about 10 posts but the ball finally got rolling and people posted some pretty nice stuff about NZ. I would think you' be at least a little proud. WHY must everything be about America? Geez.

Fifth, I was calling the story bullshit. I thought you were just reporting it here. I didn't know it was something you personally made up or spun in such a way that was - as pointed out - hyperbole and that you would take any disagreement personally. You're almost as touchy as we Americans. I'm sure you're also smart enough to know that it wouldn't go unchallenged (by at least 3 others I might add). If you think that is calling you a liar, that's up to you.

FINALLY, please, no one quote this post. If he wants to read it, he can do so himself.

Good man UG. Thanks.

Firstly, you are my only "ignore" poster.

Secondly, if you know I'm not reading your posts, what good is your truce to me if I am ignorant of it?

Thirdly, I don't consider I have had "battles" with anybody, certainly not "several" people. Disagreements with UG, and the interactions with Chuck are not worth mentining....definietely not "battles"! Just me responding to his silliness.

Fourthly, since reading the above I have given you a fair go and read some of your posts....you call a truce and post that thread about NZ? What was your motive there? What was your motive in posting about my spelling again?...

Fifthly, you called what I said BS because I used evocative words like "handicapped" etc.....there is not alot of rationale to accuse me of lying just because the bad guys did bad things by taking advantage of a handicapped person. You really need to check your facts before calling me a liar.

First, I'm honored.

Second, you're the one who blocked the posts, not me.

Third, you get into with just about everyone on here that has an opposing view. Everyone can read and decide for themselves.

Fourth, what's wrong with the New Zealand thread? Was there anything nasty in it? Someone posted in the "I like America because..." thread all about killing Indians and stealing their land, etc. Did I post anything about what you guys did to the Maori? No, I posted about LOTR - which is a fantastic film trilogy. Oh, and the koala joke. Oooo. It took about 10 posts but the ball finally got rolling and people posted some pretty nice stuff about NZ. I would think you' be at least a little proud. WHY must everything be about America? Geez.

Fifth, I was calling the story bullshit. I thought you were just reporting it here. I didn't know it was something you personally made up or spun in such a way that was - as pointed out - hyperbole and that you would take any disagreement personally. You're almost as touchy as we Americans. I'm sure you're also smart enough to know that it wouldn't go unchallenged (by at least 3 others I might add). If you think that is calling you a liar, that's up to you.

FINALLY, please, no one quote this post. If he wants to read it, he can do so himself.

Firstly, there is something perverse about being honoured that you are the only one I ignore. Is it really a special position? Are you complimenting me? If so, thanks....but I don't understand why.

Secondly, yes, I blocked the posts, as you know.....so how would you expect me to know about a supposed truce? You cried that you called truce as if I was guilty of an indescretion, yet you know I was unaware of the truce.

Thirdly, not too sure of your grammar ....nevermind..... opposing views doesn't mean "battles".

Fourthly...the NZ thread? Reading it, it is plain that you devised your OP to be able to emphasise that NZ is only good for one thing. You baited everyone with your koala ploy, (and failed...you had to explain that you were waiting for someone to pull you up on koalas) and it took 10 posts before you could reveal your joke. I suspect people stopped posting in that thread once the gist of your intention sunk in.

Fifthly,I don't believe you, but I have to accept your spin. I can't argue it.

Good man UG. Thanks.

Firstly, you are my only "ignore" poster.

Secondly, if you know I'm not reading your posts, what good is your truce to me if I am ignorant of it?

Thirdly, I don't consider I have had "battles" with anybody, certainly not "several" people. Disagreements with UG, and the interactions with Chuck are not worth mentining....definietely not "battles"! Just me responding to his silliness.

Fourthly, since reading the above I have given you a fair go and read some of your posts....you call a truce and post that thread about NZ? What was your motive there? What was your motive in posting about my spelling again?...

Fifthly, you called what I said BS because I used evocative words like "handicapped" etc.....there is not alot of rationale to accuse me of lying just because the bad guys did bad things by taking advantage of a handicapped person. You really need to check your facts before calling me a liar.

First, I'm honored.

Second, you're the one who blocked the posts, not me.

Third, you get into with just about everyone on here that has an opposing view. Everyone can read and decide for themselves.

Fourth, what's wrong with the New Zealand thread? Was there anything nasty in it? Someone posted in the "I like America because..." thread all about killing Indians and stealing their land, etc. Did I post anything about what you guys did to the Maori? No, I posted about LOTR - which is a fantastic film trilogy. Oh, and the koala joke. Oooo. It took about 10 posts but the ball finally got rolling and people posted some pretty nice stuff about NZ. I would think you' be at least a little proud. WHY must everything be about America? Geez.

Fifth, I was calling the story bullshit. I thought you were just reporting it here. I didn't know it was something you personally made up or spun in such a way that was - as pointed out - hyperbole and that you would take any disagreement personally. You're almost as touchy as we Americans. I'm sure you're also smart enough to know that it wouldn't go unchallenged (by at least 3 others I might add). If you think that is calling you a liar, that's up to you.

FINALLY, please, no one quote this post. If he wants to read it, he can do so himself.

Firstly, there is something perverse about being honoured that you are the only one I ignore. Is it really a special position? Are you complimenting me? If so, thanks....but I don't understand why.

Secondly, yes, I blocked the posts, as you know.....so how would you expect me to know about a supposed truce? You cried that you called truce as if I was guilty of an indescretion, yet you know I was unaware of the truce.

Thirdly, not too sure of your grammar ....nevermind..... opposing views doesn't mean "battles".

Fourthly...the NZ thread? Reading it, it is plain that you devised your OP to be able to emphasise that NZ is only good for one thing. You baited everyone with your koala ploy, (and failed...you had to explain that you were waiting for someone to pull you up on koalas) and it took 10 posts before you could reveal your joke. I suspect people stopped posting in that thread once the gist of your intention sunk in.

Fifthly,I don't believe you, but I have to accept your spin. I can't argue it.

You're not going to sucker me into one of those little tit-for-tat battles you're so famous for around here. I'm sure no one here wants to read it anymore than I want to participate.

In closing, I would like to remind everyone...

Good. we'll say no more on the matter. Just don't cry "Hey I called a truce!" all so indignant again.

Ok all, was able to find an English version of the Dutch article regarding the outcome of the Davids commission investigation.

You can read it here: http://www.nrc.nl/international/article245...se_for_Iraq_war

I downed the whole paper but it is 550 pages so will take a while before I can finish reading it.

Basically it says that there was no legal justification to (politically) support the US for invading Iraq.

Therefore it is my belief that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and was done only to get rid of Saddam for whatever reason. Please do not come up with arguments that he was a dictator, as dictators have been supported by (for example the US) government(s) before.

A similar investigation is now done on the invasion of Afghanistan.

Saddam would not allow inspectors to search for WMDs even though he had been warned many times. He gave us justification to invade and look for them ourselves by refusing. End of story.

Saddam would not allow inspectors to search for WMDs even though he had been warned many times. He gave us justification to invade and look for them ourselves by refusing. End of story.

Funny that .....I thought the end of story was the fact that they had no WMD's after all.....or Bush saying when he left office & asked if he had any regrets.......Well I wish there had actually been WMD's like our intelligence told us

Perhaps some foreigner will demand entry to you & yours someday...I'm sure you will oblige

You will appreciate the Afghans allowing guys into their homes too.

Like this soldier using a metal detector on mud walls next to a baby crib searching homes door to door.

Saddam would not allow inspectors to search for WMDs even though he had been warned many times. He gave us justification to invade and look for them ourselves by refusing. End of story.

Funny that .....I thought the end of story was the fact that they had no WMD's after all.....or Bush saying when he left office & asked if he had any regrets.......Well I wish there had actually been WMD's like our intelligence told us

Perhaps some foreigner will demand entry to you & yours someday...I'm sure you will oblige

I personally believe it served no US interests for us to be in Iraq.  But what many posters here seem to be forgetting is that the "legal" justification was based on Saddam's refusal to comply with agreements his government signed after their invasion and ejection from Kuwait.

The fact that he had long before gotten rid of his WMD's has no legal bearing on the matter.  The fact that he refused to comply with his previous agreements did have a legal bearing.

Exactly!

The fact that he had long before gotten rid of his WMD's

Where is this supporting evidence?

Since it is *fact* that he had them & got rid of them?

Funny that a country that touts due process..search warrnet requirements....habeas corpus etc... Is allowed to not only invade but kill many innocent or suspected....without such benefits afforded.

Is it not the proof that should have come before & not the lack of it after?

The fact that he had long before gotten rid of his WMD's

Where is this supporting evidence?

Since it is *fact* that he had them & got rid of them?

Quite a few chemical and maybe biological weapons were in fact found in Iraq after the invasion in 2003. However, not nearly in the quantities that could be called "stockpiles".

Funny that a country that touts due process..search warrnet requirements....habeas corpus etc... Is allowed to not only invade but kill many innocent or suspected....without such benefits afforded.

Is it not the proof that should have come before & not the lack of it after?

While the Obama administration insists on treating terror suspects we hold like normal criminals and giving them due process in our civil courts, at the same time he is also having them killed outright with missiles shot from drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen without any visible evidence. You could argue Afghanistan is a war zone but what about P & Y? I guess they only have rights is we capture them? Doesn't make sense.

Saddam would not allow inspectors to search for WMDs even though he had been warned many times. He gave us justification to invade and look for them ourselves by refusing. End of story.

Funny that .....I thought the end of story was the fact that they had no WMD's after all

The fact is that he had gassed his own people with chemical weapons on more than one occasion. The fact is that we knew that he had them because he used them to slaughter the Kurds, but he moved them out of the country before we invaded.

I still think you should have just given him money to behave himself. Look how much cheaper it would have worked out.

He never really understood why the US didn't love him any more anyway.

I agree with that.

It's not as if the US "friendly" countries in the region and Central Asia are lily white, Karimov doesn't mind slaughtering the occasional dissident painfully.

Then there's the Iran problem that's burgeoned in the last few years. Saddam balanced them out rather neatly.

I don't doubt that if the dice had fallen differently Iraq would have been one of the countries that the CIA were sending suspects for interrogation.

My big problem with Iran is that most of the people actually like us and pretty much want to be Americans. It would be a real shame to have to Nuke them because of the religious nuts that control the country.

The fact that he had long before gotten rid of his WMD's

Where is this supporting evidence?

Since it is *fact* that he had them & got rid of them?

Funny that a country that touts due process..search warrnet requirements....habeas corpus etc... Is allowed to not only invade but kill many innocent or suspected....without such benefits afforded.

Is it not the proof that should have come before & not the lack of it after?

What, do you think Chemical Ali's chemical attack on Halabja was a figment of someone's imagination?  Yes, they had WMD's and used them.  And yes, they got rid of most of them prior to the invasion.

And even then, you are missing the point.  Saddam agreed to certain conditions after his invasion of Kuwait.  He refused to comply with those conditions after, and that refusal was the legal basis of the invasion.

If the police get a search warrant to search your house, but they don't actually find any, does that make that search warrant illegal?  

And just how would a "search warrant" be served on a country?  Sending in a squad of city cops?  Or by sending in a military force?  The coalition forces got their "search warrant" from the UN with Resolutions 678, 678 (18) and 1441, and then served them.

Once again, personally, I was and am against the invasion, and the Dutch government's recent analysis that the resolutions did not make the invasion legal notwithstanding, I do feel that Saddam's actions did give the avenue to legitimize the subsequent invasion.  I am not saying it was a good idea, but it was certainly more legitimate than, let's say, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

While the Obama administration insists on treating terror suspects we hold like normal criminals and giving them due process in our civil courts, at the same time he is also having them killed outright with missiles shot from drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen without any visible evidence. You could argue Afghanistan is a war zone but what about P & Y? I guess they only have rights is we capture them? Doesn't make sense.

On the surface, your question on Pakistan and Yemen is a valid one.  However, this conflict is not like traditional conflicts with clearly defined borders and fronts.  Combatants fight from up to thousands of miles away (Predator pilots flying their drones from Missouri) and people planning missions from Yemen and other states.  Combatants in Afghanistan move over the border into Pakistan to rest, recuperate, re-supply, and plan new missions.  Some of the leaders of the forces fighting the Afghan and coalition forces never actually set foot in the country.  So if they are going to wage war in Afghanistan from Pakistan, then the fight will come to them there.  And if people in Yemen are going to wage a terrorist war from there, then the fight will be brought to them there.

It would be nice if we could capture some of these people instead of hitting them with missiles.  But given the situation on the ground, that is often impossible.  So a surgical missile strike in the only option available.

While the Obama administration insists on treating terror suspects we hold like normal criminals and giving them due process in our civil courts, at the same time he is also having them killed outright with missiles shot from drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen without any visible evidence. You could argue Afghanistan is a war zone but what about P & Y? I guess they only have rights is we capture them? Doesn't make sense.

On the surface, your question on Pakistan and Yemen is a valid one. However, this conflict is not like traditional conflicts with clearly defined borders and fronts. Combatants fight from up to thousands of miles away (Predator pilots flying their drones from Missouri) and people planning missions from Yemen and other states. Combatants in Afghanistan move over the border into Pakistan to rest, recuperate, re-supply, and plan new missions. Some of the leaders of the forces fighting the Afghan and coalition forces never actually set foot in the country. So if they are going to wage war in Afghanistan from Pakistan, then the fight will come to them there. And if people in Yemen are going to wage a terrorist war from there, then the fight will be brought to them there.

It would be nice if we could capture some of these people instead of hitting them with missiles. But given the situation on the ground, that is often impossible. So a surgical missile strike in the only option available.

So P & Y can be considered part of the war zone and in a war zone the soldiers/enemy combatants are fair game, no concrete evidence needed. But if the other side sends their "soldiers" to our country to wage war (blow up airplanes, etc) why do they all of a sudden get treated as common criminals instead of soldiers/enemy combatants?

While the Obama administration insists on treating terror suspects we hold like normal criminals and giving them due process in our civil courts, at the same time he is also having them killed outright with missiles shot from drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen without any visible evidence. You could argue Afghanistan is a war zone but what about P & Y? I guess they only have rights is we capture them? Doesn't make sense.

On the surface, your question on Pakistan and Yemen is a valid one. However, this conflict is not like traditional conflicts with clearly defined borders and fronts. Combatants fight from up to thousands of miles away (Predator pilots flying their drones from Missouri) and people planning missions from Yemen and other states. Combatants in Afghanistan move over the border into Pakistan to rest, recuperate, re-supply, and plan new missions. Some of the leaders of the forces fighting the Afghan and coalition forces never actually set foot in the country. So if they are going to wage war in Afghanistan from Pakistan, then the fight will come to them there. And if people in Yemen are going to wage a terrorist war from there, then the fight will be brought to them there.

It would be nice if we could capture some of these people instead of hitting them with missiles. But given the situation on the ground, that is often impossible. So a surgical missile strike in the only option available.

So P & Y can be considered part of the war zone and in a war zone the soldiers/enemy combatants are fair game, no concrete evidence needed. But if the other side sends their "soldiers" to our country to wage war (blow up airplanes, etc) why do they all of a sudden get treated as common criminals instead of soldiers/enemy combatants?

How is blowing up an airplane waging war against combatants?  Sorry, but that is simple terrorism.

Now, if they got into the US and took out the command center for the Predators, yes, that would be pretty much the same, in my opinion.  And, if captured and in uniform, they would have to be treated as POW's with the full protection of the Geneva Convention.

In war, no "concrete evidence" is needed.  This is war.  A soldier shoots at an enemy without an investigation if that enemy really intended to harm him.

War is bad, I agree.  Bad things happen in war, I agree.  Let's all live in peace, I agree.  But that is for the people and the politicians to achieve.  For the soldier, he or she just pursues the fight within their established parameters, and if that is taking out a Taliban commander in Pakistan who is directing the fight in Afghanistan, so be it.  

(Or do you think that only the foot soldiers who are sent by these commanders to directly face coalition forces should be the ones to face personal risk?)