quote:

---

[Helen Clark, New Zealand's Prime Minister] said she had no doubt the two men were Israeli intelligence agents and that the case was "far more than simple criminal behaviour by two individuals".

She said the case had "seriously strained our relationship" with Israel. New Zealand had asked Israel for an explanation and an apology, but had received neither.

---

quote:

---

The Israelis, Uriel Zosha Kelman and Eli Cara, deny working for Mossad... They did plead guilty to attempting to gain New Zealand passports illegally and working with organised criminal gangs.

---

Which brings up the question - what is the difference between an 'intelligence agency' (Mossad, CIA, KGB) an an 'organised criminal gang'?

[ 15 July 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Courage:
Which brings up the question - what is the difference between an 'intelligence agency' (Mossad, CIA, KGB) an an 'organised criminal gang'?

---

[ 15 July 2004: Message edited by: Performance Anxiety ]

quote:

---

New Zealand intelligence agencies are understood to have bugged the two Israeli passport fraudsters and gained concrete evidence that they were Mossad agents.

Israel will neither confirm nor deny the status of the prisoners. But Prime Minister Helen Clark said last week there was no doubt that the pair, Eli Cara and Urie Kelman, were operatives of the Israeli intelligence agency.

---

You might also think that the fact, widely reported in the NZ press, that one of the arrested Israelis was "travelling on a Canadian passport" -- his actual citizenship being an open question, apparently -- that would heighten the interest.

But you'd be dead wrong.

There were a couple of stories back in April, in the National Post and the Toronto Star, which mentioned both of the above. But then the story seems to have been spiked.

After their conviction, this was the sum total of print press attention in Canada:

Halifax Daily News: 43-word brief, 16 July, p. 12. No mention of the Canadian connection or the 1997 incident.

Montreal Gazette: A news brief on 16 July, 75 words, p. A13. No mention of the Canadian connection or the 1997 incident.

Toronto Star: A news brief on 16 July, 26 words if you include the headline, p. A10. No mention of the Canadian connection or the 1997 incident.

Vancouver Sun: 109 words in a larger story about Israeli politics, 16 July, p. A9. No mention of the Canadian connection or the 1997 incident.

Calgary Herald: 182-word story, 16 July, p. A9. No mention of the Canadian connection or the 1997 incident.

National Post: 667-word story, 16 July, p. A8. No mention of the Canadian connection, but the 1997 incident is referred to.

Globe and Mail: A news brief on 16 July, 89 words, p. A10. No mention of the Canadian connection or the 1997 incident.

Ottawa Citizen: A news brief on 16 July, 77 words, p. D14. No mention of the Canadian connection or the 1997 incident.

Windsor Star: 464-word story, 16 July, p. B2. No mention of the Canadian connection, but the 1997 incident is referred to.

Toronto Sun: A news brief on 16 July, 38 words, p. 41. No mention of the Canadian connection or the 1997 incident.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Gee, ya don't think maybe there's a pro-Israeli bias in the spineless Canadian corporate media, do ya?

---

What does corporatism have to do with anything? The CBC had the same failing:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/15/world/nzisrael040715

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
I dunno about you, but I include the CBC as part of the "corporate media."

---

Good Christ.

quote:

---

Good Christ.

No wonder you kneedippers are in the shitter.

---

What the hell does that mean? You mean to tell me you think that the CBC is a shining example of impartial journalism? Dream on lib....

quote:

---

Originally posted by spindoctor:
What the hell does that mean? You mean to tell me you think that the CBC is a shining example of impartial journalism? Dream on lib....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pebbles:
The most biased CBC journalists I know are virulently partisan. For the NDP.

---

A-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Thanx, Pebbles! I haven't had that good of a laugh in days!! That pro-NDP bias sure was evident in the last election, wasn't it?

Tell me Pebbles, where are you getting that good skunkweed?

[ 24 July 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:
That's true of CBC-TV, but not CBC Radio. The latter is as different from commercial radio as night and day.

Of course, the fact that CBC-TV has ads and -Radio doesn't might have something to do with it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pebbles:

Who's a "lib"? What's an example of impartial journalism? Certainly not the CBC. The most biased CBC journalists I know are virulently partisan. For the NDP.

---

"Impartial" journalism is a myth, cooked up by journalism schools. There is no such thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Thanx, Pebbles! I haven't had that good of a laugh in days!! That pro-NDP bias sure was evident in the last election, wasn't it?

---

Actually, according to some, it was. I wouldn't agree.

However, there are certain CBC journos I could name who do their damndest in between writs to get out NDP votes after the writs... One in particular whose first, and last, opposition soundbite on certain issues -- sometimes the only politician quoted at all -- always seems to be a certain NDP critic.

quote:

---

Tell me Pebbles, where are you getting that good skunkweed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:

"Impartial" journalism is a myth, cooked up by journalism schools. There is no such thing.

---

[ 25 July 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pebbles:

Actually, according to some, it was. I wouldn't agree.

However, there are certain CBC journos I could name who do their damndest in between writs to get out NDP votes after the writs... One in particular whose first, and last, opposition soundbite on certain issues -- sometimes the only politician quoted at all -- always seems to be a certain NDP critic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:

I'm too tired to dance... who, or what, are you talking about?

---

quote:

---

You might also think that the fact, widely reported in the NZ press, that one of the arrested Israelis was "travelling on a Canadian passport" -- his actual citizenship being an open question, apparently -- that would heighten the interest.

---

pebbles, this is interesting to me, as is that interesting list you include there of Canadian sources who didn't mention this important detail.

On babble, we discussed this case earlier, linked to an NZ source, I believe (I may go back and check sometime today, but gosh, I hate the search feature). Never before have I heard that one of the Israeli agents was carrying a Canadian passport, but of course, if that is true, it makes this case all that much worse.

Someone asks above whether the fraudulent use of national passports by freelance groups is not an equivalent outrage. I should think that the obvious answer is NO.

The fear is that citizens of nations like NZ and Canada will be placed in great danger when they travel because freelance kidnappers are going to doubt the authenticity of their passports. This has happened, I believe.

I don't see an equivalent danger the other way round. I'm trying to imagine how that would work, but I can't.

Further, it is not possible to maintain anything approaching international civility if one sovereign nation is gaily ripping off the sovereignty of other sovereign nations, as the Israelis have demonstrated repeatedly that they are happy to do.

This is simply criminal. It is provocative and warlike. The Israelis have to be called on it, every time they do it.

[ 25 July 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pebbles:
I'm talking about [MY LAWYER MADE ME DELETE THIS PART BECAUSE OF DEFAMATION LAWS.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:

Oh wow! You're just SO COOL! How can I be just like you?

---

What, Doc... You WANT to indulge in innuendo, unsubstantiated remarks, and gossip? 'Cause that's all Pebbles has said in that post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Pebbles: put up, or....

---

That's WEAK, as excuses go....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Pebbles—

That's WEAK, as excuses go....

Is what you're saying true???

---

That the journo in question is a partisan NDPer? Yes.

quote:

---

I would, but the evil partisan bitch I am most thinking of would sue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pebbles:

That the journo in question is a partisan NDPer? Yes.

That she's biased? That's where the suit would come in.

---

Twaddle! Simply saying a journalist is biased has rarely (if EVER) caused a lawsuit. I think you're *ahem* "engaging in fabrication"...

Once again, put up, or...

[ 26 July 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

However, there are certain CBC journos I could name who do their damndest in between writs to get out NDP votes after the writs... One in particular whose first, and last, opposition soundbite on certain issues -- sometimes the only politician quoted at all -- always seems to be a certain NDP critic.

---

... and even then, I didn't get much, did I?

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
New Zealand? Mossad Spies? Theft of Canadian passports by the latter? Resulting danger to Canadians? Our governments's response?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Given up on the "evil partisan bitch" sidebar, huh Pebbles?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pebbles:

Not at all. E.P.B. was at it again this past week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pebbles:
phoque you and the dog you rode in on.

---

Oh WOW! That was SUCH a stellar argument! My god, I'm floored at the extent of your stellar wit and wisdom! Why, I am breathless at the thought of you slaying your opponents with such scintillating sentences!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Gawd, you guys are just ASKING to get whined at and accused of being "anti-Semites" by the Macabee and Co. "Israel Can Do Do Wrong" Chorus of Dittoheads
(a.k.a. Israel Deals In Only Truth, Seriously !)

Don't say ya weren't warned!

---

This warning is unnecessary and inflammatory. Please refrain from attacking other babblers unprovoked.

(Whoops, just noticed this happened a week ago. Oh well. Guess I missed this thread the first time around.)

And pebbles, there's no reason to get snippy. People are asking you to substantiate a claim you made and you're unwilling to do so, for obvious reasons. However, if you continue to make the claim without backing it up, you have to expect that people won't take it very seriously.

[ 02 August 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The clear difference is their funding/purpose (because money almost always dictates goals in this type of situation). One is defined as being 'sourced' by a state, and to advance it's purposes, while the other is funded by a group of people, simply for their own financial benefit.

Now, I know that some people would throw out some sort of blanket statement that states and cabals of criminals are functionally identical or, in fact, that states are simply tools USED BY 'gangs' to increase their financial well-being, but I can't believe that. If that's all states are, I'll go join the criminals, and be done with it. (I speak some languages and play rugby, maybe they'll let me be a doorman or something)

But by stating that intelligence agencies functionally are gangs, you effectively say that states are, too. But I don't think that any of us who bother to do things like vote and participate in online discussion fora actually believe that.

So how can we clearly distinguish them? (and, as a sidebar, does that distinction work for Mossad, too, since it's clearly the one with the lowest current Babble-stock-value).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

And pebbles, there's no reason to get snippy. People are asking you to substantiate a claim you made and you're unwilling to do so, for obvious reasons. However, if you continue to make the claim without backing it up, you have to expect that people won't take it very seriously.

[ 02 August 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

Sorry about the earlier jibe, Mish...

However, I disagree about Pebbles. His reasons are anything *BUT* obvious. As I stated earlier, I have NEVER heard of a reporter suing over someone simply calling them "biased".

I just think Pebbles is bullshitting.

[ 03 August 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
Let's forget all these squabbles for the moment and try to get back on track. This morning the CBC finally reported on the Canadian connection to the story, saying that one of the suspects (still at large) is believed to be using a fake Canadian passport.

---

This sort of thing is a big concern - it undermines the whole purpose of passports and affects our ability to travel with few hinderences.

In cases like these, we really should be asking the country of the man's nationality what they intend to do about it. If a person abuses any country's passport, they should go on an international watch list, with member countries having the choice as to whether to allow the person in. We, of course, would ban him from entering Canada.

There is such a list, but it's reserved for high risk cases.

I've seen and can detect altered passports. Stolen passports usually are altered. Mostly, the photograph is changed. Even with expert forgers, they usually don't survive a close inspection.

The newer passports are very hard to alter or fake, and will be the only kind in circulation by Oct 2008.

BTW, one of the dirty not-so-secrets of Passport is that the RCMP is totally backlogged in its investigations of lost, stolen and mutilated passports.

[ 06 August 2004: Message edited by: BlueGreen ]

[ 06 August 2004: Message edited by: BlueGreen ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueGreen:
The newer passports are very hard to alter or fake, and will be the only kind in circulation by Oct 2008.

---

Gosh!