World’s Most Powerful Passports in 2021

JasonStatham

All the muslim ones are down the bottom.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was Colonel Oliver North, no less, who used a (fake) Irish passport to enter Iran. Younger readers may wish to google "Oliver North" but, be assured, he was a very, very big story at one time.

The fact that he had used an Irish passport didn't emerge until some time after the rest of the Iran-Contra story broke, and it was a relatively small detail of a very large and sensational story.

Oliver north was a big story at the time. The detail of his passport not so much. Is it any wonder people dont remember it?

Peregrinus

Real Life wrote: »

How about criticising a country, particularly their government and how they run things has nothing to do with religion and all to do with how they do things?

Somebody earlier in the thread said they hayed India, they must be anti Hindu?

You're missing my point. If you persistently and at every opportunity criticise Israel for doing X, while systematically ignoring another state that is equally guilty of X, it doesn't appear to be a distaste for X that is motivating you.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing my point. If you persistently and at every opportunity criticise Israel for doing X, while systematically ignoring another state that is equally guilty of X, it doesn't appear to be a distaste for X that is motivating you.

that is assuming they know that the US did it. As you said yourself it was a very small detail on a massive story. It was a central part of the Israeli assassination story.

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing my point. If you persistently and at every opportunity criticise Israel for doing X, while systematically ignoring another state that is equally guilty of X, it doesn't appear to be a distaste for X that is motivating you.

Yes but in fairness there are a myriad of reasons not to like Israel that have nothing to do with the state religion there - namely their treatment of Palestinians, land stealing, etc

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Oliver north was a big story at the time. The detail of his passport not so much. Is it any wonder people dont remember it?

The question is, why are the details of his passport not a big story, and for some the exact same details, as they relate to Israeli agents' passports, are a big story?

I'm not suggesting that people who know about the Israeli incident but not about the US incident are themselves antisemites; not at all. But it might be worth their while asking themselve how it comes to be that they are aware of, and exercised about, the Israeli incident but completely ignorant of the US incident? Why does the Israeli incident provoke heat and light that the equally offensive US incident does not?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question is, why are the details of his passport not a big story, and for some the exact same details, as they relate to Israeli agents' passports, are a big story?

I'm not suggesting that people who know about the Israeli incident but not about the US incident are themselves antisemites; not at all. But it might be worth their while asking themselve how it comes to be that they are aware of, and exercised about, the Israeli incident but completely ignorant of the US incident? Why does the Israeli incident provoke heat and light that the equally offensive US incident does not?

already explained to you. The oliver north story ran for months. the passport was a detail that I didn't pick up on. in the israeli story their passports were part of the headline. is it any wonder that one is remembered better than the other? the immediate shouts of anti-semitism any time anything concerning israel is criticised is tiresome.

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question is, why are the details of his passport not a big story, and for some the exact same details, as they relate to Israeli agents' passports, are a big story?

I'm not suggesting that people who know about the Israeli incident but not about the US incident are themselves antisemites; not at all. But it might be worth their while asking themselve how it comes to be that they are aware of, and exercised about, the Israeli incident but completely ignorant of the US incident? Why does the Israeli incident provoke heat and light that the equally offensive US incident does not?

Perhaps when the story broke North's use of an Irish passport wasn't even known? It was the 80s and it was classified information.

The Israeli hit squad used Irish passports to commit murder in another country, and news came out quite soon after.

Iran-Contra was a huge affair, use of an Irish passport is just a footnote in that. And they were trading arms, not committing state sanctioned murder. One is most definitely worse than the other.

In Iran, military leaders did not think they were buying arms from the Irish - whereas the Israeli hit squad travelled under the pretense of being Irish to aid their assassination attempts.

rapul

Well aware of Oliver North and the whole Iran Contra situation Peregrinus , dont know why that was brought up in defense of what I said, Israel and Irish passports was being talked about not something 50 odd years ago

And the above post is good.

Peregrinus

timmyntc wrote: »

Perhaps when the story broke North's use of an Irish passport wasn't even known? It was the 80s and it was classified information.

The Israeli hit squad used Irish passports to commit murder in another country, and news came out quite soon after.

Iran-Contra was a huge affair, use of an Irish passport is just a footnote in that. And they were trading arms, not committing state sanctioned murder. One is most definitely worse than the other.

In Iran, military leaders did not think they were buying arms from the Irish - whereas the Israeli hit squad travelled under the pretense of being Irish to aid their assassination attempts.

The assassination of Al-Mahbouh was also a huge affair (for the reason you point out yourself — it was an egregious act by any state). And the use of Irish passports was just a footnote — barely noticed outside Ireland.

I think there's two differences in the cases. One is the fact that the use Irish passports emerged longer after the event in the US case. But from the perspective of now, when both cases are years old, that's not a difference of any importance, and anyone who is offended by other governments using faked Irish passports should be equally upset about both cases. The other is that Ireland had more diplomatic heft in 2010 than it had in 1986, and was able to protest more assertively and effectively. But, again, for anyone concerned about the faking of Irish passports, it's hardly a vindication of the US to say that they abused a smaller and weaker country than the Israelis did.

At this point, a decade after the Al-Mahbouh assassination, the main reason why people are aware of Israel's use of Irish passportsbut ignorant of the US use is that there are people devoted to keeping alive the memory of Israeli offences but who are unbothered by similar offences by other governments.

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

The assassination of Al-Mahbouh was also a huge affair (for the reason you point out yourself — it was an egregious act by any state). And the use of Irish passports was just a footnote — barely noticed outside Ireland.

I think there's two differences in the cases. One is the fact that the use Irish passports emerged longer after the event in the US case. But from the perspective of now, when both cases are years old, that's not a difference of any importance, and anyone who is offended by other governments using faked Irish passports should be equally upset about both cases. The other is that Ireland had more diplomatic heft in 2010 than it had in 1986, and was able to protest more assertively and effectively. But, again, for anyone concerned about the faking of Irish passports, it's hardly a vindication of the US to say that they abused a smaller and weaker country than the Israelis did.

At this point, a decade after the Al-Mahbouh assassination, the main reason why people are aware of Israel's use of Irish passportsbut ignorant of the US use is that there are people devoted to keeping alive the memory of Israeli offences but who are unbothered by similar offences by other governments.

One major difference between the cases, as I stated in my last post, was that one was using an Irish passport for state sanctioned murder, the other was using it to enter Iran to sell arms to the Iranian army - who knew that they were negotiating with Americans.

If you can't see the difference between these two cases, then you are the one with the agenda. Israeli use of an Irish passport was definitively worse, and is far more offensive.

Peregrinus

rapul wrote: »

Well aware of Oliver North and the whole Iran Contra situation Peregrinus , dont know why that was brought up in defense of what I said, Israel and Irish passports was being talked about not something 50 odd years ago

To be fair, if you think the Iran-Contra affair was "50 odd years ago", your awareness of it is not extensive.

And your comment that "Israel and Irish passports was being talked about" is kind of the point. The thread is about Irish passports. People enter the thread to make (justified) comments about Israel's use of forged Irish passports but are silent about the United States' (longer) history of doing exactly the same thing. And, while I'm at it, the Russians have also used fake Irish passports for intellegence purposes - Ireland expelled a Russian diplomat over this a year after expelling an Israeli diplomat; nobody seems to be aware of this, or to remember or, or to consider it worth mentioning. So it's not unreasonable to ask why Israel gets singled out for mention here.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

The assassination of Al-Mahbouh was also a huge affair (for the reason you point out yourself — it was an egregious act by any state). And the use of Irish passports was just a footnote — barely noticed outside Ireland.

I'm not sure if you have noticed but most of us here are in Ireland. It was a big deal. you can't dismiss that so easily

Peregrinus

timmyntc wrote: »

One major difference between the cases, as I stated in my last post, was that one was using an Irish passport for state sanctioned murder, the other was using it to enter Iran to sell arms to the Iranian army - who knew that they were negotiating with Americans.

If you can't see the difference between these two cases, then you are the one with the agenda. Israeli use of an Irish passport was definitively worse, and is far more offensive.

I can see the difference between the two cases, but I don't think its relevant here. Israel was engaged directly in murder; the US merely in funding and equipping terrorists who would then engage in murders and other outrages from which the US could plausibly distance itself. But so what? Both cases equally illustrate the value of the Irish passport as a travel document which is widely accepted and does not attract hostile or critical attention to the carrier, which is the point of this thread. And both are equally offensive as an infringement of Irish sovereignty.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not sure if you have noticed but most of us here are in Ireland. It was a big deal. you can't dismiss that so easily

The fact that most of us are here in Ireland surely make abuse of Irish passports equally offensive regardless of whether the abuse was perpetrated by Israel or by the US?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that most of us are here in Ireland surely make abuse of Irish passports equally offensive regardless of whether the abuse was perpetrated by Israel or by the US?

good job on ignoring everything I have said. You are not arguing in good faith.

rapul

To be fair I know enough thanks very much Peregrinus, I'm just not bothered to argue with someone who has an agenda on anyone passing a true and fair comment on Israel and is deflecting to any other country that has used fake or forged passports, I'm out no time for people like you!

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

good job on ignoring everything I have said. You are not arguing in good faith.

I think you're overlooking the fact that it was timmyntc who made the "footnote" argument when he said that . . .

timmyntc wrote: »

Iran-Contra was a huge affair, use of an Irish passport is just a footnote in that.

My point is that, if that was true of the US case, it was equally true of the Israeli case. What Israel did that outraged the world was not to use fake Irish passports; it was to send a hit squad into the territory of another country to murder someone they didn't like. That would have been outrageous no matter what fake passport was used. We may have been bothered — and justifiably so — by the fact that the fake passports were Irish but, to everyone else, this was not a particular cause of offence. Just as, when it emerged in that fake Irish passports had been used in the Iran-Contra affair, that concerned us but for most other people it was not the salient point.

I don't think you can have this both ways. If you think that the Irishness of the fake passports was a footnote in the US case, then the factors which lead you to that conclusion — that there were bigger offences than fake passport use being commmitted, basically — must inevitably lead to the same conclusion in the Israel case.

The J Stands for Jay

Helmet wrote: »

Irish. I remember being told at the time that it was basically ourselves, Spain and Israel?

The UK harbour terrorists, are there still some in Germany, or did that end in the 1980s? Quick Google says I must be misremembering.

timmyntc

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can see the difference between the two cases, but I don't think its relevant here. Israel was engaged directly in murder; the US merely in funding and equipping terrorists who would then engage in murders and other outrages from which the US could plausibly distance itself. But so what? Both cases equally illustrate the value of the Irish passport as a travel document which is widely accepted and does not attract hostile or critical attention to the carrier, which is the point of this thread. And both are equally offensive as an infringement of Irish sovereignty.

Both are not equally offensive.

One case was travelling on a forged Irish passport to commit state sanctioned murder. The other was travelling on a forged Irish passport to sell arms (in exchange for release of hostages I believe?).

The crap about "funding terrorists who would then engage in murders" is exactly that, a load of crap. The two are in no way comparable.

Anyways, the thread is dragging way off topic here - so we can agree to disagree, because it seems you are intent on engaging in whataboutery to deflect from legitimate criticisms of Israeli foreign policy.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're overlooking the fact that it was timmyntc who made the "footnote" argument when he said that . . .

.

I'm not overlooking anything. I know what I am saying. Shouting anti-semitism whenever israel is mentioned and deciding to ignore pertinent facts is not arguing in good faith.

Peregrinus

timmyntc wrote: »

Both are not equally offensive.

One case was travelling on a forged Irish passport to commit state sanctioned murder. The other was travelling on a forged Irish passport to sell arms (in exchange for release of hostages I believe?).

The crap about "funding terrorists who would then engage in murders" is exactly that, a load of crap. The two are in no way comparable.

It's not a load of crap. The proceeds from the sale of the arms to Iran were funnelled to US-backed terrorists in Nicaragua. This was how they funded the Nicaraguan war after Congress refused to vote funds for the purpose. It's called the Iran-Contra affair for a reason, you know.

And, as regards the offence against Ireland, the two cases are exactly comparable. In both cases you've got a foreign government issuing fake Irish passports in order to trade off Irish sovereignty and reputation for their own purposes. The fact that one of the purposes might be worse than the other is neither here not there; you might as well try to evaluate the seriousness of theft of money based on whether the thief spent what he stole on sex workers or on cocaine. If he stole the money from me, it's nothing to me what he spent it on.

timmyntc wrote: »

Anyways, the thread is dragging way off topic here - so we can agree to disagree, because it seems you are intent on engaging in whataboutery to deflect from legitimate criticisms of Israeli foreign policy.

Not at all - I agree that the criticisms of Israeli policy are wholly legitimate, and I have never suggested otherwise. I certainly haven't attempted to deflect from them. I came in in response to a suggestion that criticism of Israel for conduct which is not criticised when other governments engage in it looks a bit like antisemitism at work. And, yeah, it does. It's entirely possible for criticism of Israeli policy to be objectively justified and also to be fuelled by antisemitism; why not?

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not overlooking anything. I know what I am saying. Shouting anti-semitism whenever israel is mentioned and deciding to ignore pertinent facts is not arguing in good faith.

I'm not the one who's ignoring pertinent facts. Surely those who mention Israel in this context while not mentioning the United States and Russia are the ones ignoring pertinent facts?

I mean, the use by the US and Russia of fake Irish passports is just as relevant to this thread as the use by Israel, isn't it?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not the one who's ignoring pertinent facts. Surely those who mention Israel in this context while not mentioning the United States and Russia are the ones ignoring pertinent facts?

I mean, the use by the US and Russia of fake Irish passports is just as relevant to this thread as the use by Israel, isn't it?

And the use of Irish passports was just a footnote — barely noticed outside Ireland.

as I said I'm not the one ignoring pertinent facts in order to accuse others of antisemitism. There is nothing to be gained by discussing this with you so I'm done.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing my point. If you persistently and at every opportunity criticise Israel for doing X, while systematically ignoring another state that is equally guilty of X, it doesn't appear to be a distaste for X that is motivating you.

Do you have an approved list of countries and the order we should criticise them?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have an approved list of countries and the order we should criticise them?

No. It's just that if someone systematically singles out Israel, I'm wondering why?

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It's just that if someone systematically singles out Israel, I'm wondering why?

It has been explained to you several times now why I and others mentioned Israel first. Now you can either accept those explanations or label us as anti-semetic.

CtevenSrowder

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question is, why are the details of his passport not a big story, and for some the exact same details, as they relate to Israeli agents' passports, are a big story?

I'm not suggesting that people who know about the Israeli incident but not about the US incident are themselves antisemites; not at all. But it might be worth their while asking themselve how it comes to be that they are aware of, and exercised about, the Israeli incident but completely ignorant of the US incident? Why does the Israeli incident provoke heat and light that the equally offensive US incident does not?

Well, for me personally, I was alive for one and not the other. Nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

Lumen

In boards.paralleluniverse...

"Hey, those Mossad lads love the Irish passports!"
"Ha, don't forget the Americans"
"...and the Russians"
"Oh yeah, thanks for the history lesson!"
"You're welcome!"

In this universe...four pages of tense discussion whether anti-semitism can be inferred from a pattern of posting history.

The J Stands for Jay

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was Colonel Oliver North, no less, who used a (fake) Irish passport to enter Iran. Younger readers may wish to google "Oliver North" but, be assured, he was a very, very big story at one time.

The fact that he had used an Irish passport didn't emerge until some time after the rest of the Iran-Contra story broke, and it was a relatively small detail of a very large and sensational story.

I'm not young, and I've had to Google this guy. A lot of detail about selling arms to Iran to fund shenanigans in Nicaragua, along with sending money to be laundered to the wrong bank account (money abtained from the sultan of Brunei). Nothing about Irish passports.