It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Assassinations....if you could take one back

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Just wanted to pose a question to the world wide audience here. If you could take back ONE successful assassination of anyone in the world, who would it be and why?

I don't want to hear any Elvis or Marilyn Monroe conspiratorial, unsubstantiated assassination theories in this. I am asking specifically about KNOWN, and PROVEN assassinations.

In your response as to why, please go as in depth as possible even as far as to speculate on the benefits of this person living, and what he/she may have done to "better" the world around them. Of course with that statement I am assuming that anyone people would want to "resurrect" would have a positive influence on their surroundings and times.

How would your choice change the world, and even possibly extend into current topics and news on a global scale.

Thanks!




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Abraham Lincoln, hands-down.

His assassination set America back a hundred years in terms of recovery from the Civil War. His policy, when the North won, was to take a forgiving stance in regards to the South. He was more interested in reunification and reconstruction, rather than the punitive policies advocated by the radical northern republicans in congress. Had he remained alive, it is entirely likely that blacks would have much more rapidly been transitioned from slave culture to mainstream acceptance, Jim Crow laws would never have happened, the deep-seated resentment and division between northern and southern states might never have reopened its ugly sores, and the Presidency might have remained a powerful, respected title.

Lincoln's assassination instead led to a president who could accomplish nothing, he was a Southerner who favored the north, a former slave-owner who hated big business, and had all the personality and intellect of Bush the Younger. It was the start of an era of "useless presidents" that kept the office a token position until Roosevelt, it resulted a very poorly run Reconstruction followed by the end to it before it was finished, enormous reprisals against blacks, and was a devastating blow to civil rights leaders.

I think, had Lincoln never been assassinated, it is entirely possible that we would be 50-100 years advanced from our present conditions, in terms of civil liberties and tolerance, and it is entirely possible that the dreaded "gangsta hood" culture would never have become so prominent or acceptable.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Undoubtedly JFK.

Yes, I know he was a Democrat... but hell, he was a one of a kind.

I have no doubt that if JFK hadn't been assassinated, America would have taken a vastly different path in the cold war. Without his leadership, the cold war continued far longer than it should have.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
That's a real easy one: Archduke Ferdinand of Austria.

That one event:

1) Triggered WW1
2) The result of WW1 (Versailles Treaty) helped plant the seeds for the rise of National Socialism in Germany and WW2
3) The results of WW2 partially contributed to the Cold War and the proxy wars fought over the ensuing 60 years.

So how many needless deaths might have been avoided had that one incident never taken place and how might our entire political climate, not only globally but also domestically be different? We'll never know.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Mahatma Gandhi

Who knows what he could of done in the remainders of his years.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Gandhi was about to hand over the entire republic of India's monetary reserves to Pakistan.

Indubitably if this had happened, there would have been far more bloodshed as Pakistan would have militarised faster than India given that they would have had all the money.

I wouldnt go so far as to say his death was a good thing, but in a sense he had already accomplished his goal in life- which was to liberate India. Beyond that he had become something of a burden since he insisted on using socialist principles. India struggled for 40 years since independence because of Gandhi and Nehru's blind love for socialism. Only in 1990 did the government throw away the socialist model and liberalize the economy... since then you can see where India has gone.

So while his death, considered as an isolated incident, was regrettable; I do not think that his prolonged control over Indian politics would have been beneficial.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Archimedes.

He wasn't even a target, apparently - one of the greatest inventors and mathematicians in the history of all humanity, and he was killed by a Roman with nothing better to do with his time but kill old men.

A waste, a total and utter waste.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 

Franz Ferdinand is my number 1 as well. Just thinking about the current world without his assassination makes my head spin.

Without his untimely death WW1 & 2 might not have happened; Israel might not have formed, thus a more peaceful Mideast; the US might not have been pulled out of its isolationism and onto the world stage, meaning no Vietnam war and less tensions between capitalism and communism; the Mujahideen would not have given rise to Bin Laden and Al Quada, the Twin Towers would still be standing; NATO, the EU & the UN might not have formed, meaning no subsidies for western farmers, a fairer trade market and less poverty in Africa.

On the other hand, technical advancements might have been delayed for decades. Would we have had nuclear bombs without WW2? The Internet without the threat of nuclear bombs? A space race without the Cold War? Everyday items to make our lives easier like the microwave without NASA?

As you can probably tell from my ill thought out hypotheticals I'm no history buff, so I'd love to read any corrections or additions.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Ferdinand 100%

no assasination, no war., the world would be a very different place.

very simple

[edit on 15-5-2008 by CzErased]

[edit on 15-5-2008 by CzErased]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I would have to agree on this. I have often thought about the outcome if Ferdinand were not assassinated.

You bring up very valid points on what may not have been discovered or invented as well.

My reasoning for this question is because I do often wonder about what would change on a long term scale from something as simple as someone NOT dying. Would their life have changed or shaped a new future? Would current events be the same because of fate or predetermined destiny? Or is the world better now without them? Would they have begun something later in life that would have altered human existence even more dramatically or for a more detrimental outcome?

The possibilities are endless, as all we have are speculation and hypotheses.




Originally posted by Symer
reply to post by vor78
 

Franz Ferdinand is my number 1 as well. Just thinking about the current world without his assassination makes my head spin.

Without his untimely death WW1 & 2 might not have happened; Israel might not have formed, thus a more peaceful Mideast; the US might not have been pulled out of its isolationism and onto the world stage, meaning no Vietnam war and less tensions between capitalism and communism; the Mujahideen would not have given rise to Bin Laden and Al Quada, the Twin Towers would still be standing; NATO, the EU & the UN might not have formed, meaning no subsidies for western farmers, a fairer trade market and less poverty in Africa.

On the other hand, technical advancements might have been delayed for decades. Would we have had nuclear bombs without WW2? The Internet without the threat of nuclear bombs? A space race without the Cold War? Everyday items to make our lives easier like the microwave without NASA?

As you can probably tell from my ill thought out hypotheticals I'm no history buff, so I'd love to read any corrections or additions.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I think there's a fair case to be made that World War I would have happened regardless of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination. Keep in mind this is a time following a very bloody revolution in France, the Industrial Revolution, the modernization of government and weaponry, the rise of Nationalism, enormous social and economic upheaval, and I can't think of any period of time between the 1400's and 1900's that there weren't at least 2 major powers at war with each other in Europe at some point or another, oftentimes there were 3 or 4 or more all fighting at once. There were old and bitter enemy countries filled with old and bitter people who'd watched their traditional way of life destroyed and little hope for the future. Wars were still considered somewhat noble enterprises, and joining a war was seen as becoming a part of something great.

Even with the assassination of Ferdinand, most powers moved towards an immediate peaceful resolution, even the Kaiser. Ferdinand was of virtually no importance, no one liked him, his death wasn't a threat to the royal line, and the only reason Conrad ended up continuing with the invasion was because communications technology hadn't advanced as fast as the ability to mobilize an army. So his army outran his orders, and by the time his command could catch up, he was already in position to attack with an advantage. When you've got momentum like that, and and excuse to use it, not doing so is almost impossible.

Still, it didn't have to be Vienna and Serbia. It could have been any of the numerous countries in Europe. The fact that two countries so small started World War I in the first place is an example of just how big of a powderkeg the place was, and how everyone was looking for any excuse to go to war.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thelibra
 


No argument. It certainly may have happened anyway and all signs were pointing to it. But had it not happened, you never know.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Kennedy because he was ready to solidify freedom in America.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CzErased
 


Yes i agree, But you and i would not be here to write and read this stuff



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt 1981.
Peace may have come to Middle East, Iraq and Palestine may have had a different perspective without Egypt backing them.

news.bbc.co.uk...

H



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
John Lennon. It's quite obvious Mark Chapman was a manchurian candidate. The CIA followed Lennon constantly, all the way up until his death. When the CIA is following you, and you start becoming political again, you're a dead man. John Lennon could've changed the world, if the powers that be would have let him live. People listened to him. We don't have anyone willing to stand up in the spotlight and say the kinds of things he said now. We have no heroes, just a bunch of meat puppets parading fashion and greed like it's our saviour.

Political leaders aren't going to change anything. It's the artists and the philosophers who make people think, not the suits reading speeches written by somebody else.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
jesse james.

who knows with him the days of the old west would have lived on forever.
a true american hero. fighting institutions of almost every form.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Not from wanting to take one back but what would the world be like today if it hadn't happened...... Julius Caesar. If that hadn't happened a second Roman civil war might not have happened and what would have? The powerful Empire might have been even more so. We might all be speaking Latin now.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by thelibra
 


I agree.

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was only the trigger.

There was still the issue of the underlying tensions, which were at boiling point. Needless to say, something else may as easily have been the flashpoint.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
If Franz had not been assasinated, the world would be WORSE. WW1&2 were learning experiences for all the world countries, and just imagine what would have happened...Hitler would have theoretically not kiled himself, and continue start his plan to take over Europe. The World Wars would have happened anyway. It's called course correcting. Fate.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join