Is assasination ever acceptable?

Is assasination ever an acceptable method to prevent, or to stop further, violence? Case in point: Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi cleric has been advocating violence for months; his followers were responsible for the murder and mutilitation of those four contractors in Fallujah last week.

His bent for violence, and his whereabouts, have been well known for some time now. Would it be acceptable to snatch him in the middle of the night and bury him in the desert? Just make him disappear.

Many other individuals that incite violence walk freely among us in society. They may not have commited any violent crime themselves, but have incited others to do so. Case in point: Abu Hamza, who burned the Union Jack in the UK last week.

These individuals take advantage of the very laws that they disdain and try to tear down. Why not just make them disappear?

In a word YES!

Imagine how many millions would have been saved if Stalin or Hitler had been killed.

As for al-Sadr, I don't think killing him would be a good thing - it would just give his followers another reason to fight.

I know about the killing him arousing his followers, but why not snatch him, and spread the rumour that he fled to Afghanistan or somewhere?

That is a very good idea. I just don't know how you could get him without anyone knowing it was you. Then, if you said he fled the country, none of his contacts would see him or anything....I dunno. It sounds like a good idea if you can work the details out

Ah, but had Hitler been killed before anything happened, we would most likely fall down the same path at some point in history. But now we can look back and realise that we can never ever let that happen again...

When Hitler and Stalin committed their purges, assasination wasn't accepted, but there was no one to stop them.

Imagine what will happen if assasination is accepted.

I would walk down the road and suddenly someone shoots me because they are having a bad day. Yes, a really bad example, but conveys the point, who gets to choose?

Not you or me.

Originally posted by Brittany
Ah, but had Hitler been killed before anything happened, we would most likely fall down the same path at some point in history. But now we can look back and realise that we can never ever let that happen again...

_____________________________________________

Yes, had we killed him back then, we would have learned the same lesson, but later in time.

So now if we identify an up and coming "Hitler", what should we do?

So now if we identify an up and coming "Hitler", what should we do?

Stop him in his tracks, don't let him get power.

Originally posted by surfup

So now if we identify an up and coming "Hitler", what should we do?

Stop him in his tracks, don't let him get power.

So, how do we identify an up and coming hitler? How about a homicidal maniac who lies to everyone to get into office, lied to the world to kill thousands of innocent people in the name of right. Is a religious fanatic who had a heavy coke problem? Hey that sounds like hitler, and bush??

With what bush did the first time to get into office, I wouldn't be surprised if he started killing people to get a second term.

The trouble with leaders, is that they are made so by their followers.

Although killing the leaders is a good idea, you still need to defuse the followers who may just raise an equally repellent, or more so, leader to replace the one lost.

In my debate I will be tackling just this issue.Three assasinations,one real and two hypothetical.Archduke Ferdinand,Adolf Hitler,and Yasser Arafat.

I have the entire thing written bar the conclusion.

I think after it is concluded you will see that it is neither acceptable or wise.

I'm tempted to post some of it up but I should wait for DeltaChaos to respond to my opening post for the sake of politeness.

lalalalala


Assasination is reserved only for the exclamation of the anger of the masses and not for governments.

ie: it is right when a crazy mad man assasinates bush,

it is wrong if bush assasinates saddam

bush has recourse to other options, imprisonment, exile, ect ect, but as for a mad man, he cannot capture or imprison bush, he can only affect him for 1 second, therefore in that 1 second the most profitable thing that can be done is death

Assasination is the last recourse of the angry masses, if it was not there, there would be no hope against tyrants

Depending on the circumstances, it would be acceptable by me. I can think of a lot of people that should have a bullet put into their heads. Would make the world a much better place...

Assassination has always been "accepted" by the rich and powerful. Its so easy to stay at the top when you can get rid of any naysayers with a few words.

I think "bad" people should be assassinated. The "good" should always triumph. But what is "good" and "bad?" From our point of view, they are "bad," and we are "good." From their point of view, we are "bad," and they are "good." So, "good" and "bad" are really just an illusion. Although, because we live the illusion, we decide what is "good" and "bad" through the morals we live by. Of course, morals, vary from culture to culture and person to person.

BTW, there were many assassination attempts on Hitler - they all failed. For some reason he always seemed to leave, or not show up, at the most convenient times. Its almost like it was meant to happen.

Originally posted by J0HNSmith


With what bush did the first time to get into office, I wouldn't be surprised if he started killing people to get a second term.

__________________________________________

I think you'd be in the minority of people with that kind of thinking. But instead of just posting a partisan rant about Bush, what is your opinion irt the original topic?



[Edited on 6-4-2004 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by J0HNSmith


With what bush did the first time to get into office, I wouldn't be surprised if he started killing people to get a second term.

__________________________________________

I think you'd be in the minority of people with that kind of thinking.

If you had to pick an "M", it would be majority.
On thread, define assasination. Are you talking Mossad style? Are you talking Ming Dynasty or Shogun style?

Originally posted by Bout Time

On thread, define assasination. Are you talking Mossad style? Are you talking Ming Dynasty or Shogun style?

____________________________________________

I certainly don't see any advantage to limiting oneself to any one particular "style", do you? Sometimes, the disappearing act is best. Sometimes, a surreptitious injection of chemicals that make it appear like a heart attack.

And sometimes. the approach taken with Yassin, when it is necessary to send a message loud and clear.

Mossad = linear, cause & effect.

Chinese dynastic = accepted courtly political tool

Japenese Feudalistic = ascention of power delimiter, checks & balances

None are applicable or of valid use for any Modern society.

None are applicable or of valid use for any Modern society.

What is "modern" society? Just curious.

During war? Of course it is acceptable. The leader is the military's chief comander. Any military target is a righteous target, except hospitals.

Take him out and then go have a good dinner and a sound sleep.