What ever happened to good ol' assassination?

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


One man on the ground is all it takes.

Watch those James Bond movies!

Bond?
He hasn't been doing so good since they developed silicon heat seekers
smart boobs

reply to post by Danbones


The world is full of professional killers - just uglier than Bond.

So we don't get to watch them - good.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
One bullet costs 32 cents; 110 tomahawks cost 756,000 x 110 = 83,160,000. That's why there is no assassination.

Bingo!
All those Tomahawks used by the US in what Obama termed a "Limited military action" will need replacing. Given the destructive power of those things, did it realy need that many? I seriously doubt it, but hey, it's good for the suppliers who must already be planning a yacht upgrade!

Wow 250000 rounds per person? Im not saying your lying by any means, just a large number. However, one shot one kill did apply to my group.

reply to post by LoverBoy

linky
no stinky

thats what the public paid for

reply to post by Danbones


Scout snipers only get one shot, more than one and you compromise your position. One shot, one kill. Our ammunition varied in price. Around $1 for the bullet and 4 for the cartridge. Military grade BMG. Also the link has some interesting stuff. It is however a blog though, ill try and look for a good source cause this really does interest me. If its fact, good find.

reply to post by Crunkman919


Bingo.

Only an ignoramus would call for an assassination.

reply to post by The Sword



I'm still reeling from the very notion of extraordinary rendition. Why not try that instead, if all they want to do is get him out of there?

But I tend to agree with the notion of a darker agenda behind the scenes.

reply to post by FrostForests

Sure it's not politically or morally correct, but in certain instances, some recent issues come to mind, why not attempt assassination?

Is this a trick question, because its not about the gaddafi or whatever other leader really, if it was, he would not be walking and talking today. This is about control, both of people and resources, and business interests and of-course sheeple control, and whats the point of having all those fancy weapons, if you never use them eh, making weapons and using weapons is a business to.

Hard to stick around and implement a pro-Western gov't with an assasian.

/thread

The US does not sanction political assassination - there is a huge difference between that and specifically targeting key leaders during an insurgency or operations other than war scenarios. That happens all the time but you likely never hear of the methods used or the success of the missions.

We do not target political leaders because they represent the people of a nation - military leaders are fair game as well as defense ministers and others in countries where those type individuals are also military positions.

If we did; then we could not cry foul if other nations sent their operatives here to do the same thing...we don't want to set that precedent.

U.S. policy on assassinations

In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

It would be foolish to assume that we don't have assassins on the ground. Of course we do. We did with Saddam, and we do in Libya, and no tellin' where else. They can't find him, is the only reason he is still alive. The only reason Bin Laden is still alive.

I heard Clark say today "this is not personal, we are not out for Kaddafi, or (how ever the hell you spell his name -- it doesn't seem like anyone really knows) -- Anyway, I literally couldn't believe he said that. That is what this is about. Killing Kaddafi. Marine assassins can make themselves fit in anywhere.

Why does the idea of removal of the monster always include moral debate about whether the collective should have the mandate to kill?

Qaddafi has long been known to the world for his monstrous governance of the Libyan people, a handy and fitting leader for propagandist demonisation amongst the nations. Handy because those who do not live under his yoke can acknowledge their blessings and be more thankful for their lot. Fitting because he is worthy of the label.

The arms dealers, those brokers for death who seem to set the price, demanding a higher price from governments, charged and authorised to act for the wealth generating collective, than they would dare set for the retail market and the spending power of the wealth generating individual.

Removal of the monster from his theatre to his trial is the clear moral responsibility of the collective.

Assassination is the assassin's moral dilemna.

reply to post by teapot


Wow.....you couldn't have said it any better, Moral dilemma is something we all have to deal with. Where is the line at where we can accept that he is a monster and needs to be eliminated? Very well put though!