It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The funny thing is about these characters is that they believe in nothing but themselves, it's obvious they don't take the religious muddles they create the least bit seriously when they know full well it's based on a pack of lies, their idea of a new order involves all the women in their cult taking off their clothes and standing to the left, the men taking out their credit cards and standing to the right...and behold your God.
Amoral as it may be, political assassination has the potential to saves lives.
Wars can be avoided, tyrants dethroned, regimes changed...
Better to remove the head of state than to drag the state into full scale conflict. One for the many right?
I hate to put smudges on those rose tinted spectacles but the evidence completely contradicts your rather skewed idealism. In the vast majority of cases, assassinations, especially those that are politically motivated, have resulted in an increase of suffering for the populations involved, directly led to violent civil wars, and to an amplification of radical militantism. As often as not, by removing the head of state, particularly by foreign governments or corporate interests, the motive and consequence has been the economic exploitation of that nations resources to the detriment of the population affected by installation of a puppet regime. In some instances those assassinations have served the sole purpose of instigating conflict rather than preventing it.
I would agree that assassination has the potential to save lives, but that is so very seldom the case that such a benefit is negligible to the bigger picture. We live in a violent world, sure, but comparing natures forces with assassination is a rather obtuse comparison. We live in a violent world because it is in the interest of the few, to use the might of the many, directed from the safety of their ivory towers, to further line their pockets. Out of the many hundreds of assassinations that have occurred throughout history, I can use one hand to count those assassinations that have been of any benefit, in terms of providing humanitarian relief to the populations concerned. I haven't got enough fingers and toes combined to count the assassinations that have directly led to the violent and bloody deaths of thousands.
Like I said... "potential". But I do appreciate the snark attack.
"rather rose tinted", "skewed idealism", "obtuse"? Was that really necessary? Anyway.
I considered the historical record, but decided to leave out that paragraph for the sake of brevity.
Nobody got to Hitler or Kim. Guess we will always have to wonder at how those would have panned out.