Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

When is Assassination Justified? Is it Ever? Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:10:42 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
A funny thing happened when Osama bin Laden was killed. The people who rejoiced- and are still rejoicing- the death of Bin Laden can be separated into two groups: 1) Conservatives that cheer it because in their view, anything goes in 'the war on terror', and 2) Liberals who normally would be appalled by target assassinations and war treatment of non-war criminals, but are happy to cast those principles out the door and make an exception for Osama bin Laden.

I'm one of those people, I know I'm hypocritical for it.

This is a great article- it says what I'm not nearly articulate enough to say for myself:
The Osama bin Laden Exception

People around the world have good reason to be critical, especially as details point more toward this being nothing short of a targeted killing- but was it justified in your opinion? Are some monsters so far beyond the bounds of normal criminal behavior that they should be summarily wiped from the planet, regardless of how?

Let's have this discussion outside just the context of "that murderin' towelhead's dead, woooot!", and talk about what it means...if anyone cares. It seems that most are too busy celebrating.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:57:16 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
Not sure that there are only two groups in relation to rejoicing his death. I don't think all Conservatives are happy or welcoming of war and death at any cost, human or monetary. Not do I think that all Liberals are the pussified non aggression for hardly any reason that the Right wants us to believe. Having said that, I get your point. Btw, I don't think that being happy that OBL is dead makes you a hypocrit. Life changes, and you and many others are smart enough to know and see real evil. Is the loss of one life better than the possible loss of countless others.. sure.



My opinion, as I'm sure you already know... totally justified. Now, I didn't run around my house cheering or join some group of yahoos at Town Hall to celebrate it, but I understand the many that did. And I don't hold it against anyone that did. Some of those who celebrated lost family and friends in the 9/11 attacks. Most didn't. I personally feel like we are all connected. Despite our many differences, the loss of those lives hit the entire country very hard. OBL is our generations Hitler, killing in the name of God. Ridiculous.

People around the world are critical, but there are still many who are glad he is gone. Nothing short of a targeted killing? Well, I'm not usually an "eye for an eye" kind of person. But his targeted killing of people, the world over is far more appalling. He was so full of hatred and anger that he would have continued to do what he was known for. The fact that he used another human being to shield himself shows he has no regard for anyone other than himself. His mind was singular in all thoughts. Destroy the infidels.

If the U.S. made a habit of targeted killing of all adversaries, that would be a problem. One man in the last 60 years isn't a sign of a problem. Yes, some monsters are better off gone from the planet. Like the man in my area who was found guilty of brutally raping, beating, and murdering 20+ women over a decade. Put him down too.

OBL.... .good riddance no matter how it went down. My opinion..

Also, whether or not he was armed is irrelevant. He is armed with thousands of Jihadist around the world. To have captured him and brought him to the states and tried in a court as a civilian would have been a disgrace.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Juicyme
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:17:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
Honestly assassination is cheaper than deploying troops and if the goal of the war on terror was to get OBL then this should have been used from the start. (Not condoning killing here just saying it's a cheaper method)

Now on to your question. I think that the conflicting information is what's annoying me most. I understand the argument that it's dead or alive for someone that has killed millions of people but was he really armed? Also everyone is saying that he should have been brought back and tried but where would they put him? Bringing him into America is a major security risk and so is putting him any where else in the world. Furthermore he definitely couldn't go to Guantanamo bay to be detained and become an inspiration to those already there. Speaking of Gitmo, that is also another huge hypocritical sore spot in this war on terror. The US condemns violating civil/human rights but we can shoot OBL in the head and torture people at Gitmo. This war on terror is a war on our principles and integrity as a country.

It was appalling to see people celebrating the death of any human being. When 9/11 happened we condemned those that celebrated those deaths so it's just as disgusting...even more disgusting that Americans are celebrating.
sprite
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 12:06:31 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,604
Location: My Tower, United States
For this once, i'm suspending my opposition to violence and admitting that, i too, fall into the 'just this once' catagory. i think that, from what little i know, it was the best solution, killing rather than capturing. some people just are too evil to go on living.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 12:58:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,409
I'll keep my answer fairly simple. :)

In this case (along with others) I believe assassination is justified.

HOWEVER. The rejoice, and the extreme celebration, that somebody has died, is absolutely 100% ridiculous. I find it pretty disgusting that anyone who believes that are a decent human being, could rejoice and celebrate the death of someone. Have closure, ok. Not be somber or sad, fine. Don't celebrate the death of another, that's just wrong, and drops you down to the level of a heathen.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:10:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
lafayettemister wrote:
The fact that he used another human being to shield himself shows he has no regard for anyone other than himself.


I understand your opinion on the rest of the situation, and do agree that this was probably the best way to handle the situation, I do however feel it necessary to point out that the story about OBL, as you call him, using another person as a shield was just a myth that was invented in an attempt to completely destroy his credibility, and his status as a martyr in the eyes of his followers. The official story has since been adjusted to admit that he was alone on the third floor.

I am ok with the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, I am definitely ok with the assassination of Hitler, but I do wonder where we draw the line. It's a matter of perspective, and I'm not sure a universally accepted standard can ever be found. So I guess if you believe it is the best alternative, even with the potential negative reaction to it, then do it. But don't lie about it. Stand by your decision. If you truly believe that it was justified, there's no need to hide it.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:17:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
Jebru wrote:
lafayettemister wrote:
The fact that he used another human being to shield himself shows he has no regard for anyone other than himself.


I understand your opinion on the rest of the situation, and do agree that this was probably the best way to handle the situation, I do however feel it necessary to point out that the story about OBL, as you call him, using another person as a shield was just a myth that was invented in an attempt to completely destroy his credibility, and his status as a martyr in the eyes of his followers. The official story has since been adjusted to admit that he was alone on the third floor.

I am ok with the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, I am definitely ok with the assassination of Hitler, but I do wonder where we draw the line. It's a matter of perspective, and I'm not sure a universally accepted standard can ever be found. So I guess if you believe it is the best alternative, even with the potential negative reaction to it, then do it. But don't lie about it. Stand by your decision. If you truly believe that it was justified, there's no need to hide it.


I have not heard that this was untrue. If it is, and I beleive you, then I retract that part. No problems admitting if I'm wrong. Your second paragraph... to whom are you referring to as lying about it? Just curious.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Juicyme
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:22:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
Jebru wrote:
I am ok with the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, I am definitely ok with the assassination of Hitler, but I do wonder where we draw the line. It's a matter of perspective, and I'm not sure a universally accepted standard can ever be found. So I guess if you believe it is the best alternative, even with the potential negative reaction to it, then do it. But don't lie about it. Stand by your decision. If you truly believe that it was justified, there's no need to hide it.



I agree that this can create a slippery slope of where do we draw the line. If hitler and OBL are okay then Gadaffi or Chavez are okay too. (not saying that either of these men have committed crimes like Hitler or OBL just examples of unpopular men )

I completely agree with you Jebru. If you did something stand by it....I understand about trying to make him look as less of a martyr as possible but honesty is always the best.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:32:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
lafayettemister wrote:
Jebru wrote:
lafayettemister wrote:
The fact that he used another human being to shield himself shows he has no regard for anyone other than himself.


I understand your opinion on the rest of the situation, and do agree that this was probably the best way to handle the situation, I do however feel it necessary to point out that the story about OBL, as you call him, using another person as a shield was just a myth that was invented in an attempt to completely destroy his credibility, and his status as a martyr in the eyes of his followers. The official story has since been adjusted to admit that he was alone on the third floor.

I am ok with the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, I am definitely ok with the assassination of Hitler, but I do wonder where we draw the line. It's a matter of perspective, and I'm not sure a universally accepted standard can ever be found. So I guess if you believe it is the best alternative, even with the potential negative reaction to it, then do it. But don't lie about it. Stand by your decision. If you truly believe that it was justified, there's no need to hide it.


I have not heard that this was untrue. If it is, and I beleive you, then I retract that part. No problems admitting if I'm wrong. Your second paragraph... to whom are you referring to as lying about it? Just curious.


In the case of this assassination, the US government. Bin Laden was bad enough on his own, there's no need to make up stories at this point. If what he has done already didn't warrant his assassination, then one more act isn't going to change things. All the differing "official" stories about what actually happened leave a bad taste in my mouth. Like they feel like they did something they needed to hide.
WorkAlone
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:21:40 PM

Rank: Cogent Sensualist

Joined: 2/27/2010
Posts: 1,516
Location: Subject to Change without Notice, Canada
This is an interesting one. It reminds me a lot of the death penalty issue. If you know, beyond any doubt, that someone is responsible for the deaths of a number of people and if you know that the only way to stop them is to kill them, then logically, you can save lives by ending one. In this is true, assassination can be justified. The problem arises when there's some debate or different perspectives regarding the actions of the person in question. To raise a contentious example, President G. W. Bush went to war in Afganistan and Iraq in response to terrorist attacks in the US resulting in the death of many innocent people in both countries. Did he need to be stopped? Would the Iraqis have been justified in assassinating him to save innocent Iraqi lives under the end one life to save a number of others. I'm using a fairly absurd argument here, but the issue isn't so black and white.

Like most of you, I agree that Bin Laden's death is almost certainly a good thing and well justified (assuming everything we've heard about him is true-ish), particularly since he didn't seem to give them much choice to take him alive, I'm just not sure I can ever come down on the side of murder as standard foreign policy.
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 4:42:54 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,409
I agree that this does sound like the death penalty thread. When do you decide that it's okay to take someone's life and who get's to decide? Interesting answers here when compared with the DP thread.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:09:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
I think where this debate differs from the death penalty one is in the intricacies of international law and international diplomacy. With the possibly exception of the strongest criminal organizations, the domestic imprisonment of a popular criminal is not going to incite further violence and attempts to free him or her. Plus, the laws that govern where and how the criminal should be pursued, prosecuted, and punished are clearly defined. In Afghanistan especially, those rules are murky.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:09:42 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
While, we're on the subject, it seems the US government is trying to take the head of somebody else now. This is less than a week after NATO took a shot at vaporizing Quaddafi.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/06/yemen.drone.strike/
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:46:24 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden


CAUTION
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

** Weirdly, not even the FBI is accusing OBL of having anything to do with either the 1993 nor the 2001 WTC attacks.

REWARD
The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

In typical Bushspeak...here's is the last fuckwit blabbering
on about a person of no interest in March 2002.



I guess a lot of you folks don't know that OBL and his mujahadeen
were US Allies vs the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s? And
then they were allied against the Serbs during the Bosnian conflict -
on the side of the Albanians?

Bin Laden was a CIA asset for almost 20 years. Just as Saddam was, too - when he was battling the Iranians.
Our US leaders like despots and cranks when we can use 'em to whatever advantage we seek to obtain.


If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:52:38 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
Some of you folks weren't even glimmers in your father's or mother's eyes, when Reagan sent a couple of tomahawks into Mohammar's tent back in 1986.

The colonel was also accused of being behind Pan AM 103 which was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, too.



So, if he's been such a high priority target all these years...
why did the countries of the 'free world' leave him in power in Libya, all this time?


That's the real question here.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 6:13:49 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,293
Location: West Coast
Bin Laden was assassinated because they no longer had the need to have the 'poster-boy/puppet/scapegoat' of global terrorism around... so they decided to take him out.

In this instance, doesn't it seem a bit suspicious that he was living in a multi-million dollar heavily fortified compound right next door to the Pakistani Military Academy. Like don't you think it would occur to them to want to know who the fuck was setting up camp right next door in a massive compound with high walls and surrounded by barbed wire... even as a basic security measure?

Come on, there are no 'surprises' when you are living in a barricade in an affluent area right next door to a military academy.

Bin Laden was useful to keep alive as the international boogeyman of terrorism and to continue the incentive and motivation to continue the war(s).

Back to the original question... is assassination justified? Yes. But it's all in the eye of the beholder. As someone else correctly mentioned, an easy case could be made for Bush to be seen as a war criminal too. As someone who believes in capital punishment, I don't have an issue with it if the situation is warranted. War is war. People die.




WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 6:33:10 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
Just so I'm not accused of being solely against the American conservative/Republicans...

Slick Willy and his CIA and Pentagon were in bed with Osama.
They were for him - before they were against him, too.

This is what happens when you enter a civil war...you get strange bedfellows who you later attempt to squash,
and you piss off a side which was your ally during WWII. Clinton tried to assassinate Milosevich with smart bombs and everyone was all for that.

Course, the US gets to build the largest military base in Europe, in Kosovo, so that's always an added bonus.



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 6:53:57 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Back to the original question... is assassination justified? Yes. But it's all in the eye of the beholder. As someone else correctly mentioned, an easy case could be made for Bush to be seen as a war criminal too. As someone who believes in capital punishment, I don't have an issue with it if the situation is warranted. War is war. People die.



Assassination is never justified, Ash. To say that and mean it, are you implying that
Lincoln, Sadat, Malcom X, MLK, jr., both Kennedys, Gandhi, Bhutto and Reagan all had 'it' coming to 'em?



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:51:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


Assassination is never justified, Ash. To say that and mean it, are you implying that
Lincoln, Sadat, Malcom X, MLK, jr., both Kennedys, Gandhi, Bhutto and Reagan all had 'it' coming to 'em?



Please bear with me for a moment as I depart from the Middle East, because I want to bring another facet of this moral exercise to bear.

Back when I was in my mid-twenties, I knew this girl. Margie was her name. I knew her dad, her sister, her brother. Nice folks, they were. Margie was a kindhearted wench, and if her only weakness was staying out at a bar late at night, and allowing the many gents in attendance to ply her with beer, what of it? She could usually be counted on to choose one of those men to escort her home, and if she became somewhat free with her sexuality, again: what of it? She was a good girl - one that I'd not hesitate to introduce to my mother, if the occasion ever arose.

Margie was out one Friday night, getting pretty drunked up. She happened to hook up with a gent who took her out to his van (a shag-carpeted redneck paradise if ever there was one). His definition of foreplay turned out to be very different than Margie's, so she tried to call it quits halfway through the event. He wouldn't take "No" for an answer, though, and consummated the act by force. One other thing about Margie - she had a medical condition that caused her to have seizures occasionally. Not a normal seizure like you would think, but it would seem as if she was in a coma. She would have no muscle movement, no apparent consciousness - you had to look really close to even see her chest rise with her breathing. She would be aware of everything happening around her - just unable to do anything about it.

On this occasion, her Lothario had been choking her during his rape. When she lapsed into a seizure, he mistakenly assumed that he had killed her. He pulled his pants up, drove over to a lake, and without hesitation dumped her in. I can't even imagine the final thoughts that passed through her mind as she felt the water close around her body, unable to do anything about it entering her lungs. They say she was probably aware through the entire ordeal - the rape, the drowning... aware, right up until her mind blanked out due to lack of oxygen.

They caught the rapist, and convicted him of the rape, and of manslaughter. He's long since done his time, and been released from prison. Even after all these years, if someone gave me his address and a legal green light to do so, I'd have no qualms at all about pulling a trigger and sending 230 grains of hot lead through his skull. Would that make me an assassin? I wouldn't even care if he had completely changed his life around, and been a tea-totaling angel since his prison life. I would just consider it payback for a dirty deed done years past.

Personally, I put Bin Laden into the same category as that rapist. Into the "Some Folks Just Need Killing" category. I didn't celebrate when they announced his death, nor did I mourn. I consider the world to be slightly better off without him in it. I'm sure there are millions of other folks that could also be put into that category, and if they should arouse the ire of the majority of the world's body politic like Bin Laden did, I hope they join him in his fate. Because some folks just need killing.

myself
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:51:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
I rejoiced along with the world the morning of May 2nd 2011 and hugged the person closest in the world to me in celebration over the death of Bin Laden. The day was filled with celebration and pride in the US for ridding the world of such an evil man.

At about 7pm that evening, we received a call from a seventy year old woman telling us that her youngest son had hung himself that day. Her son was the brother of the one I hugged in happiness over Bin Laden's death that morning.

The man that hung himself lived in the same little farming town his whole life where he married, raised two daughters and worked for the same company for many years. He was not a chronic alcoholic but did binge and had for years. He was arrested with his second drunk driving charge and consequently lost his job six months ago. The family had just gotten through a terrible few years of dealing with his wife's cancer, she survived, and they had just seen their daughters marry and begin lives of their own. It was said that he had been a tortured soul from an early age. No one has the answer for that. It's just the way it was. He was loved by everyone who knew him. The three hour precision of lined people in to the funeral home today said that much and was always known by everyone but him.

I don't think he knew that his failures and embarrassments were not the sum of him. I can't help thinking that while the world rejoiced in the death of a soul who caused so much pain like Bin Laden that he, this good man took it personal and wanted this relief and happiness for his in their lives.

I know in my heart that Bin Laden had to die to prevent him from hurting more people. I don't know if we know what hate can do and if it's ever justified.

Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:02:57 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,293
Location: West Coast
WellMadeMale wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Back to the original question... is assassination justified? Yes. But it's all in the eye of the beholder. As someone else correctly mentioned, an easy case could be made for Bush to be seen as a war criminal too. As someone who believes in capital punishment, I don't have an issue with it if the situation is warranted. War is war. People die.



Assassination is never justified, Ash. To say that and mean it, are you implying that
Lincoln, Sadat, Malcom X, MLK, jr., both Kennedys, Gandhi, Bhutto and Reagan all had 'it' coming to 'em?



I don't think that civilian casualties have it coming to them either but it's a reality of politics and war. I just don't see their lives (the guys you named) as fundamentally any more special than the mom, dad and kids that get blown up in air strikes. Yes, they are figureheads but human life is human life. At least they have chosen in part to assume the public stage and potentially incur the risk of assassination (however wrong or unjustified it might be). The kid that happened to be living on the wrong side of the bombing zone did not. It's just the risks and reality of the situation.




WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:22:30 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,299
Location: Cakeland, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Back to the original question... is assassination justified? Yes. But it's all in the eye of the beholder. As someone else correctly mentioned, an easy case could be made for Bush to be seen as a war criminal too. As someone who believes in capital punishment, I don't have an issue with it if the situation is warranted. War is war. People die.



Assassination is never justified, Ash. To say that and mean it, are you implying that
Lincoln, Sadat, Malcom X, MLK, jr., both Kennedys, Gandhi, Bhutto and Reagan all had 'it' coming to 'em?



I don't think that civilian casualties have it coming to them either but it's a reality of politics and war. I just don't see their lives (the guys you named) as fundamentally any more special than the mom, dad and kids that get blown up in air strikes. Yes, they are figureheads but human life is human life. At least they have chosen in part to assume the public stage and potentially incur the risk of assassination (however wrong or unjustified it might be). The kid that happened to be living on the wrong side of the bombing zone did not. It's just the risks and reality of the situation.



Now you're straying from the original question again. confused5

I agree, with you too.

War's a fckin racket, Ash. It's all about profiteering and domination - the domination to keep profiteering. Those fucks don't care who dies. They invent terms like: collateral damage to disinfect their murderous war crimes.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:31:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Back to the original question... is assassination justified? Yes. But it's all in the eye of the beholder. As someone else correctly mentioned, an easy case could be made for Bush to be seen as a war criminal too. As someone who believes in capital punishment, I don't have an issue with it if the situation is warranted. War is war. People die.



Assassination is never justified, Ash. To say that and mean it, are you implying that
Lincoln, Sadat, Malcom X, MLK, jr., both Kennedys, Gandhi, Bhutto and Reagan all had 'it' coming to 'em?



I don't think that civilian casualties have it coming to them either but it's a reality of politics and war. I just don't see their lives (the guys you named) as fundamentally any more special than the mom, dad and kids that get blown up in air strikes. Yes, they are figureheads but human life is human life. At least they have chosen in part to assume the public stage and potentially incur the risk of assassination (however wrong or unjustified it might be). The kid that happened to be living on the wrong side of the bombing zone did not. It's just the risks and reality of the situation.



Now you're straying from the original question again. confused5

I agree, with you too.

War's a fckin racket, Ash. It's all about profiteering and domination - the domination to keep profiteering. Those fucks don't care who dies. They invent terms like: collateral damage to disinfect their murderous war crimes.


She makes a damn good point, though. People like Bin Laden choose to live that kind of life, knowing that they'll become targets. They don't have that kind of life thrust upon them. Reagan didn't become President by accident. You put yourself into a position where you're going to become a target, don't be surprised to find bullets whistling past your ears...

MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:00:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 543
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
Assassination? It all depends upon who it is.

Should Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedung and Pol Pot been assassinated? Would it have been morally right to take them out before they murdered a few hundred million people?

Osama Bin Laden received justice at the end of a bullet from a US Navy Seal.

President Obama made the best decision in his entire presidency on giving the go ahead order.

Is war a "racket?" Everything is a racket. Computer software is a racket! The insurance industry is a racket! The music industry is a racket! The list goes on and on!

There are small wars and big wars. There always will be. The only way to handle it is to be the biggest bad ass possible.

Amazing how the whiny wimps scream about war and military in a nation of free speech paid for by the blood of those brave enough to die in order to give them that freedom.

Those terrorists hate liberal westerners just as much as they hate conservative westerners. Their goal is to destroy western civilization. And they are willing to die in order to do so. Are you willing to kill and die to defend freedom, democracy, your family and your neighbors...your children?
WorkAlone
Posted: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:39:59 PM

Rank: Cogent Sensualist

Joined: 2/27/2010
Posts: 1,516
Location: Subject to Change without Notice, Canada
MrNudiePants wrote:
She makes a damn good point, though. People like Bin Laden choose to live that kind of life, knowing that they'll become targets. They don't have that kind of life thrust upon them. Reagan didn't become President by accident. You put yourself into a position where you're going to become a target, don't be surprised to find bullets whistling past your ears...


To me, the bigger point is that they decided that others could die for them and their cause, either as martyrs/soldiers or as victims. They have already escalated the conflict to murder unilaterally so returning the favour is in order. I am acutely aware though that there are two complications--once started, the chain of retribution can be endles; and there can be a subjective aspect to these things. Would it have been justified to assassinate Lennin? How about the Popes who supported crusades or inquisitions? Hmmmm, not so easy.
SIL50
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:01:34 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/3/2009
Posts: 62
Location: Alabama
Assination: Murder committed by a perpetrator without the personal provocation of the victim, who is usually a government official. Don't think Bin Laden fell under the terms of the definition. His taking down was no different than that of any other combatent. He declared war on the US. He recieved justice carried out by the skilled operators of Team Six.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:25:02 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,293
Location: West Coast
SIL50 wrote:
Assination: Murder committed by a perpetrator without the personal provocation of the victim, who is usually a government official. Don't think Bin Laden fell under the terms of the definition. His taking down was no different than that of any other combatent. He declared war on the US. He recieved justice carried out by the skilled operators of Team Six.



Based on this argument, would the 'assassination' of Bush be considered fair justice by those he 'declared war on' if they had taken such an opportunity?


Juicyme
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:36:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/7/2011
Posts: 177
Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite
Assassination is murder. Period. Going back to the original question of the thread, "When is assassination justified?" I believe that it is never justified 100% Looking at the responses from this thread there are some instances where it's socially acceptable to some but not all. Proving my point that no matter how you try to "justify" murder, it just can't be done. A human life is a human life. I lost family in the 9/11 attacks in the US and OBL's death gave me closure but it was nothing to celebrate nor was his death something that I mourned. In fact I prayed for his family that the closure they would need wouldn't come at the expense of another human life.

I personally think that anyone who can justify assassinating someone--murdering someone is sick because where does the justification stop?
wolverine15
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 1:35:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/16/2010
Posts: 1,140
Location: sardonic-ville, United States
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
Assassination? It all depends upon who it is.

Should Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedung and Pol Pot been assassinated? Would it have been morally right to take them out before they murdered a few hundred million people?

Osama Bin Laden received justice at the end of a bullet from a US Navy Seal.

President Obama made the best decision in his entire presidency on giving the go ahead order.

Is war a "racket?" Everything is a racket. Computer software is a racket! The insurance industry is a racket! The music industry is a racket! The list goes on and on!

There are small wars and big wars. There always will be. The only way to handle it is to be the biggest bad ass possible.

Amazing how the whiny wimps scream about war and military in a nation of free speech paid for by the blood of those brave enough to die in order to give them that freedom.

Those terrorists hate liberal westerners just as much as they hate conservative westerners. Their goal is to destroy western civilization. And they are willing to die in order to do so. Are you willing to kill and die to defend freedom, democracy, your family and your neighbors...your children?


I won't delve into the Obama, racket, or terrorist goals portion of this MissyLuvsYa is spot on in the opening sentence and how amazing it is that people who cry for their freedom of speech are the first to deride others of their positions entitled to them under the same law.

Having personally traveled in a communist country, and met concentration camp survivors, how could you not say assassination is justified? Well then I give these two little quotes to ponder:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure - Thomas Jefferson

And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death - Leviticus 24:17

So yes in my humble opinion assassination is justified.



“If you find it hard to laugh at yourself, I would be happy to do it for you."

Guest
Posted: Saturday, May 07, 2011 2:20:57 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,409
No matter how much or badly you hate it, war will always exist. Its all become a part of being a human. War has shaped and broken countries, destroyed and boomed economies, and it always leaves thousands of lives dead. War always takes more than it gives, its like a demon really; making an offer of reward, but at an excessive cost. The U.S. was built on 2 wars, its economy boomed because of a world war, and now? People see America as a bully, a monster, and a tyrant nation and why?

Why does a nation that symbolizes freedom, liberty, and equality receive so much hate? Israel is a key part of why Extremists in the middle east despise us; they see us as allies of what they call "Infidels" aka the Israelis. What really baffled me back in my schooling days is how people didn't know how Israel became an independent state. It was something of a compensation for the terrible losses they suffered; Europe and the U.S. gave them a land to call their own, but in a move that was more or less an annexation. The Arabs rejected the proposal to split the region and in turn a war broke out, which the Israeli's won. It has been since the 1940's, that the Middle East has stood against Israel and its allies(I.E. USA) Osama Bin Laden ruled the hatred so many people had for us and used that hatred to breed his organization into the terror network that it is now. He manipulated people, used them, and distorted the Islamic faith into something some people have come to see as a murderous religion, which it is not.

Every country has a gripe with another one, and every country has their fair share of politicians who are corrupt or seen as heartless assholes. So what of Bush then? He led us into Afganistan and Iraq, the latter country being attacked based on intel that was in the end, wrong. Saddam was not an international threat and Iraq was still rebuilding from when we first blew their country to hell and back; if anything, Saddam should have been taken care of during the first Persian Gulf War. The second Iraq invasion was a monster of a controversy that really spilled some dirt on America's name. It was ill-prepared for, poorly dealt with, and the loss of lives is staggering and even continues to rise to this day. But my biggest gripe is how far people draw lines with how "cruel" their government can be.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are among the most notorious, albeit, ridiculous claims at how our gov't is "evil" If Bush and his administration wanted a war for the sake of going to war, they wouldn't have needed to murder 3000 of their own people to do it. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have made it abundantly clear they were responsible for the attacks, hell they take pride in being responsible. I've heard so many ridiculous claims and conspiracies and yet, not a shred of legitimate evidence that isn't circumstantial or by its very nature, valid.

As for Osama, he was a mass murderer of thousands of people. The damage he alone helped cause is staggering; he's comparable to a 21st century Hitler. Not only that, he was willing to kill again and again. He was a monster and a blight. How he died should not have mattered. He was a threat to the world and needed to be dealt with so that he could no longer harm anyone else. I'm sorry, my moral standings just won't favor a man who's killed thousands without remorse, and taken pride in his actions. Given the chance, he'd kill every single American and those that support America/Israel by any means he could. Why should I treat him any less?

MissyLuvsYa wrote:
Assassination? It all depends upon who it is.

Should Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedung and Pol Pot been assassinated? Would it have been morally right to take them out before they murdered a few hundred million people?

Osama Bin Laden received justice at the end of a bullet from a US Navy Seal.

President Obama made the best decision in his entire presidency on giving the go ahead order.

Is war a "racket?" Everything is a racket. Computer software is a racket! The insurance industry is a racket! The music industry is a racket! The list goes on and on!

There are small wars and big wars. There always will be. The only way to handle it is to be the biggest bad ass possible.

Amazing how the whiny wimps scream about war and military in a nation of free speech paid for by the blood of those brave enough to die in order to give them that freedom.

Those terrorists hate liberal westerners just as much as they hate conservative westerners. Their goal is to destroy western civilization. And they are willing to die in order to do so. Are you willing to kill and die to defend freedom, democracy, your family and your neighbors...your children?
Well said.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.