• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is assasination acceptable?

Should we take out Assad?

  • Oh hell yeah...end this mess

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • No...this makes us no better than he is.

    Votes: 13 68.4%
  • Only if we have the blessing of the Arab League

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • Tough Call...but someones gotta do SOMETHING!

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Total voters
    19
How do you suppose we change.. say... evangelical americans?

What Americans have are enough of to protect us are different religions. (Yes, there are many revisionist Evangelical people that claim essentially that we were established by Evangelicals.) So they don't need to be changed. Many even recognize my right to vote even though I'm not an Evangelical. So what problem are you trying to solve?
 
No. You can have a election w/o democracy. People have to participate, even the minorities. Peoples rights have to be documented and followed. That requires a culture that supports minority rights.

election is the mask of this game...

according to your democracy defitition ,how long has US been democrat? was it democrat in 50s? ,
 
election is the mask of this game...

according to your democracy defitition ,how long has US been democrat? was it democrat in 50s? ,

A perfect democracy? No. And, it's not now; but, its closer. And I'm sure you recall that many churches supported the imperfection that was the major reason it was not in the 50's.
 
Last edited:
Assassination is unproductive, since the replacement might be even less acceptable to you.
 
If this situation in Syria, could be dealt with by one of our special forces operations removing certain facets of the problem with deadly force, would you find the tradeoff a wise venture. In other words, if we could kill Assad to stop the ongoing slaughter of thousands, would you go along with it?



In principle, targeted assassinations against important enemy figures are absolutely necessary.

But in the case of Assad the problem is whether his replacement government could be worse than the current regime.
 
I have no moral objection to assassination, and very little practical objection, but the international laws in place prohibiting assassination of heads of state need to stay in place-- so that reputable states are afraid of the loss of face that would result.
 
What Americans have are enough of to protect us are different religions. (Yes, there are many revisionist Evangelical people that claim essentially that we were established by Evangelicals.) So they don't need to be changed. Many even recognize my right to vote even though I'm not an Evangelical. So what problem are you trying to solve?

I fail to see how your listing that evangelicals respect your right to vote makes them any less radical than a talibani with a TV remote rather than an AK. :shrug:
It's a popular apocalyptic mutation of Christianity that uses it's power to violate the seperation of powers of church and state in the US
not to mention funnel illegal funds into israeli settlements in order to encourage a global apocalypse so they can go to heaven and all the Jews can be slain and us secularists can live in Fallout World... and also encourage that one speak tongues, pretend that demons and angels occupy their inner minds, perform self taught rituals with the bible to expel demons. Considering their a quarter of the voting population of the US... You could say I'm about 25% as concerned about the US starting the apocalypse as I am the government of Iran...

so yeah... there's a little problem there...
 
In principle, targeted assassinations against important enemy figures are absolutely necessary.

In total war perhaps... there hasn't been a particularly big one since the mid 20th C.
 
In total war perhaps... there hasn't been a particularly big one since the mid 20th C.

Mid 20th Century didn't have the sort of terrorism we have today. War is something fluid, it has to adapt to its times.
 
Assad is a dead man walking. How long is he going to continue to walk for? Well that depends doesn't it. How long is he going to be allowed to murder thousands of innocents? The token International outrage against these events by the Arab League and the so called leaders of Countries afar are pathetic.

You know The Right to Protect (R2P) was supposedly set up to allow nation states to take unilateral action to protect civilians against disgusting maniacs like Assad. Syrian crimes can be classified as crimes against humanity especially because they are state policy, systematic and directed so why has R2P not been invoked by the international community nor has reasonable action been undertaken by the Security Council and the ICC?

It's not rocket science. Politics and personal interest. Uphold basic human rights and protect the innocent.......when it suits.
 
Mid 20th Century didn't have the sort of terrorism we have today. War is something fluid, it has to adapt to its times.

I believe 19th Century Russia had more terrorism than we had today... In fact terrorism was more common earlier in history...
and assassinations are far less common now...
 
If this situation in Syria, could be dealt with by one of our special forces operations removing certain facets of the problem with deadly force, would you find the tradeoff a wise venture. In other words, if we could kill Assad to stop the ongoing slaughter of thousands, would you go along with it?

Officially, no.

Unofficially, yes if it increases our hegemony in the region and we can make it appear to be the work of one of our competitors.

Of course, the problem with assassinating political leaders, even recklessly brutal political leaders, is the potential for blowback and likewise reciprocation. This is why such things are done sparingly.
 
I believe 19th Century Russia had more terrorism than we had today... In fact terrorism was more common earlier in history...
and assassinations are far less common now...


Sure ... but you forget one little detail: the Bolsheviks didn't have nuclear weapons.

There lies the difference my friend.
 
I have no problem with assassinations. Foreign heads of state I take issue with though, efforts to capture and prosecute should be taken within reasonable limits before an assasination is ordered. We would need to be very sensitive to world opinion before doing taking action. However, if we leave enforcement up to UN well just repeat what happened last week when China and Russia voted against a resolution to remove Assad from power.

For people who oppose assassinations? How do you define it? This seems to be pretty controversial

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html
 
Sure ... but you forget one little detail: the Bolsheviks didn't have nuclear weapons.

There lies the difference my friend.

I don't think Iran has supported a terror action since the 80's... the most recent of which they are accused seems to be quietly brushed aside as to not gain attention over the absurdity of its plausibility.


And Iran doesn't have a nuke...

Also... I'm pretty sure the USSR had nukes.

And terrorists don't.

and that the Russian revolution was in the 20th century.



For further information on international relations and international security questions you can consult some free courses on the internet!

Free Online Course Materials | Political Science | MIT OpenCourseWare

KNoWlege iS fReE!
 
I have a serious problem with that type of operation. We would be making decisions for what we believe is best for the people of Syria, when Syria should be making those decisions, and acting upon them, themselves.

I kind of thought that this was what the people of Syria are actually doing right now.
 
I don't think Iran has supported a terror action since the 80's... the most recent of which they are accused seems to be quietly brushed aside as to not gain attention over the absurdity of its plausibility.


And Iran doesn't have a nuke...

..............



You are joking right? you must be ....:lamo


Iran hates nukes! Iran is allergic to nukes! haaaa:lol: ignorance is bliss I guess!:mrgreen:
 
I would say NO, for several reason, not least of which are that the USA will be blamed by the Arabs for whatever happens.
Assassinations are supposed to be against American law, not that the LAW matters with this administration.
Obama (Being inclined to favor Islam) would not agree to Assad being taken out.
It would be a waste of yet another SEAL's life, as with those that took Bin Laden out, were in their turn taken out.
 
Under the circumstances I think assassination may be useful, I like how the US is handling this and should there be an assassination I would not be surprised.


"Syrian rights activists say government forces have bombarded the rebellious central city of Homs for a sixth day, killing at least 60 people and leaving makeshift hospitals overwhelmed as divided world powers struggled to end the violence.

The activists said Thursday relentless government shelling and rocket strikes on Homs were creating a worsening humanitarian crisis, with rebel-dominated neighborhoods lacking water and electricity and running low on basic supplies. They said the onslaught that began early Saturday has killed hundreds of people, making it the deadliest attack on Homs of the 11-month uprising against President Bashar al-Assad's autocratic rule.

Mr. Obama has agreed to work with Washington's European and Arab allies to organize a group of nations known as Friends of Syria to explore ways of further isolating and pressuring the Assad government to stop the violence. Western and Arab nations decided to try to form the group after seeing Russia and China block their efforts to pressure Mr. Assad through the U.N. Security Council."
Activists: Assad Forces Kill 60 in Syria’s Homs, Hospitals Overwhelmed « VOA Breaking News
 
I fail to see how your listing that evangelicals respect your right to vote makes them any less radical than a talibani with a TV remote rather than an AK. :shrug:
It's a popular apocalyptic mutation of Christianity that uses it's power to violate the seperation of powers of church and state in the US
not to mention funnel illegal funds into israeli settlements in order to encourage a global apocalypse so they can go to heaven and all the Jews can be slain and us secularists can live in Fallout World... and also encourage that one speak tongues, pretend that demons and angels occupy their inner minds, perform self taught rituals with the bible to expel demons. Considering their a quarter of the voting population of the US... You could say I'm about 25% as concerned about the US starting the apocalypse as I am the government of Iran...

so yeah... there's a little problem there...
I have seen some of the behavior you're concerned with. I have had it affect me directly, though the end result turned out positive for me. Though I don't think they will be successful. And, most of the still recognize my right to vote.
 
does syria have nukes ??
 
It is acceptable, the problem is whether it is possible to attempt one
 
If this situation in Syria, could be dealt with by one of our special forces operations removing certain facets of the problem with deadly force, would you find the tradeoff a wise venture. In other words, if we could kill Assad to stop the ongoing slaughter of thousands, would you go along with it?

That invites a forign power to assasinate our president and it is an act of war.
 
No we are not the ****ing world police...
 
Back
Top Bottom