Is assasination ever called for

Cardinal said:

Well how far back in the "other direction" do I have to go? To when Hitler was legitimately elected town councilman?

Click to expand...

Between his release from prison up to the 1932 elections. That's when he modified his strategies to use legitimate avenues. Note that I said *avenues*, not tactics. His tactics were still underhanded, at the best, but gaining members in the Reichstag gave his party a "legitimacy" (note the quote marks) and level of participation on the national political stage that it had so far been unable to gain with common thug tactics.

lifeisshort said:

If I wanted to ask at what point would it be OK to assassinate a US pres in general or Obama in particular then I would have started one precisely on that subject and I wonder if you got all upset over the George Bush assassination film. Surly it was discussed in here and I bet you defended it. Now in a fit of paranoia you connect dots that are not there and have a panic attack over Obama being compared to Hitler and a subsequent post asking if Hitler should have been assassinated. :roll:

"George Bush assassination film wins top award"

George Bush assassination film wins top award | Daily Mail Online

Click to expand...

Your red herring is fooling nobody. Not only has the purpose of your threads been obvious to anyone who has been watching your posting history, the fact that you're trying to hide it just shows how little integrity you have. Now, here are my comments on both the movie, effigies and trying to kill a US president:

Hatuey said:

It was wrong when they were burning effigies of Bush. It's wrong now. Disagreements with the President do not warrant physical attacks on them.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

I refuse to believe that. I see effigies as representation of a person. Setting it on fire clearly shows your feelings towards that person. It shows to me that you are to some extent calling for the death of a president.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

My thoughts :

Bush is an prick. He's probably the worst president I'll ever get to see short of the president who decides it'll be a good idea to use nukes again. He's a guy who I'd probably have a beer with but wouldn't let him try to fix a working clock. Yes I'm serious. He's a guy who's jokes have annoyed me as a liberal. He's a guy who has sent my family members to fight a war I don't believe in. I don't like him.

However, he is still the President of what is still the most powerful country in the world. He's been the most protected man for the last 8 years for a reason. He's the CinC of our military. He's a guy who aside from all his faults doesn't deserve to be disrespected at least in such a classless manner. I don't even think he needs to be disrespected to show disagreement with him.

We do not live in a time where dissent needs to be shown as physical savagery. If this same journalist had voiced his dissent at Bush through his work then I'd be behind him 100% but he didn't. He chose a road where his motives won't be remembered. All people will remember is that he threw a shoe. Not caring about why. I don't know why Sirdan Sirdan shot Kennedy. I don't know why Lennon's killer pulled the trigger. I don't know why some guy threw a pie at Bill Gates. I just know they did it. They didn't get their message across. All they did was put their names in the headlines long enough for people to remember them and not their motives.

Click to expand...

Now, what that said. Keep pretending people don't see the goals of your threads. You're fooling absolutely nobody.

The issue that I have in trying to justify assassinating any political figure is that it's easy to make a case for it in hind sight. A Hitler comes to mind, as the first obvious example. But, the human species is too prone to taking a mile when given an inch, and I fear assassination would be too convenient if we were able to rationalize it away so easily.

Gathomas88 said:

Eh. As far as I'm concerned, it's pretty much always fair game if the ends justify the means.

After all, just because we refrain from taking out certain targets doesn't mean that everyone else will. Some of those people might be our rivals, and actively working against us.

I frankly wish that we'd be adopt a more "Israeli" approach, and be more active in taking out the key scientists involved in Iran or North Korea's nuclear programs. It'd solve a lot of problems.

Click to expand...

And create a lot more.


Let's walk down that path. First question to answer...would our assassination of iranian nuclear scientists be sanctioned by the UN? Problem one, making it policy for the international peace keeper. Again, using assassination as a tool to bow others to our way of thinking is akin to terrorism, and the best they can ever achieve is forced peace. If we act without consideration to the UN, we create distrust in others. Remember the Snowden spy deal? That was nothing. Just a few tapped phone calls of foreign dignitaries. Imagine a few CAPPED foreign dignitaries. I know, you're not in trouble till you get caught. Well, we have a bad habit of getting caught. I could provide a list, but I doubt it's necessary. AND, in the event that the same happens to us, we have lost most support in bringing the assassinating perps to justice, since we would be "getting a dose of our own medicine", as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

But let's go down the other path, the one in which we somehow convince the UN that this is a good idea. Well, lol, now we've just empowered a lot of other countries with the same...discretion.

I agree, in most cases, the ends justifies the means.

This is not a means that would lead to a good end. Look at how badly our CIA's various assassination attempts over the years have blown up in our faces. Sure, I'll wager they have success stories, too. But ultimately, IMO, there are better ways than assassination to prevent the rise of a despot, or nuclear war, etc.

radcen said:

Between his release from prison up to the 1932 elections. That's when he modified his strategies to use legitimate avenues. Note that I said *avenues*, not tactics. His tactics were still underhanded, at the best, but gaining members in the Reichstag gave his party a "legitimacy" (note the quote marks) and level of participation on the national political stage that it had so far been unable to gain with common thug tactics.

Click to expand...

The discussion was how Hitler became chancellor and ultimately dictator, and the idea that he was somehow elected to these positions. You were the first to bring up anything before that.

Cardinal said:

The discussion was how Hitler became chancellor and ultimately dictator, and the idea that he was somehow elected to these positions. You were the first to bring up anything before that.

Click to expand...

Right, because it's all part of the overall historical process. He wasn't just... *poof*... appointed Chancellor. No, there were events that led up to that and made it possible.

Cardinal said:

Cute choice of words. You've been shown repeatedly that he and the Nazi party weren't elected democratically, so instead you try to hold on to your position by saying he "rose to power in a democracy." Fact is though that even this rewording doesn't help you make the argument that he rose to power through any democratic process. If I said, "Joe committed murder in a country with law and order." that doesn't mean that Joe's crime was lawful, it still means that he broke the law and committed murder.

Click to expand...

Now you change it to he and the nazi party. Hitler was elected pres in a democracy the way I read it but I am not wedded to that, show me otherwise and I will gladly concede your point

Hatuey said:

Your red herring is fooling nobody. Not only has the purpose of your threads been obvious to anyone who has been watching your posting history, the fact that you're trying to hide it just shows how little integrity you have. Now, here are my comments on both the movie, effigies and trying to kill a US president:







Now, what that said. Keep pretending people don't see the goals of your threads. You're fooling absolutely nobody.

Click to expand...

As I thought you freely discussed assassinating Bush in here but when I discuss assassinating hitler which you claim is code for assassinating Obama you have a panic attack. Get over it.

lifeisshort said:

As I thought you freely discussed assassinating Bush in here but when I discuss assassinating hitler which you claim is code for assassinating Obama you have a panic attack. Get over it.

Click to expand...

I... freely discussed the assassination of Bush? Ummm... I said I was opposed to anybody harming the president you dishonest partisan. The fact that you didn't even read what was said by me and are now trying to move away from the fact that your thread is a part of a long drawn argument on why assassinating Obama would be justified, is laughable. As I said, keep the dishonest up. It's fooling nobody. The fact that posters have already caught on to the purpose of the thread just makes you look even more dishonest.

lifeisshort said:

Now you change it to he and the nazi party. Hitler was elected pres in a democracy the way I read it but I am not wedded to that, show me otherwise and I will gladly concede your point

Click to expand...

I changed nothing. You changed it from being "elected democratically" to "elected in a democracy" as if such coy wording protected your position in any way. It doesn't.

He wasn't elected democratically, nor was he even elected in a democracy...period. When the German government was still a democracy Hitler was appointed Chancellor (ergo, not elected, and some extremely shady back door negotiations happened to make President Hindenburg appoint his opposition to the Chancellorship). When the Nazis were elected in 1933 the German government was officially a dictatorship because rounding up the opposition and throwing them in prison is something that happens in a dictatorship, not a democracy. There were no free and fair elections to ultimately bring Hitler and the Nazi Party into power, especially as Hitler had forced Hindenburg to freeze civil liberties. By the time the elections happened Hitler's reign of fear was already well in force.

Whatever point you think Hitler being democratically elected helps you prove, it doesn't hold water and I would be astonished if there was a single historian to take your position.

lifeisshort said:

As I thought you freely discussed assassinating Bush in here but when I discuss assassinating hitler which you claim is code for assassinating Obama you have a panic attack. Get over it.

Click to expand...

Your opinion on the equation between Obama and Hitler is well known, and combined with the timing of this thread it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out your primary intent.

Cardinal said:

I changed nothing. You changed it from being "elected democratically" to "elected in a democracy" as if such coy wording protected your position in any way. It doesn't.

He wasn't elected democratically, nor was he even elected in a democracy...period. When the German government was still a democracy Hitler was appointed Chancellor (ergo, not elected, and some extremely shady back door negotiations happened to make President Hindenburg appoint his opposition to the Chancellorship). When the Nazis were elected in 1933 the German government was officially a dictatorship because rounding up the opposition and throwing them in prison is something that happens in a dictatorship, not a democracy. There were no free and fair elections to ultimately bring Hitler and the Nazi Party into power, especially as Hitler had forced Hindenburg to freeze civil liberties. By the time the elections happened Hitler's reign of fear was already well in force.

Whatever point you think Hitler being democratically elected helps you prove, it doesn't hold water and I would be astonished if there was a single historian to take your position.

Click to expand...

I have no point to prove just an honest disagreement I think and a matter of semantics. English is not my first language and I was not allowed to speak it in my parents home so I may understand what I read differently than you.

Cardinal said:

Your opinion on the equation between Obama and Hitler is well known, and combined with the timing of this thread it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out your primary intent.

Click to expand...

Not you too. Paranoia is contagious I guess

lifeisshort said:

I have no point to prove just an honest disagreement I think and a matter of semantics. English is not my first language and I was not allowed to speak it in my parents home so I may understand what I read differently than you.

Click to expand...

Very well. If this was an honest disagreement over the facts then I understand and accept.

Hatuey said:

I... freely discussed the assassination of Bush? Ummm... I said I was opposed to anybody harming the president you dishonest partisan. The fact that you didn't even read what was said by me and are now trying to move away from the fact that your thread is a part of a long drawn argument on why assassinating Obama would be justified, is laughable. As I said, keep the dishonest up. It's fooling nobody. The fact that posters have already caught on to the purpose of the thread just makes you look even more dishonest.

Click to expand...

I have noticed that liberals always want to talk about each other rather than the subject. I find it womanly behavior.

My take on this is as it's been for some time, and is for a number of other issues too....

The US should not have an official stance advocating or allowing for for assassinations.

The US should absolutely make use of assassinations, specifically against countries or forces who have no such similar agreement to refrain from such.

If the people authorizing and conducting said assassinations are found out they need to be disowned immeidetely and punished to the fullest extent possible; they fail at their job if they are found out.

I also fully expect every other "civilized" nation to take a similar stance.

lifeisshort said:

I have noticed that liberals always want to talk about each other rather than the subject. I find it womanly behavior.

Click to expand...

What do you have against women?

Cardinal said:

What do you have against women?

Click to expand...

Men acting like women annoy me

lifeisshort said:

Men acting like women annoy me

Click to expand...

My wife is good with money, loyal, smart tempered and is the moral foundation in our marriage nine times out of ten. If more men were like my wife this country would be a good deal better off. Grow up.

Maybe shorty is Erdogan's avatar, he just pronounced women as second-class citizens too!

TheNextEra said:

The people of Germany LOVED Hitler and blaming of the Jews. However, had Hitler not come in to power, someone else could have. And that might have made things worse in the war. Hitler was absolutely OBSESSED with Napolean and even was trying to mimic his failed strategies. If someone else had risen to power besides Hitler, they might have been even more successful and could have won WWII.

So many possibilities that could have made things swing the outcome in many ways.

Click to expand...

Nobody could have won World War 2. They would have occupied and eventually caved under the weight of their political structure. It would have taken longer and been incredibly painful, but the United States could have survived on our own land without an issue.

Zyphlin said:

My take on this is as it's been for some time, and is for a number of other issues too....

The US should not have an official stance advocating or allowing for for assassinations.

The US should absolutely make use of assassinations, specifically against countries or forces who have no such similar agreement to refrain from such.

If the people authorizing and conducting said assassinations are found out they need to be disowned immeidetely and punished to the fullest extent possible; they fail at their job if they are found out.

I also fully expect every other "civilized" nation to take a similar stance.

Click to expand...

I believe the general consensus of this thread is that, yes, there could feasibly be an appropriate time to carry out assassinations. The problem is that humans (yes, even the ones in our government) are remarkably naive and short sighted about the long term consequences of such actions. When I hear how such a plan would play out, I can't help but imagine that it's being screamed by a twelve year old holding Star Wars action figures.

Manc Skipper said:

Maybe shorty is Erdogan's avatar, he just pronounced women as second-class citizens too!

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with this Erdogan, but I'll assume from context that he doesn't frequently take up the banner of feminism.

He's the Turkish Prime Minister. sorry.

BBC News - Turkey president Erdogan: Women are not equal to men

Cardinal said:

My wife is good with money, loyal, smart tempered and is the moral foundation in our marriage nine times out of ten. If more men were like my wife this country would be a good deal better off. Grow up.

Click to expand...

The feminization of the American male is not good in this dangerous world and I notice it is prevalent in liberal males in particular