The general feeling on assassination as a method of taking out terrorists and especially their leaders seems to be that it is somehow more immoral than more traditional methods, like waging war.

That seems almost silly to me. How can we say that killing one or two men or a handful of men is worse than the wholesale slaughter of thousands?

I think there is another reason for the general agreement between governements to not use assassination as a means of international realpolitick.

In a war, who is at risk of life and limb? Is it the leaders, are they the ones out fighting and shooting and being shot at? No, they aren't. Instead they send thousands or even millions of ordinary folk off to be slaughtered for the policies of the leaders.

Assassination is very different. Assassination is not so much a threat to the ordinary person -- nothing much is gained by the killing of one ordinary person in millions. The targets of assassinations are people in positions of power.

THAT is why the brave leaders of the world have taken such a moral stance against it. They are not willing to take the risk themselves. They don't want to be shot.

What a sad sort of leadership is that. In Olden days, a leader was expected to lead by example. To be the bravest and to put himself most at risk.

Now, our leaders hide behind armies of men, not taking personal risk for the decisions they are making which so profoundly affect the world and put us all in potential jeopardy.

From a purely economical perspective, assassination would seem to me to be one of the best ways to get Ben Laden (assuming the evidence shows he is guilty, etc)-- certainly having the advantage of reducing the risk to innocents to almost nil. Certainly better than a war.

Just some thoughts I wanted to throw into the forum http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...miles/wink.gif

well i have nothing against assassination at all. its the quickest way to get rid of someone who does evil, and there is NO risk to a mass number! i mean, you cant even think that he wouldnt try to assassinate Bush, do you? so why cant we assassinate any of them? are we going to be hampered by our rules, or are we going to expand our playing field? i mean, we have people who could do that, im sure, if properly trained. just gotta decide: close up or range?

------------------
It's simple. Once the Planet is hurt, it gathers Spirit Energy to heal the injury. The amount of energy gathered depends on the size of the injury...What would happen if there was an injury that threatened the very life of the Planet? Think how much energy would be gathered! Ha, ha, ha. And at the center of that injury, wil be me. All that boundless energy will be mine. By merging with the energy of the Planet, I will be come a new life form, a new existence. Melding with the Planet, I will cease to exist as I am now. Only to be reborn as a 'God' to rule over every living soul.

http://www.angelfire.com/games3/impg...ephforsite.gif
Super Sephiroth, slayer of the Uber Fluffy, and battle co-ordionator and defender of the HADB clan.

Follower of the mighty Fallen Paladin himself.

Diplomacy is all and well, but HADB is better!

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that is the only way
to eliminate him, short of an invasion, which would
cost hundreds of thousands of deaths.
You hit the nail on the head, regarding world leaders. Once
we decide to (not if) assasinate him, we'll still be risking
the lives of some of the elite forces of our armed forces.
Then if another country attempts another assasination, then
we'll be the scapegoat for the terrorists again, lose-lose
situation. Also, needs to be addressed soon.

The whole Martyr thing makes the clean, quick bullet to the head risky...Of course its the same dilema and way more with an out-out ground war.
We (international coalition) have alot to learn still from the soviet conflict in afganistan, seems like a rat could hide in the holes there until old age took care of it for us, unless our intelligence was infallible.

I think it should be called "sport" when the purpose of assasination is well known...

Bin Laden, here comes papa....

two thumbs up assasination!

Edit: oopise, forgot the martyr shit... piece of crap... no assasination then, no war neither... let him go

[This message has been edited by 250 (edited 09-19-2001).]

I too support assassination of troublesome individuals for the purpose of protecting our way of life. Though it is somewhat immoral, it's necessary to help preserve many lives which would otherwise be lost in an all out war. Terrorism requires different tactics; assassination of terrorists and associates is one of them.

However, I'm not in favor of public assassinations (those assassinations where we bring in the press to show the dead man. It would only rassasiate the anger against the US and other Western countries. Make it quick and keep it secret (even at home). That's gonna be the way to deal with this.

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

*shyly raises his hand* can i do it? i wanna place a cyanade-tipped armor-piercing bullet right in his eye! or just give him a knife in his back, either way works...

------------------
It's simple. Once the Planet is hurt, it gathers Spirit Energy to heal the injury. The amount of energy gathered depends on the size of the injury...What would happen if there was an injury that threatened the very life of the Planet? Think how much energy would be gathered! Ha, ha, ha. And at the center of that injury, wil be me. All that boundless energy will be mine. By merging with the energy of the Planet, I will be come a new life form, a new existence. Melding with the Planet, I will cease to exist as I am now. Only to be reborn as a 'God' to rule over every living soul.

http://www.angelfire.com/games3/impg...ephforsite.gif
Super Sephiroth, slayer of the Uber Fluffy, and battle co-ordionator and defender of the HADB clan.

Follower of the mighty Fallen Paladin himself.

Diplomacy is all and well, but HADB is better!

I don't see ANY difference between launching a CALCM from a bomber hundreds of miles away and an assassins bullet as far as morality goes. If we sanction one we should sanction the other. Maybe the Cruise missle makes more of a mess but the intent is the same. I totally agree on the view of why world leaders shun assassinations.


------------------
http://members.aol.com/lasttrueprincess/images/khan.gif
"Heads are gonna roll..."

The difference is simple: in an assassination you take out one well identified target, no co-lateral casulties. In a military strike, you end up with a non-confirmed kill and lots of co-lateral casulties (look at the 1998 attack on Bin Ladden's camp: women and children were killed but Bin Laden wasn't).

------------------
If I am because I think, then, if I talk without thinking, I'm not really talking! Am I?

[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 09-20-2001).]

I think you're dead on with this, Diogenes. Trying to define a moral difference between the murder of one and the murder of thousands is sophistry at its ugliest. Killing is killing, never the first choice, and never a pretty business but sometimes a necessity. Call it what it is, do the damn job and be done with it.
Sadly, the qualities we profess to honor and desire in our leaders aren't the same qualities that get them in the public arena to begin with, and have nothing at all in common with the filthy machinations that actually get them elected.
Excellent post, thank you.


------------------
http://sc.communities.msn.com/tn/02/...Site/2/17e.jpg