Assassinating a dictator, Can it be justified? Options

[simx]

Can the assassination of a dictator be justified?

[*tweeak*]

Yes, it certainly can be justified, depending on how the dictator dictates. Does that make it morally right, though? I'd say not. But then, I don't believe in fighting wars, either.

[Ington]

I hate how people always think of dictators as evil tyrants.

If the dictator was killing people, its the same as giving a murderer the death penalty. An eye for an eye.

If he's a bad ruler and its a time of crisis (ie: attack from other nations), and the dictator can't properly protect the country, I think that might be neccessary for the survival of the entire country. Overthrow the dictator and put a new one up. However, in real life it would be way more complicated than just that.

But if the dictator is just annoying, then no. Thats just stupid.

Saddam Hussein = A dictator. Saddam Hussein =/= All dictators.

Ever hear about the Roman Empire? After the republic, a dictator came into power. He set the Roman Empire on its path to its golden age and then stepped down. Yeah. I just felt that had to be said, for the definitions sake. Dictators can be good too.

[sovietski]

If he is your dictator or shall we say your ruler than I think its wrong. Its a matter of pride and respect. Assassinations in a country can lead to deep healing wounds. The JKF assassination was just depressing and blank. He wasn't a dictator but anyways...

but if you're some hired spy, i guess its not ur job to worry about the enemy. Killing is never good, and wrong to a big degree. But in realist terms, assassinating an enemy dictator makes you great.

[vash1530]

if someone decided that assassinating a dictator is the correct course of action, then yes, in their minds it is justified.

[*RiC3xBoy*]

It depends, a dictator is just someone who has absolute power.

[*mipadi*]

Saddam Hussein = A dictator. Saddam Hussein =/= All dictators.

Ever hear about the Roman Empire? After the republic, a dictator came into power. He set the Roman Empire on its path to its golden age and then stepped down. Yeah. I just felt that had to be said, for the definitions sake. Dictators can be good too.

The dictator in the Roman Empire did not come after the Republic, but rather during the Republic. The Office of the Dictator was set up in order to give someone emergency powers in order to quell rebellion, repel invasion, and so forth. The term lasted six months, in which case control returned to the republican government.

Not all dictators were benevolent in Rome. Julius Caesar and Lucius Cornelius Sulla are two prime examples. In fact, the Office of the Dictator was abolished after the fiasco with Caesar, who declared himself dictator for life.

(Incidentally, the idea of the Office of the Dictator, and the subsquequent abuse of power by some dictators, is mirrored in Star Wars Episodes II and III.)

[vash1530]

The dictator in the Roman Empire did not come after the Republic, but rather during the Republic. The Office of the Dictator was set up in order to give someone emergency powers in order to quell rebellion, repel invasion, and so forth. The term lasted six months, in which case control returned to the republican government.

Not all dictators were benevolent in Rome. Julius Caesar and Lucius Cornelius Sulla are two prime examples. In fact, the Office of the Dictator was abolished after the fiasco with Caesar, who declared himself dictator for life.

(Incidentally, the idea of the Office of the Dictator, and the subsquequent abuse of power by some dictators, is mirrored in Star Wars Episodes II and III.)

wow i never made that connection. very interesting

[sheridan_whitesi...]

I doubt that an assassination would be very effective against any brutal dictator, as the country would immediately be swept into unrest as different parties attempt to fill the power vacuum produced by the decapitation of that government. One man doesn't run the whole government, there is the administrator of pain, genital battery charger, naked pyramid builder, genital pointer-at-er, hood weaver, and all sorts of other agents in charge of brutal torture also run the government. It's not like they all go away if you cap one guy. If the CIA did assassinate someone, it probably wouldn't be for noble aims like capping Milosevic or something, they probably want to off someone like Hugo Chavez, who resists globalizers influence in his country, has rhetoric critical of the U.S., and incidentally is sitting on a huge pile of oil.

[SkaironFrenzy]

only when they take the lives of countless people.. i say bring him/her down. but can there be a "good-treating" dictator?

[Ajmalhuuss]

Murdur can never be justified. If we decide to murdur someone without due course of law then we are also sinking down to the level of the dictator. Not to mention killing one individual will do nothing. Today's dictators are not just one person but rather part of a group from which someone sharing the same autocratic values will emerge to take their place. And having his predasessor mudured will only give the successor reason to take further negative actions.

[*ECD & C0*]

Murdur can never be justified

in some ways i agree but if the person had commited deeds in which another person is killed, they deserve the same sorta what i said in the death penalty

[Sumiaki]

Murdur can never be justified

I disagree. Can a revolution that ensues violence and death not be justified for either side?

An excerpt from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence (United States)

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

It is a human's right to overthrow an abusive government. Therefore if an assassination is necessary so be it.

[dtang4]

It can be easily justified, especially if one life lost will prevent a lot more from being lost.

[Paradox of Life]

^ But it's against the law. Murder is against the law, even if you want to justify by saying you're saving many more lives than was lost. There are much better ways to "deal with a dictator". Especially in the new age, the president may completely be taken out of power. People would stop working for him, he'd be forcefully pushed out of authority and put into jail. Killing can not be justified.

[demolished]

It's very justified depends on the dictator's plan, announcement, and his attitute toward the people.

^ But it's against the law. Murder is against the law, even if you want to justify by saying you're saving many more lives than was lost. There are much better ways to "deal with a dictator". Especially in the new age, the president may completely be taken out of power. People would stop working for him, he'd be forcefully pushed out of authority and put into jail. Killing can not be justified.

... How many people would like to slaughter Hitler, than he killed himself?

Because it's right.

He took disadvantage of people.

It’s best to get rid of the dictator because his existence is so great that it'll give more bad influence to other people.


We want democracy and republic.

[sakaitone]

It's very justified depends on the dictator's plan, announcement, and his attitute toward the people.
... How many people would like to slaughter Hitler, than he killed himself?

Because it's right.

He took disadvantage of people.

It’s best to get rid of the dictator because his existence is so great that it'll give more bad influence to other people.
We want democracy and republic.

Killing is bad, well in my opinion. Torture is better. Dying is easy, living is tough. Torture will make them want to die but they won't die. Maybe it's because I been hanging out with a lot of crazy people (try having your friend telling you ways she would kill you during history/S.S. class) but torture seems to meet measures of a dictator. I mean Hitler sent tons and tons of people to be tortured and be worked to death but some didn't die, they lived through it, through starving, through beatings, through mental scarring and etc.
"He killed himself in Berlin in 1945, when it became clear that the war was about to end in victory for the Allied Forces."-Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
Hitler killed himself because he was a baby, he didn't want to face the music. He didn't want to be put trough what he put others through. He took the coward's way out. Torture for a dictator, you're not killing him but getting revenge.

[sadolakced acid]

is the dictator cute, hot, and a woman?

if so, then absolutely not.

anyone else, then certainly.

[demolished]

Killing is bad, well in my opinion. Torture is better. Dying is easy, living is tough. Torture will make them want to die but they won't die. Maybe it's because I been hanging out with a lot of crazy people (try having your friend telling you ways she would kill you during history/S.S. class) but torture seems to meet measures of a dictator. I mean Hitler sent tons and tons of people to be tortured and be worked to death but some didn't die, they lived through it, through starving, through beatings, through mental scarring and etc.
"He killed himself in Berlin in 1945, when it became clear that the war was about to end in victory for the Allied Forces."-Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
Hitler killed himself because he was a baby, he didn't want to face the music. He didn't want to be put trough what he put others through. He took the coward's way out. Torture for a dictator, you're not killing him but getting revenge.

it depends on what kind of torturing, are you talking about.

if you're talking about a real physical abuse like a mother did to her child, that's really harsh.

or ... a man who got trap in the deep and dense canyon.

[sadolakced acid]

is the dictator cute, hot, and a woman?

if so, then absolutely not.

anyone else, then certainly.

i'm serious about this.

[sakaitone]

it depends on what kind of torturing, are you talking about.

if you're talking about a real physical abuse like a mother did to her child, that's really harsh.

or ... a man who got trap in the deep and dense canyon.

Um...If the dictator tortured and killed millions of people, wouldn't you want him to suffer for being so evil? Maybe you think it's going to be harsh on the evil dictator if we beat him up everyday or left him in a deep and dense canyon but after what he put the millons of people through, he deserves it. Don't you think so? Or it killing still an opinion?

is the dictator cute, hot, and a woman?

if so, then absolutely not.

anyone else, then certainly.

i'm serious about this.

Lmao. Honestly, there haven't been a lot of female dictators. How about an evil female dictator was cute and hot but killed millions and worked another million to death? It's not like anyone would want to sleep with someone who did evil things like that......RIGHT?

[demolished]

i'm serious about this.

no matter who is that person, that person will deserve the same penalty.

she could be worse than hitler.

Um...If the dictator tortured and killed millions of people, wouldn't you want him to suffer for being so evil? Maybe you think it's going to be harsh on the evil dictator if we beat him up everyday or left him in a deep and dense canyon but after what he put the millons of people through, he deserves it. Don't you think so? Or it killing still an opinion?
Lmao. Honestly, there haven't been a lot of female dictators. How about an evil female dictator was cute and hot but killed millions and worked another million to death? It's not like anyone would want to sleep with someone who did evil things like that......RIGHT?

what if he escape ? we must kill 'em right away !

Anyways, i really dont mind what kind of penalty.

As long he's going to die.
Torture him, kill him, left him in the desert, drop him in a deep ocean, trap him in the maze, or whatever. I don’t mind.

[sadolakced acid]

no matter who is that person, that person will deserve the same penalty.

she could be worse than hitler.

doesn't matter if she's worse than hitler. if she's hot, she's not to be harmed.

you've got a problem with my double standard?

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Was Hitler hot?

[demolished]

doesn't matter if she's worse than hitler. if she's hot, she's not to be harmed.

you've got a problem with my double standard?

hitler is hot too.

but sadly, he went to hell.

you've got a problem with my double standard, sexist?

[sadolakced acid]

hitler wasn't hot.

but it's beside the point, because he wasn't a woman.

[demolished]

actually, he was a women.

one of his balls were not there.

[sadolakced acid]

that doesn't make him a woman.

and he wasn't hot.

(i'm waiting for someone to have the proper response so i may continue the debate)

[sakaitone]

.
what if he escape ? we must kill 'em right away !

Anyways, i really dont mind what kind of penalty.

As long he's going to die.
Torture him, kill him, left him in the desert, drop him in a deep ocean, trap him in the maze, or whatever. I don’t mind.

Wow, aren't you the little sweetheart? Everyone is going to die, so we should make thier time on earth feel like hell. Well, that's my opinion about the matter on hand.

actually, he was a women.

one of his balls were not there.

ROTFL. How do you know? Is that a FACT you can find in a textbook or something like that? Honestly, I don't want to get the wrong information, so that when I randomly blurt this out to my friends, I can say it's true.

that doesn't make him a woman.

and he wasn't hot.

He doesn't have to be women to be hot, have you ever heard of girls saying hot like as in hot guys. I sure some women out there, wanted to have his babIES. Didn't he have a wife/lover during the Nazi era (it's not an era but I hope you get what I mean)?

So anyway, TORTURE THE EVIL DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!


(Happy B-day America!!!!!!!!!)

[demolished]

yes. i'm a little sweetheart ;]

[sadolakced acid]

err...

my requirements for not killing a dictator were:

she's a woman

and she's hot.

[demolished]

too bad. there's no sense of fairness and democracy.

imagine if you were a straight girl.

[ghetosmurph]

The assasination of a dictator is moral if all of the following apply
1) Said dictator is clearly a tyrant
2) There is no lesser means to remove this person from office
3) It must be clear that the death of this person would make a change for the better
4) There must be replacement government lined up to take over

So for example, since we're on the topic of hitler, lets go with the Stauffenberg Conspiracy.

-Was Hitler clearly a tyrant? Yes
-Was there any other way to remove Hitler from office? No
-Would the death of hitler at that point in WWII have made a change for the better? Yes, b/c with Hitler overthrown, a new government could negotiate with the allies to save Germany from harsh punishment (which was the whole basis of the plan in the first place)
-Was there replacement government lined up? Yes, and they even had people to seize all the key positions in Berlin as soon as hitler was killed.

Now, did the plan work? No, and there were a bunch of reasons for that, but it was a morrally justified assasination attempt. Now I would like to point out, when I say moral, I mean this is the official teaching of the Catholic church on the subject, so it a my vary between different religions what is considered moral. Anyhow I would have to go with yes, the assasination of a dictator can be justified.

[sadolakced acid]

no assasination attempt is ever moral, no matter how immoral the target is.

you kill someone, you do it fairly. stooping to the level of assasination makes you no better than your enemy.

[forza]

I have to agree with him ^ on this one. Blindsiding someone isn't something to cheer about.

[demolished]

no assasination attempt is ever moral, no matter how immoral the target is.

you kill someone, you do it fairly. stooping to the level of assasination makes you no better than your enemy.

who is someone? a hot girl? what?

[ghetosmurph]

no assasination attempt is ever moral, no matter how immoral the target is.

you kill someone, you do it fairly. stooping to the level of assasination makes you no better than your enemy.

How would you kill someone fairly? And you are correct that the morality of an assasination attempt can not be made b/c the target is immoral, one of those "it's for the greater good" excuses doesn't cut it. But, is it fair for a tyrranical dictator to send around secret service to arrest and kill all those whom he doesn't trust? You cant fairly kill a man who would kill you if you dont agree with him. But if the goal is not to bring yourself to power, if the goal is to make things right, if the goal is to free others from opression, and the only way to do that is to remove a man from power, which you cannot do without killing him, I dont see what the problem is. And would it be something to brag about? No. But for the extreem situations, it would be moral...... Ok, how about this? Would you consider killing another soldier in the course of battle immoral? No. Why? B/c he had a gun and would have killed you had he been given the chance. So how is killing a dictator who is killing innocent people, and would just as easily have you killed if he knew where to find you? He's got men with guns out as spies looking for you, you have an assasination plot with the works...... Seems like pretty fair odds, each side has a gun..... how is that any more moral than killing another soldier in battle if you were hiding in the trees and he was standing out in the field........

[sadolakced acid]

how do you know you're right, and he's wrong?

how do you know he's the evil one?

i'm sure he knows, and he's sure, that he is correct.

never relax your morals. assasination is an underhanded move- no matter how 'justified' it may be.

it's wrong. you don't do it. if i had a sniper rifle and somehow found myself in a tree behind adolf hitler, i would not shoot him.

why? because it's wrong. it's as justifyable as war.

just becuase that dictator is immoral doesn't mean you should be. assasinating anyone is never moral.

[ghetosmurph]

why? because it's wrong. it's as justifyable as war.

So you're saying that there's no such thing as a just war? This then would have to be a basis for the difference in our opinions, b/c if you do in fact believe that no such thing as a just war, than you could not see the assasination of a dictator as just. I, on the otherhand, believe a war is just when you are defending the innocent lives of another, when you are defending yourself, or when you are defending an ally. So, if you are at war with a tyrannical dictator, his death would obviously result in a change for the better, and a replacement government was set up to take his place, than I believe it would be ok. No, It would not be moral for a vigilante to go killing dictators just b/c he didn't agree with what they were doing, the person would clearly have to be tyrranical, ie. "Marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behaviour", such as persecuting races or religions.

[sadolakced acid]

war is just when you're the morally right party, correct?

in war, the morally right is the side that wins.

ergo, no war is just.

[ghetosmurph]

war is just when you're the morally right party, correct?

in war, the morally right is the side that wins.

ergo, no war is just.

No, Not correct.

War being just is not based on the morality of the party, and the morally right side doesnt always win..... and just because someone believes themself to be morally right, doesn't mean that they are..... There are certain natural laws of morality that shouldn't be broken...... do jihading muslims belive themselves to be morally right? yes, but are they? no b/c they are aimlessly killing innocent people, and most muslims are fully aware that this is not moral.... So when the muslims took control of the Holy Land, did the morally right side win? No. Like I said before war is just 1) when you are defending innocent lives, 2) when you are defending youself against an unjust agressor, or 3) when you are defending an ally against an unjust agressor....... that is it..... it has nothing to do with whether you believe your actions as moral or not...... it has to be one of those 3 reasons..... Jihading muslims aren't defending anyone, they are killing people for not believing in the muslim religion, so it would be just to go to war against them. Germany was an unjust agressor in WW II, attacking the countries around it so that Hitler could gain more power. In the process he attacked our allies, which was reason enough for us to declare war on him, without mentioning the fact that he was murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews and Christians, and the fact that he was trying to get mexico to preemptively strike us so we wouldn't have the chance to enter the war to help our allies...... It had nothing to do with ht enAzi party just being an immoral party..... it had to do with their unjust agression and attacking of innocent life to feed their hunger for power

[sadolakced acid]

tell me one war in which the winning side was wrong.

[ghetosmurph]

I gave you an example.... Sulieman and the muslims who had declared Jiihad (Muslim Holy War) on Christendom (which is what pretty much all of eastern europe was at the time)... They didn't suceed in taking all of Christendom, but they did get a good portion, including the Holy Land. Even though they believed they were batteling the infidels, their own religion condemned what they were doing because they were slaughtering innocent people who didn't believe in the muslim religion. They ended up winning, the crusades never did any lasting damage (though I'm not saying the crusades were perfect and without their own problems, but the immoral action of certain men does not determine the morality of a war, the morals on which the war was is based does, and that was the defense of Christendom). So yeah, the muslims would be unjust agressors and though they won, would be considered wrong.

[sadolakced acid]

i don't call that a victory.

[ghetosmurph]

Whatever, you asked for an example where the winning side was morally wrong and I gave it to you.

[sadolakced acid]

morally wrong becuase you are on the "losing side", no?

[ghetosmurph]

no, morally wrong because their own religion considered it morally wrong. By their own beliefs, they were morally wrong, no matter how they thought they could justify it.

[demolished]

no assasination attempt is ever moral, no matter how immoral the target is.

you kill someone, you do it fairly. stooping to the level of assasination makes you no better than your enemy.

making you no better than your enemy is NOT the point, acid.

You know a man that killed your parents. You cried and suffered about losing someone valuable to you. You think, he doesnt derserve to died? a week later, he took the lives of your siblings. You are left alone. You cried even more. You began having mental breakdown, hallucinating, and mental issues. You have no family member to love. they're dead. they're not down on earth being part of your life anymore. On mother days, you didnt celebrate it becuase you had no mother. You see many children with their kids. and you wish you had parents aside of you.

again, a man killed all your friends. he slaughter and torture them. you saw everything, you had bad influences.


again, you're left all lone. no one cares about you. how does it feel to be humiliated?
you're lonely ... you still think he doesnt deserve to died for what he cause you, what he done to you, and the kind of condition you're in.

Did you ever had an experience of someone ... taking everything away from you? You were left with nothing. You dont think it's tough?


---------

if an alien ... arrive to Earth and started killing people. You dont think they dont deserve to died. You're letting them to .. take over the planet ? You're willing to died knowing that no one deserve to died?

How does it feel to be isolated, acid?

[sadolakced acid]

killing and assasinating are rather different, in my view.

while killing can be justified, assasination is a pretty unjustified form.

assasination usually ammounts to shooting someone in the back. which is unjustified.

[ghetosmurph]

killing and assasinating are rather different, in my view.

while killing can be justified, assasination is a pretty unjustified form.

assasination usually ammounts to shooting someone in the back. which is unjustified.

For the most part it is unjustified.... but there are the few and far between circumstances where it can be justified..... unfortunately most assasinations happen without proper justification, or are justified by reasons like "the common good" which don't really justify it at all.......

[sadolakced acid]

nothing can ever be morally justified because morality is subjective.

so, what means of justification are there?

[demolished]

killing and assasinating are rather different, in my view.

while killing can be justified, assasination is a pretty unjustified form.

assasination usually ammounts to shooting someone in the back. which is unjustified.

Uh, so ? let's say .. that man was a dictator who loves to kill people around you ... but you're not the only one being suffered.

[ghetosmurph]

nothing can ever be morally justified because morality is subjective.

so, what means of justification are there?

1) The Dictator is clearly tyrranical (tyrannical is not necessarily linked to morality)
2) There is no lesser means to remove the person from office. (Which doesn't happen so much today, because of the decline of the monarchy and the rise of the republic)
3) The death of the dictator would clearly bring about a change for the better (It would end persecution, the slaughter of innocents, and other tyrranical things which noone had control to stop other than the dictator)
4) There is a replacement government lined up (One which would end the tyrrany and begin restoring peace and order, and to the best of their ablitly undo the tyrranical things done by the dictator)

The points are in no way tied to morality, yet can justify an assasination (or as the correct term is "tyrranicide")

[sadolakced acid]

1) bob is clearly tyrranical, imposing christian doctrine on helpless americans.
2) there is no other means of removing bob.
3) a death of bob would remove the horrid christian influence from this country.
4) there is a suitable replacement in the democratic party.
5) the great nation of the flying spaggetti monster shall free the american people from thier oppressors.

none of these points are tied to morality. just change bob to bush (i didn't use his name in there, because i don't want the NSA knocking on my door. i do not in any way believe bush should be assasinated. )


it's subjective. like i believe you are an idiot. just because i believe it, doesn't mean i can use it to justify assasinating you.

was the assasination of JFK justified? what if i told you JFK ran terrorist training camps in an attempt to overthrow a legitamate government?

what i'm saying is basically true. history books don't call them terrorist training camps, but it's true.

[ghetosmurph]

1) Imposing certain standards (Christian or non) can not clearly be seen as tyrannical..... there was no persecution...... there was no singleing out of anyone...... there was no slaughter of innocents because they don't have the same agenda
2) Bob could be impeached just like JFK...... neither is he in complete and total control over everything
3) The death of Bob would not result in the removal of christian influence throughout the country....... and if it did it would not clearly result from of the death of Bob
4) There may be a suitable replacement, but since Bob wasn't really doing anything tyrranical the entire reason he would need a suitable replacement is completely lost.
5) Pastafarianism is a religion, not a nation (since you decided to add in your amazing sadistic attempt at a joke)

None of the points are tied to morality...... I stated that at the beginning..... it was kinda part of the point......

No subjectivity has nothing to do with it. There is a clear definition for a "tyrant". You have to look into seeing whether there was any other way to get that person out of office..... violence would only be a last ditch effort. When you speak of a clear change for the better, it generally is subjective, but not in this case. It means that the tyrannical things being done will be stopped...... Look at the French Revolution for example...... The assasination of Marat would not clearly result in a change for the better because it was obvious that either Danton or Robspierre would take over aand nothing would change...... And a suitable replacement means someone that will stop the tyrrany entirely and not set an agenda for revenge......

Can we keep the maturity level above 3rd grade please? "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me........ Nahnahnahnahnahhhhhhh....." Wow, do we really need to resort to mud slinging and name calling...... I'm an idiot. Yipee-kai-yai-yay and a woohoo for you. So you went to kindergarten...... just like everybody else....... are you still waiting on the federal grant for the investigation into proving the existence of cooties too? Do you really have no constructive counter argument other than trying to apply different cases to try and make me look like a crackpot and my argument seems outrageous?.......

No JFK's assasination would not have been justified..... it only take one of the 4 points make it wrong...... OK, I'll conceed for arguments sake that JFK was a tyrannical terrorist supporter bent on the overthrow of a legitimate government, and killing innocent men women and children in the pursuit of personal and financial gain....... JFK could have been impeached...... other ways of being removed from office = check........ I'm sure whatever he was doing, he was doing it with the support of other high ranking government officials........ there was no way he could support and run terroist training camps without support or assistance of some kind..... seeing as this is a democratic republic and there are failsafes to prevent such things from happening...... therefore, if he wasn't working alone there would be other people still running it, and his death would not clearly result in a change for the better....... No suitable replacement could be made, because if this group was doing this under the radar of the rest of the US government then they could just as easily exclude the new president from their little dealings.......... Thats 3 out of the 4? and it only takes 1? You do the math....... But in any case it adds up to wrong.......

[sadolakced acid]

[quote name='ghetosmurph' date='Jul 28 2006, 12:08 AM' post='2189529']
1) Imposing certain standards (Christian or non) can not clearly be seen as tyrannical..... there was no persecution...... there was no singleing out of anyone...... there was no slaughter of innocents because they don't have the same agenda
[/quote]

wow, but imposing muslim standards on people seems.. enough to overthrow them?

[quote]
2) Bob could be impeached just like JFK...... neither is he in complete and total control over everything
[/quote]
bush controls the supreme court, the house, and the senate. or did 2 years ago. realistically there is no way to remove him.

the ability to realistically removal is subjective. saddam huesien was an elected president, and could have been removed in the next election. but do you believe he could have been removed?

[quote]
3) The death of Bob would not result in the removal of christian influence throughout the country....... and if it did it would not clearly result from of the death of Bob
[/quote]

sure it would. for bob has vetoed a bill solely on his 'christian morality'

[quote]
4) There may be a suitable replacement, but since Bob wasn't really doing anything tyrranical the entire reason he would need a suitable replacement is completely lost.
[/quote]
yet again, tyranical is opinion.

[quote]
5) Pastafarianism is a religion, not a nation (since you decided to add in your amazing sadistic attempt at a joke)
[/quote]

it should be. do you have any idea what the word sadistic means?

[quote]
None of the points are tied to morality...... I stated that at the beginning..... it was kinda part of the point......
[/quote]

none of the points are tied to your morality, but are tied to mine. that was my point, which you obviously missed.

[quote]
No subjectivity has nothing to do with it. There is a clear definition for a "tyrant".
[/quote]
who defines? you? me? or the tyrant? a label of 'tyrant' is subject to arguements about semantics.

[quote]
You have to look into seeing whether there was any other way to get that person out of office.....
[/quote]
the US has perpetrated assasination attempts against elected leaders for a long time, as long as they were communist. these leaders could have easily been removed, had the people wanted to vote them out. however, the US, 'morally' decided to back dictatorships that were rarely supported by the people in hopes of defeating communism.

[quote]
violence would only be a last ditch effort.
[/quote]

like throwing UN inspectors out of a country and declaring that thier job is over. right. a 'last ditch effort' is also subjective.

saddam was not offered negotiations. he was issued an ultimatium, while the UN was operating a peaceful investegation into the claim.

[quote]
When you speak of a clear change for the better, it generally is subjective, but not in this case. It means that the tyrannical things being done will be stopped...... Look at the French Revolution for example...... The assasination of Marat would not clearly result in a change for the better because it was obvious that either Danton or Robspierre would take over aand nothing would change......
[/quote]

the conceit of hindsight. when marat was assasinated, i doubt they knew that the reign of terror would follow. but because you know what ultimately happened, you can comfortablly say what was obvious, when nothing was obvious of the sort.

you may dissagree, but yet again, i say subjectivity.

[quote]
And a suitable replacement means someone that will stop the tyrrany entirely and not set an agenda for revenge......
[/quote]
who is...
that's a very fairy tale idea. you can never know before hand if someone will be a 'suitable replacement' then. LBJ kept up the policies of JFK, ergo, he was not a suitable replacment. however, since he was from the south, it was expected he would not follow the policies of JFK, so he would have been thought a suitable replacement.

[quote]
Can we keep the maturity level above 3rd grade please? "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me........ Nahnahnahnahnahhhhhhh....." Wow, do we really need to resort to mud slinging and name calling...... I'm an idiot. Yipee-kai-yai-yay and a woohoo for you. So you went to kindergarten...... just like everybody else....... are you still waiting on the federal grant for the investigation into proving the existence of cooties too? Do you really have no constructive counter argument other than trying to apply different cases to try and make me look like a crackpot and my argument seems outrageous?.......
[/quote]

haha... i throw the word idiot in next to the word you, and you freak out. pay attention to the arguement, please. go cry to the teacher. go cry that the big bad acid called you a bad name.

[quote]
No JFK's assasination would not have been justified..... it only take one of the 4 points make it wrong...... OK, I'll conceed for arguments sake that JFK was a tyrannical terrorist supporter bent on the overthrow of a legitimate government, and killing innocent men women and children in the pursuit of personal and financial gain....... JFK could have been impeached...... other ways of being removed from office = check........ I'm sure whatever he was doing, he was doing it with the support of other high ranking government officials........ there was no way he could support and run terroist training camps without support or assistance of some kind..... seeing as this is a democratic republic and there are failsafes to prevent such things from happening...... therefore, if he wasn't working alone there would be other people still running it, and his death would not clearly result in a change for the better....... No suitable replacement could be made, because if this group was doing this under the radar of the rest of the US government then they could just as easily exclude the new president from their little dealings.......... Thats 3 out of the 4? and it only takes 1? You do the math....... But in any case it adds up to wrong.......
[/quote]


he supported and ran terrorist camps through direction of teh CIA without knowledge to other government officials. it was covert, and we were not supposed to know about the USA's involvement.

iraq was a democracy. cuba is a democracy. palistine is a democracy. just because something is democratic doesn't mean it's right.

and you obviously don't know what i'm talking about, so i will assume you have not had a class in US history.

JFK told the CIA to train cuban civilians in CIA training camps the tactics of terrorism. they were landed at the bay of pigs where they were supposed to gather more followers and proceed to make life difficult for castro, and ultimately overthrow him. they failed, and the fiasco is known as the bay of pigs incident.

[ghetosmurph]

wow, but imposing muslim standards on people seems.. enough to overthrow them?

bush controls the supreme court, the house, and the senate. or did 2 years ago. realistically there is no way to remove him.

the ability to realistically removal is subjective. saddam huesien was an elected president, and could have been removed in the next election. but do you believe he could have been removed?

sure it would. for bob has vetoed a bill solely on his 'christian morality'

yet again, tyranical is opinion.

it should be. do you have any idea what the word sadistic means?

none of the points are tied to your morality, but are tied to mine. that was my point, which you obviously missed.

who defines? you? me? or the tyrant? a label of 'tyrant' is subject to arguements about semantics.

the US has perpetrated assasination attempts against elected leaders for a long time, as long as they were communist. these leaders could have easily been removed, had the people wanted to vote them out. however, the US, 'morally' decided to back dictatorships that were rarely supported by the people in hopes of defeating communism.
like throwing UN inspectors out of a country and declaring that thier job is over. right. a 'last ditch effort' is also subjective.

saddam was not offered negotiations. he was issued an ultimatium, while the UN was operating a peaceful investegation into the claim.
the conceit of hindsight. when marat was assasinated, i doubt they knew that the reign of terror would follow. but because you know what ultimately happened, you can comfortablly say what was obvious, when nothing was obvious of the sort.

you may dissagree, but yet again, i say subjectivity.


who is...
that's a very fairy tale idea. you can never know before hand if someone will be a 'suitable replacement' then. LBJ kept up the policies of JFK, ergo, he was not a suitable replacment. however, since he was from the south, it was expected he would not follow the policies of JFK, so he would have been thought a suitable replacement.
haha... i throw the word idiot in next to the word you, and you freak out. pay attention to the arguement, please. go cry to the teacher. go cry that the big bad acid called you a bad name.
he supported and ran terrorist camps through direction of teh CIA without knowledge to other government officials. it was covert, and we were not supposed to know about the USA's involvement.

iraq was a democracy. cuba is a democracy. palistine is a democracy. just because something is democratic doesn't mean it's right.

and you obviously don't know what i'm talking about, so i will assume you have not had a class in US history.

JFK told the CIA to train cuban civilians in CIA training camps the tactics of terrorism. they were landed at the bay of pigs where they were supposed to gather more followers and proceed to make life difficult for castro, and ultimately overthrow him. they failed, and the fiasco is known as the bay of pigs incident.

OK, for starters.... a government overthrow is not an assasination, it would be considered an alternative way to remove someone from office....... you dont necessarily have to kill someone to take power away from them...... JFK did not tell the cuban civillians to kill castro..... there was not assasination plot......

Imposing muslim standards would be a problem if those standards are "Convert or be killed"....... Bob isn't killing anybody......

Saddam Huessein could not have been removed in the next election b/c anyone who did not vote for him faced certain death....... so even every single person in the country chose death over voting, he would be the only person left and could have done whatever he chose anyway...... But that is besides the point....... The United States did not attempt to assasinate Saddam Huessein...... overthrow, yes...... assasinate and take control, no.

2 years ago Bush had the support of more than half the country in the actions he was taking, and that was the reason he had the support of the house and senate..... he didn't have the full support of the supreme court, and that's why the appointing of Justice Alito was such a big deal....... The PEOPLE voted into office, representatives who would would vote for what they wanted....... Bush didn't monopolize the government, the american people did.

Bob may have vetoed a bill based on his christian morality..... but removing Bob from office doesn't get rid of the rest of the people who have christian morals in the government..... you cannot say that his death would clearly result in the removal of the entire christian influence from the country......

Tyrranical is not an opinion. A tyrant is a cruel despot who places his own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the "best" interests of the general population which they govern or control.Tyrrany has to do with oppression....... and there is no subjectivity on what oppression is either. Labeling someone as a tyrant can be the issue of symantics, the definition of a tyrant however is not. This is whi the point is that the person is CLEARLY a tyrant...... meaning not even questioned through symantics.......

No the US hasn't been attempting assasinations for a long time...... They plotted the overthrow of communist leaders, not their assasinations...... there is a major difference.....

When Marat was assasinated the Reign of Terror was already halfway over. It was Charolette Corday's attempt at ending the reign of terrow b/c she believe Marat was the sole corrupting power of the French Revolution..... Maybe you should have been dong a little less napping during the chapter about the French Revolution.......

I'm sorry if my history class moves slower and in much greater detail than yours...... It has taken us 2 years to get up to the end of World War II because we go into all of the details and the reasons why things happened.

[sadolakced acid]

haha.

nice. in depth.

if you do not know US history, then don't tell me that the US hasn't plotted assasinations. come back when you've at least gone over the communist era. without a shit state funded textbook, by the way, those things are just political tools.

but since you said you've covered up to WWII, you would know that in the american revolution, the "patriots" were terrorists, by today's standards, right?

and thus, it would be morally justified to assasinate all leaders of the revolution?

i'm sorry if my US history class doesn't cover the french revolution.

your historical inaccuracies are astounding.

and your debating skills leave something to be wanted.

for example: i never said JFK was planning an assasination. i said his assasination could be justified by his sponsorship of terrorist groups and thier attempts to overthrow legitamate governments.

the difference between you and me is very representative of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

you believe your opinion, like what is a tyrant and what is not, is absolutely right.

i believe people have different opinions so i cannot be sure which one is right.

[vash1530]

easily. the guys a dick so i shoot him. i decided he deserved to get shot. justified.

[ghetosmurph]

haha.

nice. in depth.

if you do not know US history, then don't tell me that the US hasn't plotted assasinations. come back when you've at least gone over the communist era. without a shit state funded textbook, by the way, those things are just political tools.

but since you said you've covered up to WWII, you would know that in the american revolution, the "patriots" were terrorists, by today's standards, right?

and thus, it would be morally justified to assasinate all leaders of the revolution?

i'm sorry if my US history class doesn't cover the french revolution.

your historical inaccuracies are astounding.

and your debating skills leave something to be wanted.

for example: i never said JFK was planning an assasination. i said his assasination could be justified by his sponsorship of terrorist groups and thier attempts to overthrow legitamate governments.

the difference between you and me is very representative of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

you believe your opinion, like what is a tyrant and what is not, is absolutely right.

i believe people have different opinions so i cannot be sure which one is right.

Ok, first off I don't have a shit state-funded textbook..... it's a lecture class taught by Dr. Anne Carroll with the help of the husband Dr. Warren H. Carroll....... Everything they teach comes directly from their research notes..... We have been doing World History anyway...... American History is a seperate course which I start next year, so my knowleged on governments conspiracyies of this country is quite limited...... Second, you seem to be under the misconception that terrorist meets the definition of tyrant........ The patriots in the revelution were terroriss by today's standards, yes...... but the thing was that they had to be clearly tyrranical........ same idea applies with your JFK point......... Now this is where it gets complicated....... there is no subjectivity in the definition of tyrant...... the definition of a tyrant is not an opinion, it is a fact...... The opinion comes in when you try to label someone as a tyrant, because what one person sees as oppression, another may see as liberation....... BUT, I believe that there are certain things which cross the border of all opinion into clearly being seen as wrong, even by the person taking that action........ things like a holocaust...... the senseless murder of thousnds of men women and children...... things like punishing a country by locking people inside a city and then setting that city on fire........ just to make a point....... There are just certain actions which human nature denotes to be cruel, unusual, and wrong...... It would be those actions which would denote a person as clearly tyrranical.....

[ichigofan]

assasinating a dictator, hmm hard one. It depends , if the dictator is extremely horrible and has killed large amounts of people then yes but if that isnt the case then no

[sadolakced acid]

Ok, first off I don't have a shit state-funded textbook..... it's a lecture class taught by Dr. Anne Carroll with the help of the husband Dr. Warren H. Carroll....... Everything they teach comes directly from their research notes..... We have been doing World History anyway...... American History is a seperate course which I start next year, so my knowleged on governments conspiracyies of this country is quite limited...... Second, you seem to be under the misconception that terrorist meets the definition of tyrant........ The patriots in the revelution were terroriss by today's standards, yes...... but the thing was that they had to be clearly tyrranical........ same idea applies with your JFK point......... Now this is where it gets complicated....... there is no subjectivity in the definition of tyrant...... the definition of a tyrant is not an opinion, it is a fact...... The opinion comes in when you try to label someone as a tyrant, because what one person sees as oppression, another may see as liberation....... BUT, I believe that there are certain things which cross the border of all opinion into clearly being seen as wrong, even by the person taking that action........ things like a holocaust...... the senseless murder of thousnds of men women and children...... things like punishing a country by locking people inside a city and then setting that city on fire........ just to make a point....... There are just certain actions which human nature denotes to be cruel, unusual, and wrong...... It would be those actions which would denote a person as clearly tyrranical.....

the simple fact that you disagree with me proves my point.

[ghetosmurph]

But I didn't disagree with you...... I agreed people have different opinions on who would be considered a tyrant and not, because of different perspectives..... then I went on further to suggest that there are certain actions that, no matter what angle you looks at them from, are clearly unjust and cruel...... actions which even the person doing them knows are wrong, not out of morals, but out of human nature....... now if you disagree with that, then you support your point that people have different opinions...... but you have to first disagree with the my point that the judgement on some actions can transcend the boundries of subjectivity.......

[sadolakced acid]

that's what i'm trying to say. nothing ever transcends subjectivity, not when you're dealing with humans.