Assassinating a dictator, Can it be justified? Options

[simx]

Can the assassination of a dictator be justified?

[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.