Assassinating a dictator, Can it be justified? Options

[simx]

Can the assassination of a dictator be justified?

[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.

[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.....

[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.