Author Topic: Why is Assassination Wrong?  (Read 9070 times)

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Why is Assassination Wrong?
« on: August 28, 2010, 10:10:53 pm »
I don't understand why the global community feels that assassination should be a war crime. I honestly believe that if a conflict could be solved with a few well placed assassinations, it would be preferable to open war in most cases. Usually the arguments that are made against assassination are the ones that could be used against any violent action against another country; ie it's demoralizing (so is invasion so is occupation and so is bombing), it creates a culture of fear (if you aren't terrified from day to day when your country is taken over I think your mental faculties should be called into question) and it's underhanded (the most laughable argument in my opinion sending thousands of young men and women to kill thousands of other soldiers in gruesome ways is hunky dory but shooting one high-profile target in the head is somehow despicable) and none of these arguments jive with me.
I can understand why many (myself included) would consider certain methods of warfare distasteful (such as nuclear chemical and biological warfare) and hence are considered war crimes, I just don't understand why assassination is on that list.
Is it just because assassination attempts frequently target politicians and they would prefer that other people die for the conflicts that they create? Or is it something else?
 
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Oddball

  • Moderator
  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 17152
  • Me the 13th Duke of Wymbourne are they quite mad!
    • MSN Messenger - oddballsco@hotmail.co.uk
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - oddball24sco
    • View Profile
    • Myspace Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2010, 08:08:51 am »
Well in some cases if you take out the leader of a country you could actually make the situation a lot worse, could give some examples but would up giving the forum a history lesson.
What good is dreaming it if you don't actually do it?.

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2010, 10:19:39 am »
Worse then then bombing, subjugating and occupying that country?

I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Oddball

  • Moderator
  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 17152
  • Me the 13th Duke of Wymbourne are they quite mad!
    • MSN Messenger - oddballsco@hotmail.co.uk
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - oddball24sco
    • View Profile
    • Myspace Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2010, 11:02:38 am »
How about making a conflict last longer than it should?
What good is dreaming it if you don't actually do it?.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2010, 11:03:22 am »
Worse then then bombing, subjugating and occupying that country?


It's why they didn't just do Saddam. He might have been a dangerous nutjob, but he was also a predictable nutjob. A known force. The half-dozen pissed off, nutjob warlords who would take his place, plus his beheaded government? Not so predictable.

Kim Jong? Predictable. A nation of people who have largely bought into his cult of personality, plus all the power brokers within his government, plus his two sons, plus the millitary, navy and air force - All pissed off at you because you put a .50 through Dear Leader's brainpan? Not so predictable, and thrice as pissed off.

Honestly? It won't exactly be public policy any time soon, but to most nations in the world, wetwork isn't anything new, or even novel. The thing is, you have to assess the situation, decide if it's the best course of action, and also, account for the publicity worldwide. After all, Bullets don't just appear out of nowhere and kill people. A bottle of wine doesn't mysteriously add radioactive heavy metals to itself. Someone at the top of the chain gets bumped, and it tends to get investigated, and if you're the guy with the motive, then it's going to have people looking at you really, really, closely.

Oddball

  • Moderator
  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 17152
  • Me the 13th Duke of Wymbourne are they quite mad!
    • MSN Messenger - oddballsco@hotmail.co.uk
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - oddball24sco
    • View Profile
    • Myspace Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2010, 11:12:55 am »
Plus If you take out that leader who is to say the person that comes in to replace him/her is going to be any more  worse or be more tolerant towords the populance and or other countries. You must have some one in place prepared to take power at once before the country comes apart and self destructs. fair enough a sniper's bullet or a carfully placed  car bomb can solve a lot of troubles but it can also create them. watch The day of the Jackal and Dogs of War about regime change. but if you foul up and leave trace that proves your involvment you are in big trouble.
What good is dreaming it if you don't actually do it?.

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2010, 03:30:39 am »
See, but none of these arguments make sense. Yes a poorly handled assassination can cause a country to become destabilized. And so does a poorly handled invasion. Which do you think has a higher cost in soldier's lives and tax payer's money?

Also, the "Oh no, if someone finds out, our country we'll be in trouble!" argument doesn't hold much water either. What's the worst thing that could happen? They start a war with us? Acts of war are exactly what we are talking about.

Perhaps what I am trying to say is, although assassination might not be a foolproof substitute for a traditional invasion strategy, but what's wrong with it as a supplemental tool in war-ish situations?
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2010, 03:57:41 am »
It's probably not that feasible to have super-trained assassins running around doing stuff like that, would be my guess.
And it would probably leave a bad taste in people's mouths if they found out about it. Just the shadiness of it would turn people off.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2010, 06:01:40 am »
See, but none of these arguments make sense. Yes a poorly handled assassination can cause a country to become destabilized. And so does a poorly handled invasion. Which do you think has a higher cost in soldier's lives and tax payer's money?
Yes, but even after a well handled assassination, you can't install someone friendly to your interests, unlike an invasion. You can't keep the peace, when the situation inevitably blows up, and a hell of a lot of innocent people are going to get caught in a crossfire between groups with a fucking lot less rules than any modern military force.

Quote
Also, the "Oh no, if someone finds out, our country we'll be in trouble!" argument doesn't hold much water either. What's the worst thing that could happen? They start a war with us? Acts of war are exactly what we are talking about.
Repeat these words with me - International. Fucking. Incident.
Also, You're not making any goddamn sense. You're saying an an argument against Assassination, on the ground that it might potentially cause wars - Example, World War One, a touchy situation that developed into war because of an assassination - is stupid, because by assassinating people more often, we could prevent wars?

Your cunning plan, thought all the way through, it is not.

Quote
Perhaps what I am trying to say is, although assassination might not be a foolproof substitute for a traditional invasion strategy, but what's wrong with it as a supplemental tool in war-ish situations?
It's already used that way, just on a much lower level, simply because in a war (or, war-ish situation, to borrow your term) These key figures are very closely guarded, and very, very hard to get a crack at. Pretty much anyone who is related to the war in support of the enemy who is not explicitly protected by the Geneva convention(ie, Prisoners of war, the wounded, and Civilians) is essentially fair game.

Hell, I can think of a few people during the civil unrest after East timor declared independance from indonesia who would have been better off greased - there were most certainly a few people I'm sure quite a lot of people would have been much happier to see greased than not and plenty of them would have been happy to pull the trigger themselves, but it simply couldn't be done - as the Geneva convention considered them Civilians, and thus, they were protected.

The problem is - This isn't Hollywood. Assassination isn't easy - It's like building a tower of cards. You lose a few cards, and quite often, the whole thing has to be scrubbed, and you start again. Sure, you might be able to lose a few cards near the top, and you still have a tower, but its often the lower cards that are hardest to get in place, keep in place, and if you lose one, they whole tower comes down.

Oddball

  • Moderator
  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 17152
  • Me the 13th Duke of Wymbourne are they quite mad!
    • MSN Messenger - oddballsco@hotmail.co.uk
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - oddball24sco
    • View Profile
    • Myspace Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2010, 11:09:08 am »
Thing is Ronin you are talking about regime change in one step and that is near impossible.  If you take out the leader you are leaving a HUGE vaccum and that could make the situation a whole lot worse.  I can give you a few situations where governments/agencys/individuals have tried to do what you are talking about going back to at least 1933 (maybe further) and those ideas failed due to either the method being flawed,they where found out or just missing the target.  Just because you take out the leader DOES NOT mean the problem is solved. You have to take out the whole ruling party and that could mean dozens of people being taken out all at the same time and then YOU must ensure that action is taken swiftly to ensure public disorder is kept to a minimum or you could end up with a civil war for control of power over the country.
What good is dreaming it if you don't actually do it?.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2010, 12:36:19 am »
To put it as an analogy - It's not a Snake, where if you cut off the head, it dies. It's a hydra, where if you cut off the head the wrong way, you're suddenly three times as fucked.

Zweihander

  • Guest
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2010, 10:22:16 pm »
IIRC, didn't the US military try to take out Saddam with a missile aimed at his room in his mansion/palace/wherever he resided? (and missed) Which was apparently okay, since it was a missile and not a sniper's bullet?  ::)

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2010, 10:25:19 pm »
IIRC, didn't the US military try to take out Saddam with a missile aimed at his room in his mansion/palace/wherever he resided? (and missed) Which was apparently okay, since it was a missile and not a sniper's bullet?  ::)

Well, open war was at least going on.

The shady aspect would be if we had no troops in Iraq and just sent a guy to cap Saddam and everybody in his house.

Zweihander

  • Guest
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2010, 10:42:03 pm »
Well, open war was at least going on.
I WILL NOT RISK OPEN WAR!

J Thomas

  • Guest
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2011, 09:09:29 pm »
I don't understand why the global community feels that assassination should be a war crime.

The people who defined war crimes were idealists. They wanted nations to settle their disputes by negotiation or arbitration etc.

Quote
I honestly believe that if a conflict could be solved with a few well placed assassinations, it would be preferable to open war in most cases.

Sure, but how often does that work?

Like, the USA invaded Iraq. To this day, if anybody knows why we did it they're still keeping it a secret. Was it the nuclear program? No, that was just the advertising that looked like the easiest sell. I'm not sure anybody knows.

If somebody had assassinated Bush, would that have stopped the war? By June 2002, no. The planning had gone too far, probably nobody knew how to stop it at that point. By January 2001? Hardly. Any reason to think that president Cheney would be less enthusiastic? No.

There's a long list of reasons nations go to war. And there's a long list of people who might have a veto, who may be influenced by different reasons. How likely is it that a single ruler will make a lunatic decision that will get carried out by a whole nation, and his assassination will stop it? That could possibly happen, and when it does assassinating the powerful lunatic could do some good.

But most of the time, no. Suppose we could assassinate a hundred people in Iran and get a new secular government. Would they continue their nuclear program? Of course they would. What possible reason would they have to stop? All the reasons they have to do it now, would still be just as true for the new government. And their foreign policy might be rather similar, because it didn't happen because a hundred lunatics decided it should be that way. A whole lot of people each had their influence.

In the old days, the Russian Czar had absolute power in theory. He could do whatever he wanted and nobody could tell him no. Czar Alexander on his deathbed said, "I never ruled Russia. Ten thousand clerks ruled Russia.". If somebody had killed the Czar with poison and everybody thought it was some disease, an act of God, how much would things change? There would be a new Czar and ten thousand clerks would still rule Russia.

There may be a single person or a very few who could be assassinated and result in giant changes. But it is not easy to identify those people. They are usually not the figureheads who appear to rule a nation.

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2011, 04:54:30 am »
There is a semi-assassination strategy that Al Qaeda forces are supposedly using in Pakistan which is working quite well.

A number of political philosophers and experts have pointed out that all you really need to rule is law.  It doesn't have to be good law, you just need to be the one with the system and the one who's enforcing it and people will come to you if there's no other option.  Thus, you rule.

What Al Qaeda are doing in a lot of those remote places in Pakistan is simply destroying all the controlling authority.  They murder police and leave their bodies beheaded to both reduce the forst and encourage the remaining force to flee.  They also take out the various community leaders, including any religious ones not supporting them, and anyone who can or is able to organise and co-ordinate the people.  Obviously they try to convert any authority figures they can as well, but effectively they create a sort of power vacume of law and authority and they fill the gap.

So imagine that you own a store and just want to mind your own business.  But now a couple of thugs decide to hussle into your shop, steal a heap of stuff and nick off.  With the more legitimate authority gone you have no-one who will punish these theives or prevent them from doing it again except for the Al Qaeda forces, so you go to them and sure enough they punish them.  A lot of people imagine that Al Qaeda simply execute people but they apply a lot of lesser punishments such as public flogging and or monetary and property charges.  And that is how they succeed in a community and rule for a good deal of time, not just threats and violence, but by being the authority that the population goes to for justice against criminals and destroying or scaring away any competition authority figures and organisations.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

J Thomas

  • Guest
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2011, 02:44:19 pm »
There is a semi-assassination strategy that Al Qaeda forces are supposedly using in Pakistan which is working quite well.

There's every reason to think that Al Qaeda is very, very weak in Pakistan, that they have essentially no influence.

Quote
A number of political philosophers and experts have pointed out that all you really need to rule is law.  It doesn't have to be good law, you just need to be the one with the system and the one who's enforcing it and people will come to you if there's no other option.  Thus, you rule.

What Al Qaeda are doing in a lot of those remote places in Pakistan is simply destroying all the controlling authority.  They murder police and leave their bodies beheaded to both reduce the forst and encourage the remaining force to flee.  They also take out the various community leaders, including any religious ones not supporting them, and anyone who can or is able to organise and co-ordinate the people.  Obviously they try to convert any authority figures they can as well, but effectively they create a sort of power vacume of law and authority and they fill the gap.

Why doesn't a group of a few hundred people do that here? What stops them? Is it the armed citizenry? Afghans are armed at least as well.

Quote
So imagine that you own a store and just want to mind your own business.  But now a couple of thugs decide to hussle into your shop, steal a heap of stuff and nick off.  With the more legitimate authority gone you have no-one who will punish these theives or prevent them from doing it again except for the Al Qaeda forces, so you go to them and sure enough they punish them.  A lot of people imagine that Al Qaeda simply execute people but they apply a lot of lesser punishments such as public flogging and or monetary and property charges.  And that is how they succeed in a community and rule for a good deal of time, not just threats and violence, but by being the authority that the population goes to for justice against criminals and destroying or scaring away any competition authority figures and organisations.

Are you perhaps talking about Taliban? Taliban did this sort of thing when they were the government. They talked about right and wrong, and they told people to do right and to enforce the right. A lot of people supported them, because they seemed like good people who wanted to do the right thing. Taliban was muslim Afghans who made a big deal of trying to do the right thing. Al Qaeda was muslim arabs who had specific international goals.

Then we pushed the Taliban out, and we set up a puppet government that was supposed to do the right thing in the name of democracy and human rights, instead of Islam. That government has not gotten much support from anybody. People say that government officials are mostly corrupt. Muslims were ready to die to do the right thing. Afghans are mostly not ready to die to enforce human rights. I can't really say why it's turned out that way.

Back when Bin Ladin was in Afghanistan, the US government ordered the Taliban government to turn Bin Ladin over to us.
They said, "He is our guest. We are supposed to protect our guests unless they have done wrong. What has he done?"
We said, "He caused 9/11. Give him to us."
They said, "Show us proof he did it and we'll give him to you."
We said, "We have absolute proof but we won't show any of it to you. Just give him to us or we'll hurt you."
They refused, and we paid the Northern Alliance to invade.

I say the Taliban did the right thing.

It's a whole lot easier for a government to get support when its citizens believe it is doing the right thing, than when it kills them for disobeying.

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2011, 01:24:11 am »
There is a semi-assassination strategy that Al Qaeda forces are supposedly using in Pakistan which is working quite well.

There's every reason to think that Al Qaeda is very, very weak in Pakistan, that they have essentially no influence.

Quote
A number of political philosophers and experts have pointed out that all you really need to rule is law.  It doesn't have to be good law, you just need to be the one with the system and the one who's enforcing it and people will come to you if there's no other option.  Thus, you rule.

What Al Qaeda are doing in a lot of those remote places in Pakistan is simply destroying all the controlling authority.  They murder police and leave their bodies beheaded to both reduce the forst and encourage the remaining force to flee.  They also take out the various community leaders, including any religious ones not supporting them, and anyone who can or is able to organise and co-ordinate the people.  Obviously they try to convert any authority figures they can as well, but effectively they create a sort of power vacume of law and authority and they fill the gap.

Why doesn't a group of a few hundred people do that here? What stops them? Is it the armed citizenry? Afghans are armed at least as well.

Pakistan is essentially an Islamic nation. But even then, its only working for them in the remote communities where its difficult for the Pakistani government to respond and adherance to Islam is much stronger and often more radical anyway.  Why don't a group of a few hundred people don't do it in western nations?  Well, they do to an extent, but they have to be much more subtle since the Western governments are generally much better setup to respond.  See KKK who pretty much managed to run and own the law in a few U.S. towns for quite some time and are still, to this day, working hard to recruit and gain power in the political spheres and control authority.  A few assassinations did wonders for them to control others in the community.

the rest is getting a little away from Assassination.  Feel free to open another topic for debate and discussion about the Afghan and/or Iraqi wars if there isn't already one.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

Oddball

  • Moderator
  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 17152
  • Me the 13th Duke of Wymbourne are they quite mad!
    • MSN Messenger - oddballsco@hotmail.co.uk
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - oddball24sco
    • View Profile
    • Myspace Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2011, 08:24:53 am »
I think this has all ready been said but: Assassinations are not easy to plan.  You have to think of various things for example:

Target
Location
Method: poison,close combat (knife,pistol etc) medium/long range (rifle) or remote (bomb)
Escape route
and most importantly what is the motivation of the person to do the assassination? will he/she want to escape and fight their way out or will they die during the attempt, do they have idealogical motives or monetary.

 
What good is dreaming it if you don't actually do it?.

Brekkjern

  • Erotic
  • ****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Le fu-
    • View Profile
    • Brekkjern.net
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2011, 09:10:40 am »
More importantly is planning for what will happen after the assassination. You are creating a power vacuum. You have to plan to fill this vacuum with something.

J Thomas

  • Guest
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2011, 10:46:48 am »
There is a semi-assassination strategy that Al Qaeda forces are supposedly using in Pakistan which is working quite well.

There's every reason to think that Al Qaeda is very, very weak in Pakistan, that they have essentially no influence.

Quote
What Al Qaeda are doing in a lot of those remote places in Pakistan is simply destroying all the controlling authority.  They murder police and leave their bodies beheaded to both reduce the forst and encourage the remaining force to flee.  They also take out the various community leaders, including any religious ones not supporting them, and anyone who can or is able to organise and co-ordinate the people.  Obviously they try to convert any authority figures they can as well, but effectively they create a sort of power vacume of law and authority and they fill the gap.

Why doesn't a group of a few hundred people do that here? What stops them? Is it the armed citizenry? Afghans are armed at least as well.

Pakistan is essentially an Islamic nation. But even then, its only working for them in the remote communities where its difficult for the Pakistani government to respond and adherance to Islam is much stronger and often more radical anyway.

I suggest that it works for them to kill a few members of minority groups to scare the rest, when they have enough public support. When they don't have enough support the public hunts them down and kills them.

Quote
Why don't a group of a few hundred people don't do it in western nations?  Well, they do to an extent, but they have to be much more subtle since the Western governments are generally much better setup to respond.  See KKK who pretty much managed to run and own the law in a few U.S. towns for quite some time and are still, to this day, working hard to recruit and gain power in the political spheres and control authority.  A few assassinations did wonders for them to control others in the community.

Perfect example. KKK ruled secretly where the majority of the public supported them. My hometown library has a framed handbill on the wall from the time when "Festus" tried that. It was 90 miles from Washington DC and there were federal troops stationed in the town, and his men rode at night. They printed handbills and circulated them. The one I saw included an accusation about a minister who was sleeping with a black girl who lay in a casket and promised she wouldn't tell. They had a lot of influence because the majority of the population supported them, and Festus was never captured or killed. After some years government noticed that the Federal troops just weren't doing much good and they were withdrawn. Festus faded away because the official government did everything he would have wanted them to do. How did he survive the occupation? The public didn't tell the soldiers where he was. The majority supported him and anybody else who could have was too scared.

It's hard for a small group to terrorize a large group. Mostly, large groups terrorize small groups.

Ryuu

  • Experimental
  • ***
  • Posts: 775
  • I like robot ninja chocolate monkeys!
    • MSN Messenger - r_y_u_u@hotmail.co.uk
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2011, 06:51:02 am »

It's hard for a small group to terrorize a large group. Mostly, large groups terrorize small groups.

that is not strictly true, it is not the size of the group, it is their military power that is the deciding factor, a small group of heavily armed soldiers can easily terrorise a much smaller group of unarmed civilians

Flipside desktops, knock yourself out.
now with more pictures!

Oddball

  • Moderator
  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 17152
  • Me the 13th Duke of Wymbourne are they quite mad!
    • MSN Messenger - oddballsco@hotmail.co.uk
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - oddball24sco
    • View Profile
    • Myspace Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2011, 08:15:53 am »
now you are moving away from the topic and into terrorism.
What good is dreaming it if you don't actually do it?.

Ryuu

  • Experimental
  • ***
  • Posts: 775
  • I like robot ninja chocolate monkeys!
    • MSN Messenger - r_y_u_u@hotmail.co.uk
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2011, 09:23:20 am »
now you are moving away from the topic and into terrorism.
terrorism often takes the form of assasination

Flipside desktops, knock yourself out.
now with more pictures!

Oddball

  • Moderator
  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 17152
  • Me the 13th Duke of Wymbourne are they quite mad!
    • MSN Messenger - oddballsco@hotmail.co.uk
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - oddball24sco
    • View Profile
    • Myspace Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2011, 10:08:53 am »
Some times but not often, just be careful that's all
What good is dreaming it if you don't actually do it?.

J Thomas

  • Guest
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2011, 08:28:49 pm »

It's hard for a small group to terrorize a large group. Mostly, large groups terrorize small groups.

that is not strictly true, it is not the size of the group, it is their military power that is the deciding factor, a small group of heavily armed soldiers can easily terrorise a much smaller ...<I think you mean larger> ... group of unarmed civilians

Yes. But the civilians will try to keep track of where they are. And they need to sleep in fortified camps. A soldier who stays overnight with his girlfriend may never come back. Etc.

And if the heavily armed soldiers are locals, they may find that when they visit at home their grandmothers scold them. "You were always a good boy when you were young. Why not give up this job with the murderers and do something honest?" When the population doesn't support them, they get lots of stresses.

Saddam claimed there was a Sunni majority in Iraq. The CIA claimed otherwise. Since the invasion we have claimed a large Shia majority, but opinion polls done there have tended to randomly pick more Sunnis than expected. They typically "correct" their results. "We should have gotten 55% Shias, but we only got 45%. So we'll publish the results we would have gotten if there had been 55% Shias and the extras answered the way the actual Shias did." Maybe it was an armed minority oppressing a less-well-armed majority.

Certainly it has worked for Israel so far. A small nation of bloodthirsty fanatics has easily subdued far larger numbers of their neighbors. And the methods have included lots of assassination.


charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2011, 02:35:07 am »
Yes but action against the soldiers is met with more public executions.  Pick a dozen people and in a small community you can be relatively sure that either one of the dozen knows something or someone who loves them knows something and is likely to vouch information.  Don't forget that these people aren't just terrorizing, they're the law as well so you want help dealing with criminals, they're your only stop now.

Naturally, of course, they do have infiltrators also meeting with the populace to win them over or threaten them to assist.  This is happening even now in Afghanistan.  Soldiers go about the villagers by day and by night the enemy is meeting with them and threatening them to help or die.

A better equipped country could respond to the deaths of their authoritive forces by storming the village and filling it with more police and/or troops, but if the resources aren't available or are spread thin to cover other areas, then a few assassinations of police and/or authorities, leaving the beheaded bodies in the street for all to see, can work wonders on scaring the rest out for you.  Then the public have no-one to turn to but yourselves.  The remote communities are less likely to be aware of the enemy forces either to be against them or for them.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

Ryuu

  • Experimental
  • ***
  • Posts: 775
  • I like robot ninja chocolate monkeys!
    • MSN Messenger - r_y_u_u@hotmail.co.uk
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2011, 02:40:05 am »
the problem there is eventually they become too sucsessful and become spread thin while the authorities aren't anymore

Flipside desktops, knock yourself out.
now with more pictures!

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2011, 02:48:58 am »
No. They grow their number, recruiting along the way and bringing in recruits from places they've already taken.  Their teachings are the ones that hit the schools and the ears of the kids.  Others are just interested in the power of being in the authoritive position themselves and want to be the ones with the guns rather than the ones on the other end of them.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

J Thomas

  • Guest
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2011, 07:49:36 am »
Yes but action against the soldiers is met with more public executions.  Pick a dozen people and in a small community you can be relatively sure that either one of the dozen knows something or someone who loves them knows something and is likely to vouch information.  Don't forget that these people aren't just terrorizing, they're the law as well so you want help dealing with criminals, they're your only stop now.

Small communities are mostly their own law anyway. It's possible for them to get terrorized into obeying a small ruthless group. But take one misstep and everybody tries to kill them at once.

Quote
Naturally, of course, they do have infiltrators also meeting with the populace to win them over or threaten them to assist.  This is happening even now in Afghanistan.  Soldiers go about the villagers by day and by night the enemy is meeting with them and threatening them to help or die.

This is your fantasy about Afghanistan. It's the story we Americans tell ourselves. "The Afghans would really like to be on our side, but the death squads come in at night and kill anybody who's friendly to us, so they're all afraid to do the right thing." Consider the possibility that this propaganda might be wrong.

Quote
A better equipped country could respond to the deaths of their authoritive forces by storming the village and filling it with more police and/or troops, but if the resources aren't available or are spread thin to cover other areas, then a few assassinations of police and/or authorities, leaving the beheaded bodies in the street for all to see, can work wonders on scaring the rest out for you.  Then the public have no-one to turn to but yourselves.  The remote communities are less likely to be aware of the enemy forces either to be against them or for them.

Imagine something like that happening here. The government has collapsed and the economy has collapsed and you're living in a little village in the Ozarks doing subsistence farming. Then a bunch of Chinese soldiers comes in by helicopter. They build a firebase on the hill and point guns at you from it. Then they start talking to the village leaders through translators. "We are here to keep the capitalist forces from enslaving you. When we have killed the Republicans and the fundamentalist Christians and given you a communist government, we will go away. Have any Republicans come into your town and tried to enslave you?"

They shoot some people apparently at random. They blow up some houses, sometimes empty ones. They blow up the doctor's car when he tries to take an accident victim to a distant hospital. They kill a group that went out deer hunting, when you needed the meat. They say through translators, "You are having a lot of trouble with Republicans but we are protecting you from them.".

After they pull out, when you manage to have elections, do you think Republican candidates will have much chance? In the meantime, if Republican assassins do visit your town and kill a couple of enthusiastic collaborators, will you mind?