Author Topic: Why is Assassination Wrong?  (Read 13637 times)


  • Tender Young Virgin
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2011, 08:31:04 am »
There are essencially two reasons why Assassination is considered a war crime.

One: The prime target of any assassination would be someone with political power or enough economical power to exercise political influence.  Either way, it would be someone who writes the rules and defines what is a war crime (or any type of crime) and what is not.  If assassination was not a crime, they all could as well just put a bullet to their own head and hang themselves where the water is deepest.  Quite to the standart concept of: Anybody needing protection doesn't deserve it, anybody deserving protection doesn't need it.

Two: It was since the very beginnings of human civilisation, when the first tribes grew from loose packs or prides into small tribal comunities, that the victorious conquerer had the devine and god given right to impose whatever fate upon the defeated (that includes rape and pillage).  Of course, in this modern age, one has to at least pretend being abstinent when cameras are nearby, but you can imagine what goes on when the cameras are off (yes, its NOT only the enemy who does it.  If it was, we all would defect).  Now imagine all international conflict could be solved with just a few sneaky bullets and poisoned wine? No crossborder redistributing of wealth, no random acts of cruelty and ravishment, the soldiers of the winning side would be cheated out of their god-given war rights due to lack of opportunity to participation.

The argument that a sniper war would be cleaner and have less innocent victims than an all out open war is an argument for cowards and honourless thugs. Same as any argument for any form of explosives, firearms and similar area-of-effect or ranged weaponry.  A rightous and honourable war would be forces against forces in skill based closed combat with equal weapon type and the leaders/chiefs-in-comand on the front line LEADING their troops.

As to the risk of a power vacuum, that risk is there but it would soon be filled, maybe with something worse, maybe with something better (most likely something worse) However, it is a much observed fact that any nation with a healthy culture-identity would rather choose to be oppressed by a dictator of their mids than a foreign do-gooder.

And as someone mentioned the new political situation in Iraque: At the first 'democratic' election since Saddam was 'disempowered', the Shia only won the ellection by applying the same trick the National-Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP/Nazis) used to win their election, by terrorising any non-supporter into staying at home on election day.

As to the reason why America decided to go to war (as someone had mentioned here as well), simple: After the mess with the election where allegedly Florida is too dimwitted to fill out their vote slips (truth being, each time the election was declared invalid was only because the democrates would have won if it had been valid), the new Bush regime needed something spectaculare to distract and amuse the people...and since america doesn't have gladiator arenas in every town and Holiwood was only showing love sobs in that year, they needed a glorious war.

Just my two pennies.
Thank you for reading, you were a sexy audience.

Jety Lefr

  • Forbidden Fruit
  • ****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Close the world, Open the next. -Lain
    • View Profile
    • My Deviant Art
    • Email
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2011, 02:13:12 pm »
The basis of why assassination is considered a bad thing when in the face of the alternative war, is that no matter how unlikely it is, the goal of a completely peaceful settlement will be sought out. This is obviously a rare and improbable solution to most of humanities, nay the world's problems. Still, idealism is something many people selfishly hold on to. In the face of logic, it's not going to happen, because while we may see logic in whatever view we skew for ourselves, logic still see us as the same old monsters we've always been.

As to why even when this is realized, we refuse this strategy and call for the (more noble(!?)) alternative... people are STILL the same old monsters we've always been.
"Strive to be better than you've ever been before. Only you can know how much you have, and only you can give yourself more."


  • Erotic
  • ****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Le fu-
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Assassination Wrong?
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2011, 09:08:17 pm »
Bringing this up again...

I have had a few thoughts around this lately and I have come up with this. Assassination isn't wrong... The thing is, it is murder. Murder is "wrong".

However, in war, you kill. But you usually only kill combatants. Combatants are considered people with guns. Or most likely, people in uniforms bearing the insignia of their country. Shooting them is allowed since they are shooting at you. However, attacking a civilian is not allowed because a civilian is a non-combatant.

However, leaders of the nations at war is also fair game. They lead the troops and are then regarded as a combatant. They are usually so well guarded that an assassination attempt is impossible though. Bombs become the final answer then.