Is it morally justifiable to assassinate Tony Blair?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ninot
What's with the distaste for Ned in the OT? I only started posting after he disapeared, but from what i've sene of him lately, he seems completely respectable, which is more than some others are.

Ninot, it has mainly to do with dicussions of recent history. The left leaners have a very distorted view of what happened in the last 50-60 years which I believe can be attributed to a persistent effort by the left to inject propaganda to education. I actually lived most of this history and am constantly shocked by some of the things I hear. I often mentioned the time my daughter came home from school one day and told me that Nixon was the worst presidents in history because he got us into the Vietnam war, and that Kennedy was the best president in history. After some discussions with her, I learned that much of what she had been told about history was litterally a bunch of propaganda.

When I try to set the record straight on some of these issues, what I get is disbelief. People, it seems, have a hard time accepting that they have been lied to.

[civman2000]

No.

[Victor Galis]

I honestly don't know what to say. He's certainly right about it being different than 7/7, though I don't believe Blair intentionally ordered the murder of innocents... now, if he'd said something about those marines that shot random people in Haditha from that other thread, I'd be much more inclined to agree.

[General Ludd]

Of course it would be.

[Dr Strangelove]

Did anyone see the joint press conference held by Blair and Bush last week? My opinion of Bush has changed. I had not thought he had the intelligence and discipline to perform a stage puppet act. His handling of the Blair puppet was really quite flawless. Very impressive indeed, Bush's lips did not move perceptably at all while Blair spoke. I wonder if he'll be taking the show on the road when his term expires? Maybe he could have Blair recite the Gettysburg address while he drinks a glass of water.

[DinoDoc]

I care not about the opinions of crazy people.

[GePap]

In war enemy leadership is fair game.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ninot
What's with the distaste for Ned in the OT? I only started posting after he disapeared, but from what i've sene of him lately, he seems completely respectable, which is more than some others are.

I think it comes from his inane blanket statements about "the left", like the one he originally posted. Or his notion that Nazism is from "the left".

[MRT144]

i say yes only if he bleeds gold

[Ted Striker]

What's funny is Galloway can say things like this and he still makes Drake's people look like chumps

[Ninot]

Why isn't Galloway PM?

[Winston]

pfff

[Sava]

Anything can be "morally justified". That doesn't mean I believe something is right or not.

Generally speaking, I don't think the democratically elected leaders should be fair game... except under the most extreme of circumstances. And as much as people want to cry, ***** and moan about Iraq... it's not the most extreme of circumstances... as it pertains to the necessity to change leadership in Britain or the US. Especially by force.

However, if a suicide bomber took out Blair, I asked myself the question, would I feel the person would have been justified in doing so? If it were my country that was invaded and my family was killed as a result, how would I feel? I can't begin to answer that question, so I don't know for sure. I can't even begin to understand how someone might feel or think in that situation. I'd feel more pity than anger for such an assassin. Although, if a suicide bomber without the motive of personal tragedy took it upon himself to do this, I might feel differently. It's hard to really get a sense of what makes an act justified.

Killing Blair now is not going to bring anyone back, nor would I see it as a case of the "death penalty" or equivalent. So please, don't twist it into that kind of argument. War is a different beast than an individual crime. A leader isn't motivated the same way a murderer is, as much as people want to paint Bush and Blair as murderers. For whatever reason we really went to war in Iraq, it wasn't for the purpose of murdering people. It's just war. People die.

Killing Blair would only fuel the fire and make things worse. So my answer would have to be "No".

If Galloway is really concerned about peace, I don't see how he can think killing Blair is justified.

And to be perfectly frank, I don't care about his political views. I don't know this Galloway guy. I don't care. He shouldn't be an excuse to bash everyone who thinks the way he does, or believes in the things he does. He's one guy who made a statement and I disagree with him.

But I'm sure people like Ned will come here and use Galloway's statements, and maybe even my analysis of the situation, to further bash "the Left".

Whatever.

The War in Iraq was wrong and Galloway is wrong now.

Galloway being wrong now doesn't make some of the other things he may say wrong (though honestly, I don't know this guy and anything he says, though I suspect he's anti-war). I just wanted to point that out.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava


Generally speaking, I don't think the democratically elected leaders should be fair game... except under the most extreme of circumstances. And as much as people want to cry, ***** and moan about Iraq... it's not the most extreme of circumstances... as it pertains to the necessity to change leadership in Britain or the US. Especially by force.

Why is a democratically chose leader different from any other leaders when it comes to the question of whether in a war they are a fair target?

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap


Why is a democratically chose leader different from any other leaders when it comes to the question of whether in a war they are a fair target?

If you don't already know and understand the answer to this question, there is no point in talking to you.

But besides the moral aspects of whether or not a homicidal dictator is fair game rather than the leader of a more liberal society, elected by fair and open process (and thus subject to accountability for his or her actions), there is the question of practicality... whether or not killing that leader would affect the war itself, or just make things worse.

Democracies don't take too kindly to people killing the leaders they choose. Whereas other populations may rejoice if a dictator is killed off. In Iraq, my impression is that most people hate Saddam and are grateful he's gone. But they dislike the occupation. Removing Saddam was a good thing, but the continued occupation is what is inflaming things.

If you really don't think there is a difference between a democratically elected leader and any other type of leader, well, you really need to adjust the way you think.