Is it morally justifiable to assassinate Tony Blair?

[Ted Striker]

My assassination thread was better

Had more ass in it

[Ted Striker]

for the win

[chequita guevara]

Winners rarely if ever face the consequences of our actions. Ideally, those types of people should spend the rest of their lives in prison. That's not gonna happen. The next best thing would be if they were tried and executed by due process of law. That's not even in the stars. That leaves the powrless with only one option for justice.

[Tattila the Hun]

"Terrorist is a man with a bomb but without an airforce."

Or sumptin.

[Ted Striker]

Who said that?

Cool quote

[ajbera]

Well, I believe both sides in any conflict should abide by similar rules. Thus, if we feel it's morally justifiable to assassinate the leaders of our enemies, it's justifiable for them to assassinate ours.

[Dr Strangelove]

Why would anyone go after the puppet but not the puppet master?

[SlowwHand]

Yeah. No strings attached then.

[Sava]

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


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".

GePap, oh come on man. I have defined my terms multiple times. If one provides an axis (no pun intended) with freedom to the right and less freedom to the left, then certainly Nazism is not about freedom. They exercised a lot of control over society and over the economy.

Even given the more traditional axis, where goverment that protects the lower classes is to the left and a government that protects the upper to the right, Nazis are not as much right as a typical feudal society. They were very socialistic in their policies, providing universal health care, the VW, full employment, etc. They controlled corporations through their boards, somewhat in the manner of today's France or China. This may not be as extreme as you would want it, but certainly Nazi's are not rightist even on this kind of scale.

The Nazis were more about extreme Nationalism than about protecting the upper classes. Nationalism/Internationalism must be considered on a separate axis all by itself, as one can have Nationalism and socialism in the same state. Saddam's Iraq is an example.

As to today's left, I clearly mean Marxists of any stripe.

[Sandman]

They were very socialistic in their policies, providing universal health care, the VW, full employment, etc.

Yes, building up the military, glorifying war, disenfranchising women, crushing trade unions, promoting the 'traditional' family, tearing up international agreements, spreading 'stabbed in the back' mythos, obsessing over racial purity - all pure socialism!

[Kontiki]

I'm pretty sure Ned does consider all those things (except maybe the union bit) to be socialist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava


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

What rules? Leadership is fair game in wars. Simple. Its called striking at C3.

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.

Tactical worth of op. is a different question.

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.

Look above.

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.

A Regime is a Regime. Hitler was a democratically elected leader. The only worthwhile difference is that they are easier to replace.

[Flip McWho]

Hitler was a democratically elected leader.

Ummm for how long?

And Ned you're left-right thing is all wrong.

Generally
Left ---- Right
Economic Control ---- Economic freedom
Social Freedom ---- Social Control
Cosmopolitan ---- Nationalist
Communist ---- Fascist
Socialist ---- Christian Social Democrats (or similar)
Liberal ---- Conservative

If you're all for the freedom of the individual then you're a leftie by definition. Thats what liberals go for, generally.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


Yes, building up the military, glorifying war, disenfranchising women, crushing trade unions, promoting the 'traditional' family, tearing up international agreements, spreading 'stabbed in the back' mythos, obsessing over racial purity - all pure socialism!

Not pure socialism at all. But they were not right wing in the sense that they were there to protect the upper classes and do nothing for the poor. The did a lot for the lower classes, so much so that the CIO was pro-German at the outbreak of WWII. They were pro-German because of all that the Nazi's did for the average working man.