Is it morally justifiable to assassinate Tony Blair?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Everyone else is a slave. Ditto Fascist societies. But they do not kill off capitalism, just put it to work for the good of the natiion. Which is why, of course, Fascism was both highly productive and popular. Contrast this to Communism. It is reviled by any "citizen" who is not a party member.

And this is why we call it the Nedaverse. Can you tell me Ned, if Communism was reviled by any citizen who is not a party member how communism did indeed have its moments of popularity in these states (think early Communist China after they kicked out the Kuomintang), and still some prefer the Communist regime to the one there currently (I believe one of the Isreali posters expressed such thought)? If you say 'propaganda', isn't that how Fascist states got their popularity?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
In war enemy leadership is fair game.

So I'm guessing that puts Galloway squarely on the side of .....

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
What's funny is Galloway can say things like this and he still makes Drake's people look like chumps

There's teh Nedaverse and then there bat**** crazy talk.

[Ted Striker]

Yes! Fuel your hate Ogie !! It only makes you stronger !

ROFL

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Everyone else is a slave. Ditto Fascist societies. But they do not kill off capitalism, just put it to work for the good of the natiion. Which is why, of course, Fascism was both highly productive and popular. Contrast this to Communism. It is reviled by any "citizen" who is not a party member.

And this is why we call it the Nedaverse. Can you tell me Ned, if Communism was reviled by any citizen who is not a party member how communism did indeed have its moments of popularity in these states (think early Communist China after they kicked out the Kuomintang), and still some prefer the Communist regime to the one there currently (I believe one of the Isreali posters expressed such thought)? If you say 'propaganda', isn't that how Fascist states got their popularity?

As I said, communism is popular with party members. I am sure you are easily swayed by their statements about their countries being "worker's paradises." An of course, everyone loves living in a tyranny, so long as one is among the ruling elite.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Aside from the laughably naive notion you portray, my assumption was that it wasn't asked if it was okay for a Briton to kill Blair, but for someone from the other side to kill Blair. Iraqis have no say in what Blair is doing to their country, other than to kill Britons.

One more outrageous lie from our chief commie.

Tell me Che, do the Iraqis get to vote for their leadership?

And, pray tell, does the presence of Briton depend upon the consent of that government??????

Your lying about democracies is somewhat tedious, my dear commie.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
....

Blair and any other war criminal like him ought to be removed by whatever means necessary as soon as possible. I've always thought that the threat of assassination was a good thing for keeping our leaders in line.

I wish you'd try keeping our leader Chimpy McHitlerburton in line. Contact him at ussecretservice.gov and let him know that you expect some serious policy modifications...or else.

[Flip McWho]

Re the thread topic:

From a Britons point of view, killing Blair is morally unjustifiable. Why? Theres a thing called the democratic process that we use to express our displeasure.

If you are a crazed suicidal terrorist then go nuts. Blairs an infidel and is just as much a good target as anybody else who opposes you.

If you are neither of these guys then its not really your business what Blair does.

Ned,

Textbooks in my Dad's time, prior to WWII, like to teach that the left-right axis was more of a circle. Fascism and Communism were almost identical in their functioning forms meeting at the far ends of the circle, as indeed Stalin and Hitler acknowledge in 1939 after their "alliance." The polar opposite (across the diagonal) of this circle is democracy.

The more I thought of this "circle" phenomenon, the more I realized that it was flawed. Rhetoric asside, once one adopts the ideology that the state or party (depends on the system) is superior to the individual, the end result is similar if not identical. Communist societies have their elites. They are just party members. Everyone else is a slave. Ditto Fascist societies. But they do not kill off capitalism, just put it to work for the good of the natiion. Which is why, of course, Fascism was both highly productive and popular. Contrast this to Communism. It is reviled by any "citizen" who is not a party member.

As China moves to capitalism, it is becoming a Fascist state. No doubt, this will improve the popularity of the communist party in China.

The bottom line: there is more of a line to be crossed than an axis to be moved upon. On one side are democracies. On the other are tyrannies in all their flavors. All tyrannies are evil at their root, in my view.

As to the social control bit, you will find that tryanncal governments impose more controls. The Extremely Religious, those who would impose their religious views on the people against their will, are themselves anti-democratic tryants. Their states are known as Theocracies. While we think of such states as "rightist," they are better classified as on the wrong side of the tryanny/democracy line.

However there is nothing wrong with taking certain elements from other political philosophies that normally lie across this line and incorporating them. Such as some regulation in the market (fair trading acts, social responsibilities (ie pollution) some monopoly regulation, a welfare state, employment relations and thats probably about it.

Also in regards to democracies, not all of them are 'good'. Afterall two party systems like the US for example are only dictatorships of the majority.
But thats why you need a constitution to enshrine the rights of the individual in regards to each other and the state, which make the parties nothing more than reactionary to whatever the current social problems are who have to react in ways that are consistant with the constitution. Which is why a constitutional monarchy is fine.

But you're right that the individual needs to be the main focus of the government. Not the aiding of the individual, thats up to the individual themselves, but the provision of equal opportunity so nobody is fustrated through systemic failure, which unbridled capitalism is.

The problem I have with communism is that it is community based, its based on 'the worker' as a community. Too much of a focus on the community results in the trampling of the individual.

Also, class 'warfare' does still exist. You see it when the government cuts taxes that affect those on higher incomes significantly bigger than those on lower. There mightn't be people out on the streets but a division based on income levels still exists. Another example is the high cost of private tuition, leads to a division between those who can afford and those who can't.

Imran,

And this is why we call it the Nedaverse. Can you tell me Ned, if Communism was reviled by any citizen who is not a party member how communism did indeed have its moments of popularity in these states (think early Communist China after they kicked out the Kuomintang), and still some prefer the Communist regime to the one there currently (I believe one of the Isreali posters expressed such thought)? If you say 'propaganda', isn't that how Fascist states got their popularity?

Everyones a party member in communism, its one of the basic things about it.

[Ned]

Flip, I think people in democracies support the common good. In this, they naturally take care of the less fortunate because the average individual is compassionate. Thus, a social welfare system is the result of compassion, not the result of imposing socialism in an otherwise free society.

The central problem of the "class warfare" view of the world is that it does not truly apply in democratic systems where the government is elected by the poeple. It may be a valid wherever there are vested classes protected, or stratified by law. But in free societies, these vested classes do not exist. Every citizen is subject to the rule of law and has equal rights and opportunities.

Referring again to the rule of law, abuses are corrected by law. This is why we created the anti-trust laws in the US, and the Security Act that require public disclosure of significant information from all publicly held companies.

In the class warfare view of society, wealth means "unfair" power. Thus, in the socialist world, corporations and profits are inherently evil and must be ended or severely regulated as are natural monopolies like electric power.

But such thinking does not merely end abuses that can otherwise be dealt with by law, it ends economic freedom and kills prosperity. It truly elevates the state over the people, the very abuse of natural freedom that democracies provide to every citizen. Socialism is based on a lie and it strips the people of their economic freedom.

But, the argument is made that less well-off people cannot succeed even in free societies. There are too many examples of the contrary to even begin to list them. Gates dropped out of college to found Microsoft. Hefner borrowed five thousand dollars to found Playboy. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all came from less fortunate circumstances to become president. Schwarzennegger had just a few dollars in his pocket when he came ashore. Now look at him.

Compare America to any socialist country and see the difference economic freedom makes. Socialism is not the solution to any problem, it is the cause of most of the problems in the world for the last century or so.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So I'm guessing that puts Galloway squarely on the side of .....

Britain?

He said he was opposed to murdering Blair. He however admitted the rules of the game.

I can easily imagine a jihadist who'd find it normal that the Yanks want to kill Bin Laden. Would it mean that such a jihadist is on the US' side?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Theres "normal" or "expected" and then there is "justified".

Lets parse his quote

Yes, it would be morally justified.

Noticeably different then saying it would be normal to expect this from an enemy. Or even qualified as saying "from their vantage point, morally justified".

I am not calling for it

No one said Galloway was stupid. Calling for it would mean his imprisonment.

- but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did.

Again the emphasis here is to say that Blair deserves assasination for parts he played as an elected official. Seems a wholely deluded attack on the foundations of the British government, that if you don't like the outcomes assassination is morally acceptable (even if not incited).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sikander

I wish you'd try keeping our leader Chimpy McHitlerburton in line. Contact him at ussecretservice.gov and let him know that you expect some serious policy modifications...or else.

Your secret service has no authority where I live. Besides, they have better things to do than hunt down everyone who says Bush should die on the net – like harass schoolchildren who write fictional stories about Presidential assassinations.

We don't care about your laws. They don't count for other people.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Agathon
People complain about one party states when two party states are not much better.

Apart from the fact that they encourage competition, a wider range of political tastes catered for, and accountability, of course. You bizarre man.

A two party state just means that it is impossible for new parties to compete.

Which is why we've been having all those Whig governments lately, right? Jesus Christ but you're ignorant. Ever wondered where the Labour party came from?

British people are some of the most ignorant on the planet, rivalling the Americans in the dumb Olympics. You only need look at the atmosphere of the average English person's newspaper to get an idea of what the level of political knowledge is like.

My average person's newspaper is the Financial Times and the Guardian.

Note that New Zealand has not had a proper tabloid newspaper for many years now.

Well our working classes are literate, you see? Anyway, the UK tabloids feature human breasts, and I guess that's just not what attracts the NZ readership. Baa-aaaaa!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Theres "normal" or "expected" and then there is "justified".

Lets parse his quote

and ignore the question he was asked: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Who could take revenge? Could a Briton take revenge for the invasion against Iraq? No. Only Iraqis can take revenge.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
One more outrageous lie from our chief commie.

Tell me Che, do the Iraqis get to vote for their leadership?

That depends on whether the vote fraud was serious enough to overturn the people's will. Given the massive corruption in that so-called government (it can't function without the permission of the U.S., or our money), it's highly likely that both the allegation of voter fraud are true and that it was massive.

And, pray tell, does the presence of Briton depend upon the consent of that government??????

Not in the least. And it's Britain, Neddie.