Is it morally justifiable to assassinate Tony Blair?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


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

People who can think?

Yup.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, I think the point of going after political leaders during a war is to end the war, not punish a malefactor. Killing the leader of a democracy at war only makes them madder. Killing the leader of a monarchy or dictatorship may actually have positive results on the war effort.

You are parsing the question as one of tactical worth, which is irrelevant to the issue of whether leadership is a valid target.

As for the tactical arguement, made by multiple people, bull.

Democratic leaders are no more beloved than non-democratic leaders. You strike at a leadership, you hurt command and control. Having people mad at you is irrelevant, the question is how competently can their system run a war. Even if the populace is mad, if their leadership is in disarray, their war making capacity falters.

The one tactical issue that I think valid is that in a democratic system, the democratically elected executive in fact has far less control than say a despotic ruler. The problem then is not that killing an elected leader enranges or emboldens a democratic state, but in fact that a democratically elected leader is inevitably an easily replaceable leader running a system set up to handle changes in administration, and hence you are getting less bang for your buck by killing an elected leader than say a single dictator that hads centralized power in their own personal hands.

[Flip McWho]

Yes GePap's right, killing the leader of a democratic nation isn't a tactically sound move.

Ned,

Personally I'm not as optimistic as you are, but essentially I think we agree.

Although you mention 'free societies'. How do you define free? I personally partake in a couple of habits that would find me in jail, am I living in a few society?

[Drake Tungsten]

I personally partake in a couple of habits that would find me in jail, am I living in a few society?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that banning child pornography makes a society less free...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by civman2000
No.

QFNO!

[Flip McWho]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that banning child pornography makes a society less free...

Was waiting for that.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I see nothing wrong with his statement.

Save for one thing:

And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did

There's no moral equivalence here. Murdering a warmonger is much more moral than ordering the death of countless innocents.

You're a looney.

[Ted Striker]

LOL this banner ad that was at the top of the page seems appropriate

[Flip McWho]

There's no moral equivalence here. Murdering a warmonger is much more moral than ordering the death of countless innocents.

If you think all murder is wrong then the only difference between the two is statistics and intentions really. It doesn't make the matter more or less 'right'.

[Az]

Would it be moral? of course not.

Would it be legal for an agent of Iraq's government during war? definetly.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

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

Funny but he seemed to be referring to and comparing to 7/7 wherein it was indeed disaffected Brits who did just that.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

We heard the same crap from the current inhabitants of Gitmo.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Yes GePap's right, killing the leader of a democratic nation isn't a tactically sound move.

Ned,

Personally I'm not as optimistic as you are, but essentially I think we agree.

Although you mention 'free societies'. How do you define free? I personally partake in a couple of habits that would find me in jail, am I living in a few society?

One man's freedom to swing his fist ends at another man's nose.

[Flip McWho]

One man's freedom to swing his fist ends at another man's nose.

So you'd be one of those that say a person can do whatever they want as long as they don't act coercively upon another? Cause then yeah we agree.
Do you also recognise that no state legislates according to this yet?

[Ned]

Flip, I know. But this "libertarianism" of mine is why they call me "right wing" here. Others call libertarianims "left wing." Regardless, I view "libertarianism" to be "right wing" vis-a-vis socialism because socialism is all about limiting freedom. In practice, socialist regimes are among the most oppressive and repressive the earth has ever seen. Just about as bad as a Taliban-like theocracy.