Well, I've been hearing an incredible amount of talk on this particular subject since Osama Bin Laden orchestrated his infamous 9/11 attack on the NY Twin Towers. To my knowledge, the most recent "call to assassinate" was when President Bush essentially placed a bounty on Bin Laden's head. In his exact words: "I want Osama Bin Laden. Dead or Alive." (Ha, typical southern/western lingo.) Throughout history, people have been assassinated. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and numerous others. Some of which we have no knowledge of as it was done using the "Black-Ops" strategic force. I ask this community, what are your thoughts, concerns, comments, questions, etc. on this topic? To me, it's one that intrigues as well as concerns. In my opinion, I think that in times of war, it is necessary and proper to eliminate an enemy public or military official/figure using covert tactics. Well, this will be interesting. Post and Reply!:m: <-- LoL

Of course, he's not a public official of any sort.

Osama bin Laden is definitely alive, he's paying money to people who know the whereabouts of him to keep his identity a secret. Well, maybe not money, probably along the lines of blackmailing, actually. I haven't heard any talk about it since 9/11 really, but it's an interesting topic, and he won't be found, by us, anyways.

:shrug:

Of course, he's not a public official of any sort.

That has the potential to be argued. He may not be a public official to anybody outside of the terrorist organization but I'm sure none of us know what he's doing within his association. He may be controlling operations left and right.

Osama bin Laden is definitely alive, ...

Do you have any evidence at all or are you just a "believer"?

Baron Max

Do you have any evidence at all or are you just a "believer"?

Baron Max

Well, how could he be dead? He probably has somewhat of an escort, no one would have the balls to kill him because they would instantly punished, severely. He was born into a royal/wealthy family, thus making him important, there is a 50/50 chance he's alive or dead, but alls I'm saying is I don't think anyone in his posse would kill him or overthrow him, he has some amount of power, but he's definitely fled the country, our country has too much security around the country for him not to be noticed, granted he does resemble your typical middle-easterner, he's definitely not riding solo. But I see your point, and I should've just put probably, instead of definitely.

I mean that it sets a bad example to kill the leaders of recognized nations. Osama isn't one, so there is no taboo against assassinating him. Hell, didn't the Arabs invent the word, deriving from the word for hashish, taken before killers went on their mission?

I mean that it sets a bad example to kill the leaders of recognized nations. Osama isn't one, so there is no taboo against assassinating him. Hell, didn't the Arabs invent the word, deriving from the word for hashish, taken before killers went on their mission?

Yeah, they did. Not to mention that the "assassins" were killed after the mission. But that's off topic. People against this argue that Assassination is murder and that murder is an intolerable act. How would someone go about proving that this "necessary murder" is indeed justified?

I don't know how exactly it's justified, perhaps the President decides that person is a threat to the nation.

What bothers me is how America, with their sophistication, latest hi Tech surveillance space age gizmo mechs, first world economic connections, and first rate intelligence, can't find a man wearing sandals and riding a camel. The mysteries of the world. Bin Laden better write a book titled " How to avoid being compromised". I gurantee you, every crook, businessman, cheating man, lawyer, and even dogs will buy that book.

What bothers me is how America, with their sophistication, ...., can't find a man wearing sandals and riding a camel. The mysteries of the world.

How do you know that they haven't found him? In fact, leaving him out there, ineffectual and on the run, is perhaps much better than killing him or bring him to "justice".

Look at how the Sadam fiasco turned out ...it would be much worse with Osama. It's much, much better for the USA to leave him out there, totally ineffectual. Besides, he's probably dead ...and notice how little his death means to anyone, anywhere? He's not a martyr, he's not a terrorist commander, ...he's just, ....well, just nothing to anyone.

Bin Laden better write a book titled " How to avoid being compromised". I gurantee you, every crook, businessman, cheating man, lawyer, and even dogs will buy that book.

How many people/criminals do you know who would be content to live in dank, dirty, filthy caves in the mountains of Afgahnistan just to say that they hadn't been captured? Sound like a good life to you, does it?

Baron Max

How many people/criminals do you know who would be content to live in dank, dirty, filthy caves in the mountains of Afgahnistan just to say that they hadn't been captured? Sound like a good life to you, does it?

Baron Max

Good point.

Assassination is ok. We do it all the time in East Korea.

Assassination is ok. We do it all the time in East Korea.

I understand that it is okay. The question remains...how will you be able to justify that in front of a moralist?

;1371693']I understand that it is okay. The question remains...how will you be able to justify that in front of a moralist?

I don't think one can justify ANYTHING to a moralist!

Baron Max

I don't think one can justify ANYTHING to a moralist!

Baron Max

Rofl. It seems that the things we have to do in our modern society are deemed unjust by religion or ethics :p

I understand that it is okay. The question remains...how will you be able to justify that in front of a moralist? It is indeed very difficult to justify such behavior to people with morals and ethics.

Not even pragmatic arguments work, because ethical people will point out that in the past assassination has seldom acheived desireable objectives.

And when you talk about "what we have to do" they just look at you blankly: they've never "had" to assassinate anyone, and don't understand the necessity.

So the best way is to lie. That way, too, the effects of the assassination will be multiplied by all the genuine accidents and deaths that your enemies cannot be sure of. Look at Pat Tillman's fratricide, for example: probably accidental, but anyone in the military who agrees with his opinions and has access to publicity after their duty is over and they can talk (as he did, being a poster recruit for TWAT), has to wonder in the back of their mind what the consequences will be for talking.

That is because the US military is known to arrange assassinations of inconvenient people who are too dangerous.

So it's a handy reputation to have, for certain kinds of projects or endeavors.

There is a line of thought that says that assassination is one of the most humane mechanisms of political/social change. Only one man dies.

From a practical point of view it beats a civil war or coup de etat.

I agree with Paulfr. In my opinion, if one man has to die in order to save hundred s or thousands more...go for it. I'd give up my life to save people...as long as proper recognition is given =] (Me being selfish)

I think assassination is somewhat justified. If you're going after one person, I think it definitely better to assassinate them than to (as all too often happens) go to war with their entire country over it. However, I think killing of any kind is to be avoided until all other options have been exhausted.

;1371693']I understand that it is okay. The question remains...how will you be able to justify that in front of a moralist?

In East Korea, usually from behind a firing squad.

Bloody moralists.

There is a line of thought that says that assassination is one of the most humane mechanisms of political/social change. Only one man dies. There is a line of obsrvation that says the usual conesquence of an assassination is either 1) nothing specific - next guy steps up and takes over, hard to say what the change was (Lincoln, Kennedy, Malcolm X, that one Prime Minister of Inda) 2) bloodbath, as factions move into the power vacuum.

The problem is guiding the change. As a mechanism, it has no steering wheel, or brakes.

Thought experiment: France assassinates Hitler in '36. Consequences: maybe 1) sanity takes over the German government, which demilitarizes apologises to the Jews and remains peaceful to this day, or maybe 2) the new leader gains power from Hitler's martyrdom, launches better planned and more sensible war, establishes a homeland for expelled Jews in France rather than killing them, forms a stronger alliance with Stalin including the mutual development of atomic weapons (both Soviet and German Jews allowed to occupy French homeland, do science there), leaves England alone, cooperates with Soviets and Japanese in dividing China and SE Asia, Soviets and Reich and US settle into three way nuclear and economic standoff or maybe 3) something else.

These are all very complicated considerations to take into account each time. The temptation toward impatience, not thinking, is great. So we have morals and ethics to prevent us from bothering with such error-prone arguments. Assassination is wrong, we know that, we've figured out why long ago and don't have to go over it each time it comes up.

I think Assassination should be sanctioned only when there is proof that the person in question will kill innocent people, Either way , Assassination is better than dropping a one tonne bomb on an apartment building next to a nursery, as only the enemy will die, no need for media attention of the civilian deaths .