Author Topic: Pretend You Do Not Have the Benefit of Hindsight... (Read 531 times)

Shuckins · « **on:** August 23, 2005, 10:37:07 PM »

...and consider the following hypothetical question.

While Pat Robertson's comments about assassinating a foreign dictator are odious to some, is it possible that he might have a valid point? Not saying he does in this case...but consider the following...

Pretend you live in Britain or France in 1937. Pretend also that you haven't the benefit of post-World War II hindsight. Now, answer this hypothetical question...

Would your government be justified in assassinating the dictatorial ruler of Nazi Germany, regardless of the fact that no state of war exists between your two countries?

Nash · « **Reply #1 on:** August 23, 2005, 10:41:54 PM »

Oh the lengths some will go.....

Chairboy · « **Reply #2 on:** August 23, 2005, 10:46:41 PM »

The idiotic part is advocating it publicly. Talk about limiting the options your nation has...

Shuckins · « **Reply #3 on:** August 23, 2005, 10:53:36 PM »

Make no mistake Nash...I am not a Pat Robertson fan. And his statements are objectionable.

But is assassination ever justified?

Don't just brush the original question aside with politically correct posturing...answer it.

Nash · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:00:49 PM »

Sure it is....

I think, anyways.

Right or wrong, I was for the bombing of Libya. I was for the bombing of Bin Laden. If Hussein got bombed, I woulda been for that too.

But you'll excuse me if I find your comparing a pre-emptive Hitler assasination to a bible-thumpin' dolt asking for the death of a South American leader that nobody has even heard of as, goofiness.

Eagler · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:05:14 PM »

it ain't what he said, it is the fact he is considered a "Christian" leader to some

remove the word "CHristian" and many would not argue with his statement, but you can't be a man of God and think/say that, otherwise you are no better than the cheekbones muslims extremists

Shuckins · « **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:09:30 PM »

Fair enough Nash...I agree. Pat should keep his big mouth shut. It's not his place to publicly advocate such a policy for our government.

I know nothing about this Venezuelan dictator. So I can't say that assassination would be justified. On the other hand, I don't know enough to say that it would be unjustified either.

IF, and that may be a big if, he became a big enough threat, I believe the government should take him out....as covertly as possible of course.

Out of curiousity, does anyone out there know of a prominent European leader that publicly called for Hitler's assassination? If so, I wonder what the reaction of that leader's countrymen was.

storch · « **Reply #7 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:18:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
The idiotic part is advocating it publicly. Talk about limiting the options your nation has...

that about sums it up. Mr. Robinson is clearly a few fries short of the happy meal. given the propensity of Christians to slay their wounded his reign on TV may be short. can anyone say tammy faye?

Charon · « **Reply #8 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:23:53 PM »

Quote

Pretend you live in Britain or France in 1937. Pretend also that you haven't the benefit of post-World War II hindsight. Now, answer this hypothetical question...
Would your government be justified in assassinating the dictatorial ruler of Nazi Germany, regardless of the fact that no state of war exists between your two countries?

A lot of conservatives in those countries and even the United States had some admiration for him during that period so probably not

The Facists were largely supported (or at least not opposed) where aid was concerned in the Spanish Civil War as a counter to socialists, anarchists and communists.

Now Stalin... Had it been easier and he been a closer, more immediate threat with a good covert plan, maybe.

Charon

Sandman · « **Reply #9 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:52:26 PM »

Ya know... it has always struck me as a little odd that it's considered assassination if we send a sniper to shoot the guy, but it's not if we drop a bomb on his house.

VOR · « **Reply #10 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:56:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Ya know... it has always struck me as a little odd that it's considered assassination if we send a sniper to shoot the guy, but it's not if we drop a bomb on his house.

Ok, so we dropped a bomb or two in Lybia..well, we missed, didn't we? That has to count for something.

storch · « **Reply #11 on:** August 23, 2005, 11:58:43 PM »

I think that a bomb is more hit or miss while placing an objective on an individual makes it completely personal. IIRC a bomb was dropped with the intention of killing saddamm hussein. it killed his sons instead. also IIR that mohamar kaddafihy was similarly targeted and also escaped injury but also lost an offspring in the attack.

fidel castro was targeted many times for asassination with no result, or perhaps good results for mr castro.

eagl · « **Reply #12 on:** August 24, 2005, 02:00:08 AM »

Saddam Hussein's sons were killed in a shootout.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2005, 03:08:52 AM »

I dont think anyone who identifies themselves as a leader of a Christian group should be advocating any such thing. It's against the very principles Christianity is founded on.

That said, sure I believe assassination is a valid way for governments to deal with annoying PITA's like Hitler, Osama, Sadam, etc. Couple of bombs would have taken care of Sadam and Co. A sniper would have been the perfect solution to Osama, back when we couldnt grab him without endangering civilians. Too much focus on giving him a "fair trial" when he wasnt even a US citizen. He was a threat, he should have been dealt with while we knew where he was. Heck with all this Jail nonsense.

cpxxx · « **Reply #14 on:** August 24, 2005, 03:21:02 AM »

Hitler even at the time was an obvious danger. Virtually everyone in the thirties expected another war with Germany because of Hitler and the Nazi party. With or without hindsight assasinating him was on the cards for many people. But, It just wasn't the done thing back then.

Neither is it now. Saddam Hussein is one thing. But Chavez is no threat to the US or anyone else. Neither is he a dictator, shuckins, he was elected at least once, maybe even twice. He has a viewpoint which doesn't sit well with the current US administration but is not threat except to certain oil companies and certain high level shareholders. The fact that he is a left winger does not justify killing him except in the crazed mind of Robertson. Maybe he has shares in certain oil companies.

The same is true of Castro, right now. He is no threat to anyone. How Cuba and Venezuala run their affairs is nobody's business but their own.

It's always the same with the like of Robertson. He has no problem with right wing dictatorships. They can torture or repress anyone they like. But they consider even elected left wingers as fair game for assassination and their country as a some kind of threat to their way of life.
Loonies all of them.

Author Topic: Pretend You Do Not Have the Benefit of Hindsight... (Read 531 times)

storch

storch