• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is assasination ever called for

Is assasination ever the right thing to do

  • In some cases assasination is right

    Votes: 30 83.3%
  • assasination is never right EVER

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • Total voters
    36

A good example of this was Martin Luther King as well. Before his death he had largely been marginalized for coming out against the Vietnam War, but after his death he became a powerful symbol.

Boondocks had an excellent episode (you can watch it on Netflix) on a parallel history of MLK if he had survived his assassination.
 

That sounds very interesting. I'll have to look that up.

The martyr gig works both ways. I wish humans were better at finding motivation without killing people, or waiting for someone else to be killed.
 
That sounds very interesting. I'll have to look that up.

The martyr gig works both ways. I wish humans were better at finding motivation without killing people, or waiting for someone else to be killed.

Well, it's an animated comedy, so don't expect it to be too academic. But it's definitely clever.

People seem to be strangely unassailable in death (except for the cartoonishly evil examples, of course).
 
Well, it's an animated comedy, so don't expect it to be too academic. But it's definitely clever.

Well, alternate reality theory never is, simply by definition. But sometimes it raises good questions.
 

In all likelihood, yes.

If you were going to kill Hitler at all, it'd have to very early in his career. Frankly, even then, it's still entirely possible that he might have become a martyr, or that the Nazis simply would have found someone else to spread their message.

I mean... Honestly, the idea of assassinating a political leader to "silence" their ideas is kind of bunk in general. If you want to discredit a certain ideology, there are simply better ways to do it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah.
Must be all that damn Sand.... makes people crazy. "Dammit, I've got sand in my arse again! That's it! I'm going to kill EVERYONE!"



I lived in the sand at Cam Rahn Bay, Vietnam in 1965 and 1966 and I will testify that it drove me nuts.
 

To do what hitler did you needed to have someone who the German people nearly worshiped as a savior. Hitler had that very rare ability to mesmerize a crowd and ultimately a country. People like that are few and far between
 
anonymous polls ought to be terminated

with extreme prejudice!
 
If someone assassinated Hitler before he fully implemented his agenda the world would have been a lot better off IMO. What about you, is assassination ever okay?

It's a high cost political strategy that establishes a very bad precedent in international relations. Not absolutely the wrong thing to do, but . . . expensive in terms of the traditional currencies of power and credibility.
 
And turtles should be made into soup and their shells dried in the sun for a bowel

you have some interesting intestinal issues there dude
 

If Hitler was assassinated, history certainly would have been different. How different we will never know. Perhaps given a couple of more years to re-arm, then instead of 1939 starting WWII it would have waited until 1941 or after. Perhaps whoever replaced Hitler would have listen to his generals.

But that deals with only your example. History can't be changed. The assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand started WWI. I wouldn't rule assassination out, but I also doubt I would ever use it. Assassinating Pol Pot before he killed 2-3 million of his countryman would seem like a good idea, but there is always a number two who probably would have stepped in and continued it. Maybe even more ruthless. It is something to think about.
 
Idealistically, no. Pragmatically, maybe.
 
Excellent post.

I wholly agree with your first paragraph. The only caveat is that you can't predict the future, so what we see in hindsight as a string of linked events we ourselves might not have seen had we been alive at the time.

As far as your second paragraph, I believe it's entirely possible (but not certain) that many of the atrocities were not instigated by Hitler himself, but rather by underlings trying to gain favor with Hitler. If Hitler was the mind behind them, then he did a very good job of publicly and historically disassociating himself and not leaving evidence as such.
 
If someone assassinated Hitler before he fully implemented his agenda the world would have been a lot better off IMO. What about you, is assassination ever okay?


.

That is a philosophical question that is very difficult to answer, because it gets into many "what ifs", which we can't know, with certainty, the answers to.
That being said, are assassinations okay? Yeah, but not for the reasons you may think, and not due a question of moral judgements. Reality is what it is, history happens, and just because one bad guy may have been taken out prematurely, it doesn't mean that everything would have been okay. That isn't how it works.
 
Right. Hitler fed off a lot of anger and that anger was there with or without him.
 
Right. Hitler fed off a lot of anger and that anger was there with or without him.

Well, that wasn't really what I was thinking of, but yeah you're right about that. The question in that line of thinking would be, would the Germans have done what they did, without such a charismatic leader? I'm not really sure they would have.

I was really thinking more long-term, and much bigger picture. I think we tend to place far too much emphasis in snippets out of history.
 
I'm not sure they would have either, but they did have a lot of hard feelings for the Jews as well, so I can't say for certain.

There is a part of me that believes Hitler didn't really care about the Jews one way or another... he even protected a small handful... but used them as a convenient scapegoat as they were already distrusted and disliked anyway.
 
yes... assassinations are ok in certain circumstances....... however, they are never ok until actions are taken that makes it deserved.

contingency plans should also be made to deal with the consequences.

as for my personal opinion... the minute Hitlers army invaded his first country, he was open for assassination
if the young men and women in military uniforms are subjected to being legally killed by opposing nations, their leader is open to it as well.

as with any other martial matter, assassination can be tactical or strategic
sometimes, the main man can be iced.. other times, maybe taking out a top minion would work better to change the tune of El Supremo.
in any event, the notion that leaders are exempt from being legally killed is asinine.... they are leaders... upper management.... not gods.
 

One thing that I think many people don't realize about Hitler, is that he was into some really strange mystical practices and beliefs, and he literally lost his mind, likely as a result of some of the **** that he was into. He probably believed that he had been ordained by God to do the things he was doing. He was far beyond Christianity by that point, and although many people like to claim that he was Christian, thus denigrate Christianity by associating Hitler with it, that is not what was actually happening at the time. He was likely much crazier than most of us understand, but he was so powerful and brutal, that few dared defy him by that point, as he'd gladly have them killed as well. He was probably a man of great potential, who went terribly terribly wrong.
 
It's also worth noting that Hitler was almost perpetually high as a freaking kite on mind altering medications before the war's end as well.

He was taking a number of pain killing meds for the after effects of the numerous assassination attempts he survived. He was also mixing them with sleep aids and other substances meant to either ease his anxiety or treat his other numerous health problems (he had a famously irritable stomach, for instance, and was always looking for new ways to 'cure' his symptoms).

Combined with the - frankly, understandable - nervous break down he had when it became clear that his regime was doomed, the drugs basically turned him into a raving mad man.
 
Last edited:

Hitler was Christian in name only. There is no in biographical evidence to suggest that he literally believed in Christian principles and strived to ever live them. Not even in his younger days.

Truth be told, many people fit this description. Just because they slap the "Christian" label on themselves, or were born into a family that did, doesn't necessarily make it so.
 

That Hitler specifically distanced himself from the activities of the concentration camps is news to me. Can you provide anything for me to read on that?
 

Why do you believe this?


And another belief I don't understand the source of. There are plenty of quotes by him that talk about his Christianity. How do you know that he was disingenuous in each of those quotes?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…