Assassination: is it ever acceptable?

[soulrebel]

I was thinking of posting this topic the other day (due to the number of threads on "how to deal with le pen") and now a leading european fascist has actually been assassinated!



so, can it ever be acceptable? are there circumstances where it is the only alternative?

what would you say if le pen had become president? Would you have advocated assassinating him then, which would presumably have made another election necessary, and prevented the destruction of France by fascism?

what about Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Pinochet...

would you have celebrated it or frowned upon it if any of them had been assassinated at the peak of their bloodthirsty rule?

I dont think the assassination of Pim Fortun was a good thing - like the killing of Al Quaida terrorists etc it creates a martyr and strengthens the cause of extremism with the sympathy vote, it portrays the far right as underdogs/victims.

But I think the assassination of fascists (or other evil, murderous personalities) who are already in power (case study: Hendrik Verwoerd) may sometimes be, although an act of violence, the lesser evil than allowing the far greater violence of a horrific dictatorship to continue...

...perhaps there is an analogy to justifying WWII as "the only way of getting rid of hitler", but an assassination of one man is obviously far less harmful than declaring war on a whole country...

is murder to prevent greater murder justified?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

hmm you've opened up one hell of a tin of worms with this one.
to be honest i'm really not sure where i stand on this one,so i'll ask another question,if you think it is justified under certain circumstances would you yourself be able to pull the trigger?

 

[Bajie]

If Hitler had been assassinated at the start of WWII, we probably would have lost the war, because it was Hitler, in his madness, who decided not to press on to invade Britain after Dunkirk. At that time the German Generals where all up for pressing on, as we where on the run and our home defences where mostly non-existant. But Hitler had some weird ideas about the British Empire and world stability.

Anway, no I dont think assianation is acceptable, becuase the leader is just a figurehead and someone else will just take their place, and the underlining reasons why they exist will still remain. Also if far-right leaders can be assinated why not left-wingers and anti-capitalists? thats the logic right-wingers would use. I dont belive it is democratic, in fact its totally undemocratic.

 

[peacepete]

my thinking is very similar to Zacarus. if one side of the political divide starts assassinating people then sure as hell everyone else will start doing it too and in the end no one will have any political leaders....... what would we have then ?!!?!?!.......anarchism i guess -- maybe it's not such a bad idea after all

seriously though, if you think you are justified in killing someone it probably says more about you than the person in question.

[edited so it might make sense (no guarantees)]

 

[nomoney]

if you want to serve capitalism well - you use violent means instead of the political ones.

It's easy for the state do deal with the terrorists - and they are not the tread.

In my opinion there is a small possibility that Pim was killed by anti-fascists (I don't think that something similar has happaned ever before) - probably the motive was something different (jelous boyfriend, competitors from another fascist group, sponsors from the mob...)

 

[soulrebel]

no, i wouldnt/couldnt pull the trigger myself, at least i dont think so.

on an intellectual level i am a pacifist... but on an emotional level there are circumstances where my desire to kill someone might override my intellect. this is more with regard to ppl who have very deeply hurt someone i love tho, it would be less emotional with regard to a political figure.

so on the level of inconsistence/hypocrisy, i wouldnt publicly call for the killing of anyone who i woulsnt kill myself.

and yeah, the intention was to open a can of worms, im feeling a bit of a devils advocate today...

the point about a leader being easily replaced is a good one... theres a lot to say about pragmatism/utilitarianism leading on from that.

keep the opinions coming...

 

[loop]

the justice system should suffice. Too many good people are assasinated, it's not a policy I would advocate. there are other means of taking power away from dangerous people.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

i've just spent the last ten minutes talking about this with a friend(we've got a long night ahead of us on this one!)and i kept coming back to the point that as it stands it would be wrong but if you where going to you'd have to be very sure that the affect would be one that'd avert further bloodshed,and i dont know of anyone that are that certain of events to make a decision of that kind.
the extremist tendency is one that should'nt be given into in my opinion as history (continues)to show

 

[fudgefactorfive]

You can never predict what will happen - too chaotic. So the only motive for killing off an opponent would be to increase your own power. So, like politicians, the only people that can actually be assassins (or employ them) are the ones least suited to it.

I couldn't kill anyone.

 

[Trotboy]

I'm afraid I can't

answer any of your questions above, because of the way they are phrased. I am not against violence, and certainly killing is acceptable in self-defence. However, assassination is not an acceptable tactic because IT DOESN'T WORK, it is invariably counter-productive, and gives the State limitless opportunities for the justification of greater oppression, just like all forms of individual or minority terrorism.

This assassination will lead to greater repression in Holland, and may spell the end of Holland's 'Liberal' society. Which is precisely why it makes me suspicious. Who gains from this assassination?

Steve Bush,
Lambeth Socialist Party.

 

[General Ludd]

Yes.

 

[bigbry]

i read somewhere only this morning that 'assassination is the absolute form of censorship' or some very similar phrase.

i would have thought that anyone on these boards would be against censorship.

assassination in a democracy is very definitely a no-no as far as i am concerned - in a dictatorship, maybe.

 

[blamblam]

As an anarchist, I think that violence is justifiable. However, individual assassinations are a complete waste of time (at least when we're not in a revolutionary situation, anyway) - especially now when we don't have a mass base of support, and far-right nationalists do - it's just going to make a martyr of him.

Individuals make no difference to history. The mass action of the working class does.

You can't assassinate a social relation...

But this particular attack I think is much more likely to have been done by Al-Qaida (however you spell that) types, or possibly some Leninist fuckwits than anarchos.

 

[sonicdancer]

NO NO NO NO!!!

Please dont forget that the assasination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the decaying Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the Bosnian capital of Sarejevo on 28th June 1914 only pre-empted the deaths of millions of soldiers and civilians.

It cant be the way forward, history tells us this, although a bullet through the brain is a tempting thought with some dictator's (Sadman) its more trouble than it is worth.

 

[Anneth]

icepick . .

As an anarchist, I think that violence is justifiable

how?

Surely violence against an individual is an infringement of that individual's liberty?

Assassination is murder. Political motivation is no excuse. (revolution or not).

violence is the repressive option of last resort, only used if you cannot change minds through words. How then does it acheive anything?

 

[blamblam]

how [is violence justifiable]?

Surely violence against an individual is an infringement of that individual's liberty?

Assassination is murder. Political motivation is no excuse. (revolution or not).

violence is the repressive option of last resort, only used if you cannot change minds through words. How then does it acheive anything?

Assassination is bollocks, however if somebody is going to kill me unless I carry out an act of violence on them first, then I will. More than me asserting authority over the other person, it's more me stopping them asserting authority over me.

If you're talking about revolution, I think revolutionary wars would start in self-defence (peaceful demos being shot at, etc.) and are therefore justified. The only difficulty would be maybe going on the offensive to retake an area controlled (for example) by fascists. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

 

[System of a Down]

Another example of Soad's beard rubbing analogy:

Political assassination is like blowing up a zit. Sure, it is not lusted and white anymore, but it leaves a little blood spot, will probably leave a hole, and eventually create other zits all around. Better put clerasil on. It cost, take a while, but leave the skin nice and smooth.

 

[Rain Man]

I understand that when you are at war with someone, it is considered 'bad form' to assasinate the opposing Political Leader.
I'm not sure if this is just an outmoded gentleman's agreement type thing from the previous century, or whether it is in a convention...

The problem with political assination (if you are a pacifist like me) Is that there is no way to know if the situation will be improved, until after the fact. Even then there is no way to know that the world is a better place than it could be.

But if one approves of Capital Punishment (in any form, including for War Crimes) then surely this can be translated to political leaders.

I guess what I'm saying is that if someone deserves to die, then it doesn't matter who they are. (But who deserves to die?)

 

[letsgetfree]

ohoho

letsgetfree is for assinations after they have happened but not before as killing human beings is wrong but theres no point moaning about it after

 

[System of a Down]

just learn the lesson...

 

[anti-capitalist]

All politicians should be assassinated; except Dennis Skinner, George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott and the SSP.

Fuck the liberal "we can achieve peace through yogic flying" bollocks, real change comes through direct mass action which may involve assassinating a few counter-revo's.

In the words of Elvis:

"A LITTLE CONVERSATION, A LITTLE MORE ACTION!"

The Red flag and the Black can fly side by side - unity is our strength!

 

[System of a Down]

Assassination... immature oppression... the desire for action, of any kind... violent deception...

It just create more question in the common mortal mind. Most people doesn't have a clue why he has been killed, they assume the killer was only a psycho. He is a psycho, but has convictions, I hope... let's say he does. If you can't win without killing your adversary, you're not worth the game.

 

[grasshopper]

Morally I could not support assassination, and Intellectually I couldn't either.

But there is a sneaking part of my brain which sometimes wonders what effect upon the world, half-a-dozen well targeted bullets would bring. I couldn't do it though, and I'm not at all sure whether the outcome would a positive one.

 

[System of a Down]

Certainly not... killing several head leaders would be considered as terrorism, and the mass has been taught not to support terrorism. Only a few would feel like "Ahhhh, finally disencumbered!", and you wouldn't be quite advancing...

 

[Countonezero]

ah the ever cryptic system though i do llike

If you can't win without killing your adversary, you're not worth the game.
i'm not sure what that say's about me but hey

nah the only killing i could condone is murdering a pint

 

[Roadkill]

No, it isn't acceptable.

For one, killing is wrong. For two, sonicdancer is quite right: it can have highly unpredictable consequences, such as a world war.

 

[pk]

Fuck that.

I would endorse the nailbombing of Combat 18.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Then you're as odious a scumbag as they are, PK.

 

[Saxon Rillet]

Agree with you there, Fudge.
And I agree with the statement further up about the results being unpredictable.

Anyway why haven't those people who claim they would done anything about it? Because they can't.
Because if they did - as Anti-capitalist suggests in the killing of politicians - they would not just be ridding the world of someone they detested; they would be depriving children of their father or a husband of his wife or father of his son or a grandchild of his grandmother.

Dostoevsky summed up this moral dilemma in the Brothers Karamazov when Ivan (correct if I'm wrong - it was some time ago that I was at university) asks if it was possible to create human happiness forever through the torture of just one innocent baby, would you do it?
My answer: No, I would not.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well just for the sake of argument:
I sometimes get the impression that the world is divided into people who are still living and people who've died on the inside.

Some people are just asking to be killed, and would quite like to be, it's just that they don't have the courage to take their own lives, and so make themselves as unpleasant as possible in order to try to persuade someone to kill them (unconsciously) They may retain a conscious fear of death and even try to protect themselves from it. Is it really wrong to kill people like this.