+126 America assassinates a foreign political figure and people cheer, Iran gives it a go and they get international condemnation, amirite?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

America didn't assassinate Saddam Hussein, Iraq was the one who killed him. And Osama Bin Laden wasn't really a political figure since he wasn't in any type of political office. I can't really think of who else you could be talking about off the top of my head...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Is a political office necessary to be a political figure? I would say that MLK was a pretty political figure... Also, the USA assassinated the president of Panama in 1981, just as an example of one of the many assassinations carried out by the US government.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I always imagine a political figure as one who is in office, but you are right MLK was a very prominent figure in politics. In any case, America looks out for itself and Saudi Arabia is their friend so they don't want anybody killing its President. I'm sure other countries would do the same if the situation arose.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What are the cases you're referring to?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Osama Bin Laden, Abu Hafs Al Najdi, etc, Obama's Al Qaeda hits basically.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well...of course we get cheers. The people we assassinate are murderers, and they kill for the sake of killing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Number one; is killing a murderer just? Number two; if you knew anything about Saudi politics you would realise that the Saudi government is guilty of far more murder and oppression than Al Qaeda, yet they receive direct support and funding from the USA. Number three; is it ever right to cheer someone's death? Number four; Al Qaeda do not kill for the sake of killing, they have clear political goals, however unsavoury. They kill because they believe that this helps further their goals.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes, killing a murderer is just, as is cheering when they are killed. And I know that the Saudi government is responsible for murder and oppression. Believe me, I've been in many arguments about middle eastern governments being too strict in their application of Islamic laws. If it were up to me, I'd toss all of them out and put moderate, reasonable people in charge, not people that whip women for showing their wrists. Al Qaeda may have political goals and kill to accomplish them, but they kill people that are innocent in those matters. If they wanted to get something done, they should target people that are in positions of power. Not civilians.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I don't support Al Qaeda's politics nor do I condone their behaviour. I was simply pointing out that they have purpose in their killing. I would say that any death, no matter how bad a person, is a negative thing, and should be viewed as such. I was not happy when Osama died, especially since there was an opportunity for him to be captured.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I was overjoyed when Osama was killed, as was 99% of America. And probably 85% of the world. I think they should have strung him up like they did Mussolini. His death bettered the world. He was a sick, crazy, evil bastard.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You have no authority to issue those statistics. I would be surprised if 85% of the world cared one way or another about Osama Bin Laden, in lots of places he was viewed as a troubled visionary, Yemen, for example. This is clearly just a fundamental point of departure between our philosophies. I believe that killing a murderer brings some of their crime onto you, for you are choosing to continue killing where killing needn't be.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Okay, I'll rephrase. 85% of the world that has an opinion on Osama Bin Laden was glad to see him go. And no, that statistic certainly isn't exact, but the point is the same. Most people didn't want Osama in the world.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Obama is a murderer. He's killed loads of innocent civilians in the Middle East. Let's kill him. :D

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But his intention isn't to kill civilians. It's collateral damage. Osama's objective was to kill civilians.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Armies constantly target civilian structures as part of a war effort, when they do so they know that civilians will die, and until VERY recently this has been considered as both acceptable and desirable in war, as fear is a lot easier to wield than respect.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I disagree with that. Fear is easier to earn, but not to wield. If people fear you, sooner or later you're going to have a revolution on your hands. He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, this is why it's a bad tactic, it doesn't mean the USA didn't use it. Vietnam...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I disagree. But I'd like to hear your reasoning

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ok, so its difficult for me to talk about these things to people who are firmly embedded in the American world view. I am not suggesting that these people are ignorant, because this view is immensely pervasive, and it affects thought processes at every level. I'm referring broadly to Obama's political assassinations of senior Al Qaeda members. I don't pretend to support the politics or tactics used by Al Qaeda, but it must be recognised that they are a political body, with clear aims that enjoy a level of legitimacy in parts of the world. The western reaction to these killings was jubilation, especially to Osama bin Laden, as he was such a hated character due to his alleged orchestration of the 9/11 terror attacks. I personally feel that this reaction is unsavoury, that by responding with happiness at another's death we lower ourselves morally. This is the sort of reaction that we look upon with disgust when it goes on in the Middle East, and it is no different for us. There is no clear cut good guy/bad guy, and a human life is equal to a human life regardless of character.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Earlier this week an attempted assassination of the Saudi Ambassador to the USA was uncovered. The attempt was linked to the Iranian government who openly oppose both the USA and the Saudi government for their involvement in the Middle East. The Saudi government has a history of human rights abuses, they operate a heavily conservative Islamic state that is seen by many to be oppressive and backwards. The USA has a very close relationship to a state which is not dissimilar to Taliban Afghanistan or Iran itself in its behaviour. So my point is that people get mixed up with Real Politik and idealism, Osama's assassination was an act of Real Politik, that is, ruthless and strategic operation in order to secure one's goals - yet it was viewed as an idealist triumph over evil. In this way, Iran has been demonised in reverse for attempting something very similar, however not in correspondence with our set of views as people living within the American sphere of thought.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I do agree that it is very wise to look at an argument from both sides but I dont think you're correct. The main thing you're forgetting is that the US can NOT assassinate the leaders of other countries. It's against our law. Also, al quaeda is a terrorist group more than a political one.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

As soon as I hear "terrorist" I consider an argument lost. If you do any detailed reading into the subject you see that terrorist is just a brush used to paint your enemies, like "heretic" was in the middle ages. The USA assassinated the president of Panama in 1985, its illegal sure, but who's going to challenge them?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You may consider my arguement anything you like but it does not change the validity of my point. They are terrorists by our definition and theirs. And I haven't heard about this so I have to ask; was it proved that the US did it? Did the president state in a speech that he ordered the assassination? Or is it a lot of inconclusive evidence being taken out of context.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It is essentially proven that in 1985 Ronald Reagan had the Panamanian president assassinated. He never announced this formally, nor did he apologise for it but it is considered a sound historical fact. My problem with terrorism is that by definition it is something that almost all armies have carried out throughout history, purposeful attacks on civilians with the intent of generating fear. Only, when done by an army it is viewed as legitimate, whereas when done by a non-state organisation for whatever means, just or unjust it becomes terrorism. Did you know for example that Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist, and was jailed due to his links to a bomb attack on an elementary school?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Is this a reference to the alleged Iranian assassination plot for the Saudi Arabian ambassador to America? If so LOL

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It is a very heavily veiled reference to this event yes. LOL.

by Anonymous 12 years ago