Are assassinations ever acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why? I would argue that they are the most justifiable target. Are we to assume that the leaders are immune to the decisions they make and the people they give orders to are the only ones subject to the consequences? It seems to me that you have created too much of a distinction between the leaders and the people.
 
This is what I was thinking about:
40.png
Are assassinations ever acceptable? Social Justice
Well, it seems you are right! I just did a quick google search and found this: ‘Pope Pius XII supported efforts to assassinate Adolf Hitler during World War II.’ So it seems you’ve been vindicated. I mean, who am I to argue with the great Pius XII? And I think civil argument is something this forum direly needs. God Bless!
Click to expand...
I just missed this post with the link.
 
He never did get assasinated. But others have. I think it would help your analysis if you referred to cases of actual successful assasinations. Was it worth it and so on?
You can start with Soviet Communists and they killed each other when they had the chance. Was Trotsky killed worth it? How about the horrible Yaguda who ran the NKVB and gulags? He was observed killed by others. He died. Yet - what was was accomplushed?
I believe - never kill a horrible dictator. Catch them and give them food, a bed, a notebook and a pen. Then you will find out about the rest of the network.
 
No, the enemy high command is a legitimate military target, regardless of where the front is.
 
There were dozens of attempts on Hitler’s life. Ironically, only Hitler could kill Hitler.
 
mythbuster1 said:
No, the enemy high command is a legitimate military target, regardless of where the front is.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with this.

In traditional wars before the modern age, the emperor or the king was right on the battlefield commanding the forces. If you aimed for the king’s tent or position and took him out–I don’t see the difference between that and modern war, aiming to take out Hitler in Fuhrer Bunker.
 
Every nation uses spies, but spies are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Any spy captured by the enemy is subject to summary execution or life imprisonment, which is something they know when they sign up. Captured spies are often exchanged for each other, but they make no guarantees.
 
We, those who follow Christ do not participate in this worlds wars…we are representatives of The Healer of Nations.
 
Once the war had begun, it would no longer be an “assassination”; rather it would be an act of war, so the only question is whether the war is a just one.
 
I would hope that “we, those who follow Christ” would not stand idly by watching Nazis kill millions of Jewish people on the basis that we “do not participate in this world’s wars”.
 
The United States didn’t enter WWII to stop the holocaust. I’m not sure that this was the motive of any of the allies.
 
The United States entered the war because it was directly attacked. Which is of course also a basis for a just war, as “we who follow Christ” are not required to sit idly by and watch our country be taken over by an invading enemy either.

I don’t think a lot of people realized the extent of the Holocaust except those in the areas where it was happening, and they weren’t in a position to be getting the word out. But in this day and age, we would be more likely to know what is going on and it would to me certainly justify participation in a military action.
 
As a Friend, the time to prevent the occasion of war is not when they ensue, but to work towards it’s prevention.
It is Jesus himself who calls us to peace, to love our enemies…Paul wrote to be at peace with all men, as far as it was up to us.
“An eye for an eye leaves us both blind”.
No one is suggesting we do nothing…a good source to understand how to “wage peace” is found in the book, “Quakers and Nazis”.
 
The vast majority of Catholics support peace-making efforts, diplomacy, the UN, etc. and are not in a hurry to rush into armed conflict.
That’s a little different from implying we will not go to war under any circumstances.
 
While I am against all participation in war, I do see a distinction between entering a conflict because one is attached and willfully planning the direct murder of ones political foes.
I don’t know how any follower of Jesus of Nazareth would support the murder of an individual for political expediency.
 
Zynxensar said:
Would it have been morally permissible to stealthily kill Hitler before the events of September 1939? I mean, to a certain extent, Hitler is counted as a “Military target”
Click to expand...

Though Catholic doctrine condemns tyrannicide as opposed to the natural law, formerly great theologians of the Church like St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xlii, a.2), Suarez (Def. fidei, VI, iv, 15), and Bañez, O.P. (De justitia et jure, Q. lxiv, a. 3), permitted rebellion against oppressive rulers when the tyranny had become extreme and when no other means of safety were available.
 
What if i was a being that could literally think people out of existence. Would it be considered a necessary evil to assassinate me because of my power.
 
IWantGod said:
What if i was a being that could literally think people out of existence. Would it be considered a necessary evil to assassinate me because of my power.
Click to expand...
No. There has to be more reason than “he has power. It’s possible for him to do evil.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top