Assassination

[edwest2]

I believe that it MIGHT be appropriate, under very limited circumstances.

Would it have been immoral to have killed Hitler about 1936? He had specified exactly what he planned to do in his book, “Mein Kampf”, and by 1936 it was obvious that he was carrying out his plans.

I believe that assassinating him at that point would have stopped World War II, saved the lives of countless millions of people, and would have been morally justified.

The same is true of Joseph Stalin about 1938/1939. By that time, he had ordered the murder of millions of his won people (and millions more would follow).

The problem is, who decides, and under what criteria? That is the truly difficult part.

Oh please, not this again. The English signed an agreement giving Hitler “peace in our time” since the slaughter of World War I was still relatively fresh. And the British and the French both promised to help Poland if she was attacked. France fell and the British were kicked off the continent at Dunkirk.

Stalin? He’s barely on the radar for a lot of people. Not the way Hitler is.

Assassination happens and has been happening since man figured out how to kill his fellow man. It’s going on now for pretty much the reasons mentioned here: a key figure or head of state whose elimination might delay a project or result in regime change. The CIA tried to poison or kill Castro plenty of times.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rascalking]

Sorry, I had no intent to be insulting. I clearly failed to see through your sarcasm. I’m used to most people using the icon for tongue in cheek and the for sarcasm.

I honestly wasn’t sure if you were agreeing or sarcastically disagreeing with me. My bad.

Thank you for your apology man. I appreciate it.