|
It can be. I agree. But one can justify anything. Just because we can justify it doesn't mean we
should. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are indeed some people in this world who are so powerful and so dangerous and so malicious
that they need to die. Granted our world history is full of examples where it was done poorly, or
too late, or to someone who really didn't fit the category of deserving it, but despite that fact
there are indeed dictators whose assassination is justifiable. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I say yes. If they want to kill people, then I will kill them. I want to save people. Not rule over
them and kill them. People are not my puppets and don't work for me. People typically get power and
feel like 'humans' are below them.
You see a theme in people with extreme power. God made man out of dirt. These men who think they are
God instead can't make men out of dirt so they treat men like dirt or make dirt out of men (bomb's,
death, etc) Mao Zedong never bathed but 'kept his youth and strength by bathing in young women'.
Take that for what it is worth.
Many kings molested little children. There is a cruel theme with people who are in power. Many good
men are very humble and seek not this kind of power.
You see this power is very similar to sacrafices many civilisations endorsed like virgins and young
children. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Nothing is about "justification", it's a matter of appropriateness. Instead of Hitler, let's talk
about Joe Stalin.
If Stalin had been assassinated in 1946, there might have been a different set of Soviet leaders and
events in the post-war Soviet Bloc would have been much different, perhaps better or worse (re:
The East German uprising in 1953, the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Prague Spring in 1968, the
backing of Vietnam in the 1970s, etc.)
On the other hand, if Stalin had been assassinated before the battle of Stalingrad in July 1942,
would someone else have made the same decisions? Had the Germans won at Stalingrad and Russia were
overrun, Hitler might have been able to withdraw most of his troops and win the battle on the
western front against the British, French, Canadians and Americans. Nazi Germany might have ruled
much of the world for decades if Stalin had died in 1942.
Can anyone really say that the Cubans were better off under Batista's murderous fascist regime than
under Castro's communist one? At least Castro didn't have death squads killing Cuban civilians
(something that did exist in all US-backed fascist regimes across Latin America), plus
Cuba has good medical care and the highest literacy rate in the world (99.8%, higher than Canada
or the US) as well as an excellent education system. And the Sandanistas in Nicaragua won two
free and fair elections in the 1980s and 1990s (so said countries like Canada, the UK, France,
Australia and others...but what do they know about democracy?) after the Sandanistas agreed to
turn the country into a democracy.
There are rare cases where dictatorship can serve as a better form of government than the
alternative - not the best form, but the best isn't always available. In many Latin American
countries, the US often supported fascist governments that murdered democratic opposition movements,
forcing the opposition to turn to communism and Soviet support as the only alternative.
The Cambodians were grateful when the Vietnamese communists came in and killed off the Khmer Rouge
regime. Since the late 1970s, both Cambodia and Vietnam have rebounded and flourished both socially
and economically after the mass murders of their populations.
Edit:
No, I read books. I know it's not a popular pastime these days (since around 1980), but I
still do it.
|
| |
 K9  26 Oct 2009 17:16
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As long as it isn't me. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
