Targeted assassinations - What is the difference?

Question

When Americans ask questions about having an ELECTED leader of another country assassinated because they perceive them as a threat, how is that different from members of those countries doing the same?

Mind you there was a plane heading for the Whitehouse on Sep. 11, the US HAS in fact carried out such assassinations in the past and tried and failed other times (BTW I thought that's how terrorists operated)

I am NOT talking about Saddam and yes the US has claimed to not carry out political assassinations ANY MORE but what if another country is just getting started, they don't automatically renounce it because the US does, they hold the US as an example who used it in the past.

On the terrorist aspect: According my Oxford dictionary a terrorist is "one who uses terrorism in the pursuit of POLITICAL aims". By that definition, which I believe in, assassinating a country's leader is an act of terrorism - the scale does not make it terrorism, it is the act

Answer 1

In my opinion there is absolutely no difference between having an elected leader of a country assasinated and citizens of that country doing the same. Both are carried out for political reasons.

The U.S. has in fact carried out many such targeted assassinations, and carried out many more attempts. Most notable of the assassinations would be that of Auguste Pinochet of Chile. Most notable of attempted assassinations would be the many attempts made by the U.S. to kill Fidel Castro. Somehow these were supposed to be OK because they were carried out in order to remove a bad ruler. But if another nation attempts to assassinate the U.S. President because it believes the President is a tyrant this is said to be wrong. I see no difference.

No nation should engage in (or encourage) the assassination of any other national leader, whether that leader was elected or not. Such an action is supposed to be against international law -- a law which the United States helped enact. I personally don't care whether it is the United States or Iraq sponsoring such an act, it should be condemned by the entire international community, and punished accordingly.

Answer 2

As you know very well, there is nothing fair about the way our government works.

Whether or not it is actually true, we seemed to have proven to the world over and over again that we are imperialists, and that what we think is more important than what they think.

BTW, there are some excellent theories that say that 9-11 was an inside job. I would say I believe them, but the evidence is quite strong.

Citizens of a country government by an oppressive ruler (North Korea) simply can't assassinate Kim Jong Il. And even if they did, some other ***hole would take his place. If they assassinated HIM, then another ***hole would take his place.

I can only hope some country will have the courage to assassinate that bastard some time in the future.

I personally think we should move our troops out of Iraq and into N. Korea for that reason.

Answer 3

9/11 was not another country attempting an assassination or were you just not paying attention. Since the US adopted the philosophy of not engaging in assassination of other world leaders who have we assassinated? If you are referring to Saddam he was executed by due process. Tried in an Iraqi court, with an Iraqi judge for violating Iraqi laws and was executed on Iraqi gallows quite possibly built by Saddam himself. The laws he violated and the sentence he received had been around long before Saddam and George Bush ever came to power. You would be correct in that is how terrorists operated which is why on 9/11 we referred to the hijackers as "terrorists". Grab some old news clips from 9/11 and watch them, it should clear things up for ya. It was not a foreign government taking out a hit on the US president. As for the US assassinating other world leaders, I'm going to need some names and dates, both of the leader and the assassin.

To answer your first question. There is no difference. This is why we adopted the no assassinate policy. Our congressmen did not want to die. Even if our leaders are assassinated we would not change our policy. We would however, demand the leader who ordered the hit surrender for prosecution. If he refused there would be millitary action to pressure that government into surrendering him and he would be taken into custody. Terrorism uses fear. Its main purpose is to instill fear, terror, in order to gain political attention, position or to make a point usually politically motivated. If the motive is more of a personal nature there are other names for those crimes.

Answer 4

It's the difference between surgery with a scalpel versus a chainsaw. If the terrorists had just but a bullet in a single target's head, the backlash wouldn't have been nearly what it was after 9/11.

The messiest of political assassinations take out a room full of people at most, and all of them are in direct company of the target, not miles away.

The biggest difference is choice of targets. A political assassination removes a political leader from the game. Terrorism is almost always against people that have nothing to do with politics. It's their way of "motivating" the political types to acquiesce to their demands.

Answer 5

I will do my best to answer this. Targeted assassinations usually is a silly phrase. Its a euphemism meant to dilute the impact of the statement "official murder. All assassins have targets.

I believe that this term evolved during the Viet Nam war. When certain groups or rank of persons were made the target of assassinations. The Viet Minh, Viet Cong, the Pathet Lao and ARVN special units made a habit of assassinating village and hamlet mayors who held belief and belief systems nonconcurrent to that particular side's stated political philosophy. It sure reduces the cost of municipal elections.

So one can say that a targeted assassination occurred because the victim belonged to a rank or held a certain post within the opposition societal matrix.

Answer 6

terrorists have nothing to loose
we voted for a strong leader
we got one
next time we vote for what a condi or a religious nut
time to change the system
time to bring in the army/navy /air core
time for a worrier to bring peace
time to clean out the big buisness lobby
clean up health and the joke we call medicine for proffit
time for trained leaders ,not pol-lie tics