The Kennedys assassinations

[Narmer]

I just finished reading a book and watching some documentaries on the Kennedys assassinations. It seems like they went to great lengths to try to kill Castro and got involved with a lot of unsavory characters with their own ideas and may have turned the tables on the brothers. The person that killed RFK may have had a different agenda but RFK was no MLK or Ghandi, as history wants to portray them. While tragic for the nation, it's hard to feel bad for these men when they were ordering the killings of foreign leaders in their comfy chair, burgandy desk in the White House or the Justice Department. The next minute they're dead. If you play with fire, you're going to get hurt.

 

[Anarchist420]

okay.

 

[NeoV]

to quote the classic movie "Billy Madison"...

Mr. Narmer, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[nonlnear]

We need more willingness to order assassinations, instead of ordering full scale wars. Fewer assassinations to be sure, but more willingness to acknowledge the benefit of keeping all tactics on the table.

I think it's much easier to justify an assassination than a war, but we have apparently entered into a strange bizarro-world wherein we are supposed to believe that deadly force is only justifiable if we put thousands of lives on the line and use tactics that create significant risk of collateral damage.

 

[Narmer]

to quote the classic movie "Billy Madison"...

Mr. Narmer, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

OK, let me simplify it for you. If you kill for any reason, there is no reason why you should not expect to receive similar treatment. Your title does not protect you and neither do your fans. Karma has a knack for irony.

 

[Narmer]

We need more willingness to order assassinations, instead of ordering full scale wars. Fewer assassinations to be sure, but more willingness to acknowledge the benefit of keeping all tactics on the table.

I think it's much easier to justify an assassination than a war, but we have apparently entered into a strange bizarro-world wherein we are supposed to believe that deadly force is only justifiable if we put thousands of lives on the line and use tactics that create significant risk of collateral damage.

Wars stimulate the economy. Seriously, just because you assassinate one person does not mean everyone else will fall into line. It can easily backfire.

 

[nonlnear]

Wars stimulate the economy. Seriously, just because you assassinate one person does not mean everyone else will fall into line. It can easily backfire.

I know it's not the right tactic 99% of the time. I am NOT advocating widespread use of assassination as a foreign policy tool. However occasionally it makes a lot of sense.

 

[her209]

OK, let me simplify it for you. If you kill for any reason, there is no reason why you should not expect to receive similar treatment. Your title does not protect you and neither do your fans. Karma has a knack for irony.

Water boarding... rendition... indefinite detention... just wait until those come back to bite us in our collective ass.

 

[wwswimming]

2 good books about the JFK assassination -

http://www.amazon.com/Trail-Assassin.../dp/094178102X

by New Orleans District Attorney James Garrison. His Conclusion - the US government was involved.

http://www.amazon.com/Final-Judgment.../dp/0974548405

by Michael Collins Piper. His Conclusion - Israel was also involved.

4 ways JFK pissed off the business establishment -
* in 1963 he ordered Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to stop work on nuclear weapons.
* his lack of support for the Vietnam War
* his conflict with the CIA, and his initial overtures to regulate them
* his conflict with the Federal Reserve, and his initial overtures to regulate them

1 way JFK pissed off the Texas establishment -
* forcing civil rights legislation upon Texas. "We hated JFK" - succinctly stated by an old woman from Texas I asked about the mood in Texas in 1963.


there is a shortage of material on the RFK assassination. his assassination was likely part of the clean-up operation after the JFK assassination. if elected President, the likelihood that RFK would re-open the investigation into his brother's death was about 100%.


and then there's the official conspiracy theory - that failed Marine Lee Harvey Oswald, who was known for being a terrible marksman, somehow fired the shot of the century from the Texas Schoolbook Depository.

 

[Moonbeam]

We need more willingness to order assassinations, instead of ordering full scale wars. Fewer assassinations to be sure, but more willingness to acknowledge the benefit of keeping all tactics on the table.

I think it's much easier to justify an assassination than a war, but we have apparently entered into a strange bizarro-world wherein we are supposed to believe that deadly force is only justifiable if we put thousands of lives on the line and use tactics that create significant risk of collateral damage.

There are just wars, there are no just murders.

 

[shira]

I think the Kennedys had something to do with the 9/11 conspiracy, the Climate-Change conspiracy, and counterfeiting Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate. They were decades ahead of their time.

 

[nonlnear]

There are just wars, there are no just murders.

I never said anything about justice, only the good practical sense of not ruling out any particular tactics, especially high precision tactics. And most of the time, "just" wars are nothing of the sort. It's usually just a spoonful of rhetoric to help the guilt go down. If you can swallow it for a generation, then you might just be in the clear...

Forgive me for bringing up the favorite forum punching bag, but in this case it is appropriate. How do you feel about the assassination attempts on Hitler? Would it have been just to assassinate him without declaring war? What is so morally significant about a declaration of war anyways?

Furthermore, I'm surprised to see you writing anything so trite. What is the moral difference between saying "We will use 50000 men to kill (hopefully) hundreds of thousands of your citizens." and "We will use five men to kill one or two of you." There are times when assassination can be justified by all the tests of just war. The only difference is the volume of blood. In the (admittedly rare) cases where an assassination could avoid a war, how can you possibly claim that the one that requires fewer deaths, maimings, rapes, disfigurements, and orphans is the immoral choice?

 

[bamacre]

Wars stimulate the economy.

Yes, spending our resources on bombs, tanks, fighter jets, etc., instead of things like houses, computers, TV's, and health care, is just a great idea.

 

[bamacre]

This guy has offered the best research I've seen on the JFK assassination...
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77

 

[her209]

Forgive me for bringing up the favorite forum punching bag, but in this case it is appropriate. How do you feel about the assassination attempts on Hitler? Would it have been just to assassinate him without declaring war? What is so morally significant about a declaration of war anyways?

Well, it depends. Do you believe in "due process"?

 

[nonlnear]

Well, it depends. Do you believe in "due process"?

This leads to a lot of interesting questions...

Are you asserting that a formal declaration of war is an important part of the "due process" needed to justify the military (including the CIA or other covert agencies) taking one (or ten thousand) lives? How do you feel about "police actions"? Does a the formality of a declaration of war (as opposed to the authorization of a police action) affect the morality of such military actions?

Furthermore, where do you draw the line between the legislature's prerogative to circumvent the other governmental branches' roles in the process of due process? There is clearly such a prerogative in times of war, while in times of peace there is clearly no role for it (at least domestically). But what about times of peace that include specific developing foreign threats? If the 9/11 plots had been totally uncovered in their infancy, what would you think of assassinations of the leadership of Al Qaeda prior to any attacks (given what we know now about their capacity to execute the plan), if capture were impractical (which I think is a reasonable hypothetical given the prospect of arresting somebody in the backwoods of Afghanistan!)?

My only point was that the issues surrounding assassination are not all that simple. These questions are always pragmatic issues, and as such no option should be totally removed from the discussion.

 

[Moonbeam]

nonlnear: I never said anything about justice, only the good practical sense of not ruling out any particular tactics, especially high precision tactics. And most of the time, "just" wars are nothing of the sort.

M: OK, But I did bring up justice. Also, the fact that there are unjust wars that are called just wars does not mean that some other war may be just.

n: It's usually just a spoonful of rhetoric to help the guilt go down. If you can swallow it for a generation, then you might just be in the clear...

M: Of course. As I said in my recent thread, everybody has the best of motivations. Nobody fights an unjust war calling it that.

n: Forgive me for bringing up the favorite forum punching bag, but in this case it is appropriate. How do you feel about the assassination attempts on Hitler?

M: No dice. If you assassinate Hitler you simply say that murder is OK if you do it but not if he does.

n: Would it have been just to assassinate him without declaring war? What is so morally significant about a declaration of war anyways?

M: It's not assassination if you are at war, it's war.

n: Furthermore, I'm surprised to see you writing anything so trite.

M: Trite doesn't bother me if trite is right, but I don't think my point of view is really even trite.

n: What is the moral difference between saying "We will use 50000 men to kill (hopefully) hundreds of thousands of your citizens." and "We will use five men to kill one or two of you."

M: 49,998 to 49,999 lives I guess. But in a just war the aim isn't to kill civilians, is it? But ask yourself this. If a people allow themselves to be dictated to in such a way they can have a leader who threatens the lives of millions, are their lives not up for grabs? Do not the people of countries have a moral responsibility for those the allow to have power? It might be better if they have a revolution if the alternative is extermination, no?

n: There are times when assassination can be justified by all the tests of just war.

M: Then it would be war, no?

n: The only difference is the volume of blood. In the (admittedly rare) cases where an assassination could avoid a war, how can you possibly claim that the one that requires fewer deaths, maimings, rapes, disfigurements, and orphans is the immoral choice?

M: Not only rare, but also likely your own leader rather than theirs, for I am sure the other sees us like we see them, monsters.

Please do not be pragmatic on my account and kill in my name and for my sake. I would rather die with dignity then live as a murderer. There is only one thing a person can have of any value and that's self respect.

 

[nonlnear]

nonlnear: I never said anything about justice, only the good practical sense of not ruling out any particular tactics, especially high precision tactics. And most of the time, "just" wars are nothing of the sort.

M: OK, But I did bring up justice. Also, the fact that there are unjust wars that are called just wars does not mean that some other war may be just.

Yes, but then be careful with the term "war", especially when it might seem that you are using it as an abbreviation for "just war". More on that later...

n: Forgive me for bringing up the favorite forum punching bag, but in this case it is appropriate. How do you feel about the assassination attempts on Hitler?

M: No dice. If you assassinate Hitler you simply say that murder is OK if you do it but not if he does.

n: Would it have been just to assassinate him without declaring war? What is so morally significant about a declaration of war anyways?

M: It's not assassination if you are at war, it's war.

But here you seem to be going in a slightly divergent spiral. (If it were circular logic, it would be slightly better, as I'll explain.) You seem ot only grant some moral deference to jsut wars, but now you are setting aside the category of war as something separate from murder. How is an unjust war morally different from murder? (I understand it's clearly different legally, but the law is not about morality anyways, so that's a non sequitur.)

n: Furthermore, I'm surprised to see you writing anything so trite.

M: Trite doesn't bother me if trite is right, but I don't think my point of view is really even trite.

Fair enough, but in the brevity I think an important distinction is lost. It seems (at a glance at least, which is all that your word choice allowed) that you are asserting a clear moral demarcation between murder (including assassination) and all wars. But then you go on to make the just/unjust distinction, even admitting that you don't think most wars are just. I can't help but wonder what exactly then you think the moral difference is between murder and all of those unjust wars?

n: What is the moral difference between saying "We will use 50000 men to kill (hopefully) hundreds of thousands of your citizens." and "We will use five men to kill one or two of you."

M: 49,998 to 49,999 lives I guess. But in a just war the aim isn't to kill civilians, is it?

The same could be said of many assassinations (and specifically the vast majority of those assassinations that I assert might be justifiable - which still is not many).

But ask yourself this. If a people allow themselves to be dictated to in such a way they can have a leader who threatens the lives of millions, are their lives not up for grabs? Do not the people of countries have a moral responsibility for those the allow to have power? It might be better if they have a revolution if the alternative is extermination, no?

Maybe, but that is often just another flavor of murder. Possibly justifiable in a sense, but it's seeming harder and harder to hold the "assassination is murder, war is war" dichotomy.

n: There are times when assassination can be justified by all the tests of just war.

M: Then it would be war, no?

Now I'm wondering what you take to be your definition of war. If it's not declared and there is no mobilization or engagement is it a war just because there is justification? I thought you were implying that it wasn't, but now I'm not sure.

n: The only difference is the volume of blood. In the (admittedly rare) cases where an assassination could avoid a war, how can you possibly claim that the one that requires fewer deaths, maimings, rapes, disfigurements, and orphans is the immoral choice?

M: Not only rare, but also likely your own leader rather than theirs, for I am sure the other sees us like we see them, monsters.

Yes, but that's a risk of being a head of state. A head of state is a military target whether the pleasantries of the UN admit that obvious fact or not.

Please do not be pragmatic on my account and kill in my name and for my sake. I would rather die with dignity then live as a murderer. There is only one thing a person can have of any value and that's self respect.

I agree for the most part, but the world is too messy a place to base one's global relations policy on over-reduced ethics. Just and unjust wars don't differ in their ghastliness, and if a just war could be prevented by one or two "unjust" murders, then there might be room in the many shades of gray to say that the world is better for it. Again, I don't think this kind of scenario is common, so I'm not advocating frequent assassinations. I'm just saying it is entirely conceivable, so one ought not to preclude the option just because it complicates one's ethics.

 

[sapiens74]

to quote the classic movie "billy madison"...

Mr. Narmer, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things i have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

whoopdie doo!

 

[lothar]

This guy has offered the best research I've seen on the JFK assassination...
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobharris77

Interesting.
Highly recommended for everyone to watch all 9 episodes on the assasination.

 

[sportage]

O M G ..... I own a burgandy desk. Oh shit!!!!

 

[Moonbeam]

Everybody justifies what they do as the right thing to do. Nobody kills anybody who doesn't deserve to die in the mind of the killer. Because we can and will justify anything we can never justify doing to somebody else we don't want done to us. If you don't want to be assassinated or have your side experience it, you have to put it beyond any tool you will reach for too. If there are exceptions then you will also be one.

War is justified when you have an enemy who can and intends to attack you. This intention must be real and not a projection of what one feels. It's a simple thing so I would decline to argue this out in the abstract or hypothetical.

 

[al981]

paging all coincidence theorists. paging all coincidence anti fact nutjobs.

your coincidence theories and attacks from left field are needed to dodge more truth videos.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Water boarding... rendition... indefinite detention... just wait until those come back to bite us in our collective ass.

How exactly is this going to bite us in the ass?

Which nations will be doing the biting which haven't already engaged (or are in engaged) in the same acts in one form or another?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

We need more willingness to order assassinations, instead of ordering full scale wars. Fewer assassinations to be sure, but more willingness to acknowledge the benefit of keeping all tactics on the table.

I think it's much easier to justify an assassination than a war, but we have apparently entered into a strange bizarro-world wherein we are supposed to believe that deadly force is only justifiable if we put thousands of lives on the line and use tactics that create significant risk of collateral damage.

LoLz so assassinations do not lead to wars?