Senate Is there a moral basis for assassinations?

Because Al-Qaeda isn't a government. Governments can carry out assassinations as valid. Terrorist groups can do no action that is valid other than surrender and disband. To say that terrorists can have a valid action legitimizes them.

 

What part of being a government makes its actions valid?

 

What happens when a country elects terrorist groups to a position of power in government?

Are they legitimate then?

 

The fact that it's a government and therefore actions are done by a legitimate faction. Terrorist groups are illegitimate.

Yes of course.

 

So, what makes a government legitimate?

 

A monopoly on the legitimate use of force within territorial borders is a major part of the definition of modern states.

 

International recognition of sovereignty over a specific territory. If tomorrow the UN carved out on the map Al-Quaedastan then they would be a government and I would consider their attacks valid and done by a legitimate faction. I would still hate the attacks and want them killed and defeated however.

 

So its legitimate because it's the government because governments are legitimate.

Also known as circular reasoning.

 

No governments are legitimate if most other governments accept them as legitimate. Declaring yourself to be a government is not enough, enough nations must recognize you as one.

 

So then why should we be concerned with Israel, even though it's not a legitimate government? And if you decide that it's legitimate, how is "wanting them killed" a valid response? I mean, at the end of a war, we don't execute everyone on the other side.

 

Israel isn't a legitimate government? News to me and most nations...

And by wanting them killed I would say the same thing about Nazi Germany. Killed until they lose the ability to wage or carry out attacks.

 

You're pretty well arguing for bloodlust here rather than arguing for neutralization of any powers.

And there's over a billion people that live in the countries that don't consider Israel legitimate, or are we requiring a majority + 1 thing here? For how long were the Israelis illegitimate terrorists before they transitioned into the legitimate terrorists we know and love today?

 

Lowbacca, a wide majority of nations consider Israel to be legitimate. They constitute both a super-majority of the world's population and of the nation-states on Earth. No one has said that a significant minority can invalidate the legitimacy of a country. You keep trying to imply that, but no one is endorsing it. His given criteria would still allow Israel to qualify as a state. Easily.

 

Yes, typically when attacked you want the other side to die and be defeated, preferably defeated to the point they can't attack again.

Really so most countries don't think Israel is a real nation? Well I know my country does, and therefore I do. And most of Europe does. And most countries who don't see Israel as a nation were beaten by Israel. And yes all countries at one point were 'illegitimate' they became legitimate by defeating their foes in war and therefore becoming legitimate. Like with the United Provinces and the Union of Utrecht or the USA and the Treaty of Paris. The Arab countries had the chance to put down the Israelis when they had the chance, the failed

So to be a legitimate government you can either have other countries recognize you, or make them recognize you by war. Either way Israel is a nation and will be a nation, preferably for a very long time.

 

The last question there is still open.

 

Um. General, it's not that I wish to suggest this is wrong, it's just... Hassan i-Sabbah dude. History. Learn from it.

And also, no, it doesn't. Assassination is and will always be immoral. Therefore it's not moralised in the context of a state allowing it.

In your example, you're actually pretty damned comfy in the Russian government assassinating Litvinenko with polonium because, hey! Government baby!

 

There were illegitimate until the UN said Israel was a nation and the Arab countries were defeated.

And I say your wrong.

Assassination is preferable to me than warfare. Tell me which is more moral. Hiring a man to put a silencer on his pistol, walk up behind a man and kill him? Or sending in thousands of soldiers, burning cities, and ruining a country to get that same man out of power? I'd take the silenced pistol every day and sleep like a baby each night.

And I say Russia had the right to kill Livinenko, should they have? No, but I'm not the Russian government.

 

The countries Israel went to war with: Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Of those 5, Egypt and Jordan do acknowledge Israel. The other countries that don't span 4 continents. Most aren't Arab. I'd also ask how this fits into how a majority of nations also recognize the state of Palestine, a country that Israel refuses to acknowledge, and currently occupies based on any borders one would consider Palestine to have.

 

That's because the Palestinians have yet to beat the Isarelis and take it. It wouldn't matter if all of Europe recognized the USA if Britain had beaten us. If you want to be a legitimate country, the country that currently controls you has to admit it.

 

Dear lord that's a dark and fascistic place you live in.

It is immoral in any context. It's not a case of preferable to warfare; you are basically saying it's a necessary evil whilst simultaneously indulging in your well documented revenge fantasies.

Assassins are evil people. They may serve a nobler cause than their base evil, but don't kid yourself. It's a necessary evil. An evil for the greater good. Something about road to hell being paved with the bricks of good intention.

Finally, seriously. Hassan i-Sabbah. What do you call it when you recruit young men to your palatial gardens at Firdous e Bareen, drug them, tell them they've got a holy purpose to kill people and let them loose? Historically the term has been "assassins", but that might not fit your fantasies so YMMV.

Sounds a bit like what a terrorist would do too, but you know. I tend not to worry about black operations as sometimes they're a necessary evil.

I would suggest you read up on i-Sabbah so you can, after being confronted with new information, ignore it to retain your earlier position.

Nothing is true; everything is permitted.

 

So, the state of Palestine is illegitmate as long as Israel says they don't exist, no matter how many other countries say they DO, and they only way they can exist is to defeat Israel, but Israel can use assassinations because it acknowledges itself, but Palestine can't because Israel doesn't recognise it?

 

The world is a very dark and dangerous place.

Of course it is a necessary evil, most actions are. There are very few 'good' actions to take. But a government that only does 'good' does not last. And I expect my government to do necessary evils to protect me. Revenge fantasies to you, logical reaction to me. Personally I find anyone who doesn't want to kill and defeat his enemy in wartime to be questionable in terms of their mental faculties.

And yes I know of the Hashashin, but do you honestly think all assassins are like that? This isn't Assassins Creed. Most 'assassins' have not been drugged and raised from birth to be killing machines. Most are just given money to shoot a guy or blow up his car.

And yes, black ops are most certainly a necessary evil.

And there are some truths, and there are some things that are not permitted. But that does not mean they musn't be done. Government must sacrifice their own morality for the good and security of their people. That is the sacrifice of leadership, giving not only your life but your soul.

Yes, because Israel controls it. You can't be a legitimate government if you are occupied. And yes Israel may use assassinations because they are a legitimate government. Palestine is not, they could've been but they blew their chances with their hissy fit back in 48, so too bad for them.

 

Okay, there's a tiny amount of truth in there, but that is not a view that you should hold in general. You could argue that America survived throughout the decades because it was strong and that might be true to a certain extent, but if you use that to come to the conclusion that it's a "kill or be killed" world, well that's messed up because you're basically calling for a return to barbarism.

 

No, General, but it's good that you learned of them from the games (which proved the assassins were evil by going up against the good guys in the third game). Some of us knew about them before that.

The point was, assassination originated outside of the state and you made a clearly insipid argument by stating the state are the only ones who make it ok. When the CIA engaged in a campaign of terrorism against the Castro regime, did that make terrorism ok?

 

Assassination is immoral, yes. But when assassination of a single or few people can prevent the deaths of thousands and millions, then yes, there is a reason to carry out/sanction assassinations: to save many other lives. It still means that action is immoral but it doesn't mean it shouldn't occur. I'd rather one small evil than a mammoth evil.

On the legitimacy of governments: to become legitimate states must have widely recognised sovereignty over a defined territory with a defined population. Palestine is a nation sure, but it is a nation within a state, the sovereign state of Israel. This is similar to Taiwan being a nation but not a state, as it is part of the People's Republic of China.

Finally I wonder what people think of state terrorism. The US won't admit it even exists due to the fear of being labelled such itself. Israel is a state terrorist and Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. What does everyone think? Do you agree that state terrorism exists?