Jump to content

CIA Assassinations


Clyde

CIA Assassinations: Cool or Not Cool  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. CIA Assassinations: Cool or Not Cool

    • I'm cool with them
    • I'm NOT cool with them


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am almost totally OK with how Mossad has operated in the past, I would have no problem if we have/do operate the same way...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God

 

Israel sent a message. But, like I said above, when you have group where its primary or only mission is assignation it can get out of hand. And it apparently did when there was an accidental 'collateral' killing . And some blow back against its people from Black September. If they had hit the top tier and left it at that it may have been more effective.

 

Its a dirty, but sometimes necessary tool. But one to use very sparingly and should not be open 'policy'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that are cool with it (I'm in that camp) what is your logic? Essentially we're saying its OK to murder someone who hasn't threatened the country.

 

How do we rationalize it?

 

I would guess it would be similar to the rationalization from the atomic bombs dropped on Japan--"Despite the massive losses incurred in those attacks, they actually saved tens of thousands of lives by ending the war"??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you not? How would it be ok for us to do and not expect other nations to do the same? :idunno:

 

How do we know they haven't already?? You don't really believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?? :rolleyes:

 

And by the way--Remember the fourth 9/11 plane WAS headed back to Washington??

Edited by StickerMann
add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winner winner. You rolled right into my line of thinking. In the book I'm reading by Vince Flynn called "Term Limits" a group of former SEALS kills off 4 senators who they see as corrupt and causing harm to the country due to, in their opinion, the proclivity for outrageous spending. Their view is that these senators are no different than a foreign dictator that the CIA would take out in order to further the cause of the US or to prevent potential future harm/terrorism to the US.

 

While reading it I was thinking that with today's hostility towards govt being worse than I ever recall it and the rhetoric on both sides being so ugly that someone is going to use this rationale to take out a US political leader.

 

It made me question my belief that its cool to assassinate a foreign leader. I'm having trouble rationalizing my initial thought.

 

Some might argue that's about 96 short of reality?? :D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God

 

Israel sent a message. But, like I said above, when you have group where its primary or only mission is assignation it can get out of hand. And it apparently did when there was an accidental 'collateral' killing . And some blow back against its people from Black September. If they had hit the top tier and left it at that it may have been more effective.

 

Its a dirty, but sometimes necessary tool. But one to use very sparingly and should not be open 'policy'.

 

Very familiar with Mossad's mistakes as well as success. Even with Israel's mistakes, they are a good example of how a country can protect itself against all odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God

 

Israel sent a message. But, like I said above, when you have group where its primary or only mission is assignation it can get out of hand. And it apparently did when there was an accidental 'collateral' killing . And some blow back against its people from Black September. If they had hit the top tier and left it at that it may have been more effective.

 

Its a dirty, but sometimes necessary tool. But one to use very sparingly and should not be open 'policy'.

 

I don't think the Munich situation is quite the same. In that instance, I think Israel could be justified by the loss of Israeli lives. I may have misunderstood the intention, but I was considering assassinations that are basically unprovoked other than by the fear that said leader might do something in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a fine line, but had somebody assassinated Hitler before 1939 there might be several million people alive today who aren't?

 

Might be...that's the problem. There's no guarantee. Hitler was quite popular in 1939. An assassination of him could have just as easily escalated things. There's no way to know, but it's wrong to assume everything would have gone back to normal had he been eliminated. It's more likely, IMO, that one of the fanatics under him would have stepped up, probably with more support from the German population (after their leader had been assassinated by another country), and with more reason to wage war. And, worse, they might have prosecuted the war in a more effective and efficient manner.

 

It could just have easily resulted in more loss of life than actually occurred, in addition to continental Europe being German territory to this day. We're wrong to assume best-case scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask why you're OK with the US being involved in assassinations? I could guess but I don't want to assume. We all have our reasons.

 

Because I feel that the most important thing for any country is to protect themselves and do whatever is necessary to ensure success. If that means you have to eliminate certain people who may possess a threat to you, then so be it.

 

Almost always reverts back to Darwinism with me...Survival of the Fittest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.