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...

For those that are cool with it, I'd assume you are cool with are president being assassinated as well?

 

Like the man said "leaders that are deemed bad for the USA" so................................................

I like the one where the CIA agent lost his memory and the CIA sends out Assassins to stop him. I have all three movies and repeat them a lot.

 

But do you have the original in that collection?

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'.

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"??

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??

 

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

Edited August 10, 201016 yr by StickerMann
add

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

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.

edit

I don't mind the killing of folks who need killing!

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.

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.

BTW, who knows the origin of the word assassin? If you don't, you should look it up. It's pretty interesting.

BTW, who knows the origin of the word assassin? If you don't, you should look it up. It's pretty interesting.

 

I seemed to have read it in a Dan Brown book but will have to look it up again.

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.