Katrina wrote:Posts here confuse me: they both assume that assassination hasn't been used widely for the period 1945-2008 and that it is somehow an ethical question.
No one here ever implied that assassinations don't happen, and assuming it isn't an ethical issue just because the government does it is absolutely absurd. Is what the American government doing at Guantanamo Bay ethical? How about torturing captives? Or do you mean to say that government actions are inherently neither ethical nor unethical?
TheKrikkitWars wrote:The emotional investiture of seeing what this does to people, seeing the destruction, and experiencing That Smell, it makes it hard not to bring emotion into it. That is all
Seriously, this is ridiculous. Drop this, or take it elsewhere.
Steve Zissou wrote:I'd like to think that assassination is more of a targeted approach, and generally seeks to avoid such a decapitation strike, or collateral damage that you speak of. While the different degrees of murder account for varying degrees of premeditation, I'd like to think that an assassination is always a methodical, premeditated act. That being said, why would it not be in your interests to plan to reduce, if not completely eliminate, collateral damage? If we assume that collateral damage is a part of assassination, are we to consider something like a suicide attack as assassination? While the person has the intent to kill a specific figure, there are also other lives at risk - and ultimately, I think reducing, if not eliminating collateral damage is an important distinction between a [mass] murder and assassination.
Yes, ideally an assassination has no collateral damage. But you're dangerously close to going down the same path as Krikkit did. To reiterate, an assassination is defined by intent, not result. Claiming otherwise would lead me to believe that you are either consumed with sentiment, or
so conceited that
you think you can change the dictionary however you please. This is really getting frustrating (no offense.)