-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/is-it-ever-okay-to-assassinate-foreign.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
This is so stupid on so many levels.
And the legal argument doesn't work with me. There are some things more important the the niceties of legality like genocide.
Now answer my question: You think it's all right for millions of people to live under oppression than to not assassinate a brutal leader because it's not legal?
You need to get your priorities in order.
I just think it's interesting you think it's better to not assassinate one worthless human being than end the oppression of millions of people. Just goes to show what kind of priorities you have.
Weasel away.
As I say, is your real name actually John Yoo?
,***ypical***
Why don't you go over to North Korea and spend a few years of your life there or in one of their many concentration camps and tell me killing a brutal leader is not all right.
Kill the North Korean brutal leadership, or let millions of people starve. If killing someone saves millions of life then you kill them.
Unfortunately, it is the way of the world. Regretable, yes, but as Kissinger calls it Real Politics. We have a ways to go before this isn't true if it ever will be. Of course, killing is wrong, but there is far more wrong with this world than just killing and many of those wrongs result indirectly in death anyway. You have to act on what you believe in.
I'm appalled that there are so many liberals who would allow brutal oppression for the sake of not killing someone whose life is worthless. It is almost as bad as conservatives who want to install brutal dictators like Pinochet.
Then, right after Obama's SURGE in Afghanistan, we can get him and all of his.
//snark//
There is your world, and then there is real world.
Well I could give a shit about moral lines. I think morals and religious values are stupid. I believe in ethics not morals. Moreover you are not crossing an ethical line by killing a brutal leader. In fact if you have it in your power to end the oppression of millions by assassinating someone and you don't then you have committed an unethical act by inaction.
With ethics there is no slippery slope; it is all about weighing interests and doing things within reason for the overall good. There are no bright lines or hard and fast rules like there is with morals.
The adage "violence begets violence" applies as does the danger of becoming what we presumably despise (or at least say we're fighting against). As has been said, in most cases, it's the system and wider society/social conditions that are making for the problem (and assassination may not work and may even backfire), but with the "ever" modifier in there it's hard to rule out. Still we should be very reticent on violence for the host of evils it brings on its targets and its purveyors. People are right to take a strong stance against decapitating foreign leaders, but should at least consider reasoning for it.
You talk tough enough, so are you on your way down to your local military recruiting station? We might need help with the possible civil war that results from the assassination and we are otherwise tapped out of troops fighting pointlessly in Iraq. Hey, it might not come to that, but I'd feel more comfortable with you in the ready (just in case).
You people are ignorant. Not all Nations are the same. Each one is different. I was a against the Iraq War because there country was so divided along ethnic and religious lines. It's not like that in Zibabwe.
Moreover, you are willing to let millions of people live under oppression for the sake of your misguided principles.
Does calling me a "little man" make you feel better that you can't come up with an intelligent response? Ad hominems are the first sign of a losing argument.
You've at least made arguments in this thread; but your derision of other people doesn't serve your arguments anymore than smiling_dog's has his.
In the cuckoo environment in which many of the leaders of social conservatives and militaristic hawks in power are surrounded, assassination sentiment isn't so radical, one just is not supposed to say it publicly. The placating to religious fundamentalism will be culled for conservatism to survive. Their uncouthness is now fatal to too much of the population. Many of the most strident militarists carrying out (and influencing) policy were behind the scenes in the 50s-60s, and they'll be back in the closet in the future. Which isn't to say there's accountability or change in agenda; it's merely strategy.
Only if you want to become like the people you are killing. Frankly, this is the kind of question a Republican would entertain. We are better than that.
That said, I strongly agree with your statement that we (risk) become(ing) that which we say we're fighting. First principles, principles first.
In that case, there are a couple of questions you have to ask:
-- Where DO you draw the line? How bad is "bad enough"? Is killing 100,000 of his own people enough, but killing 99,999 isn't? Or is it 50,000 and 49,999? And how do you count? And do you count "allowing" them to die, e.g., by malign neglect, the same as active butchery? And where do you draw THAT line? Who pleads the case that, even if millions died from, say, disease or starvation, the leader didn't do "enough" not to be killed by the self-anointed forces of righteousness?
What about our own leaders? Would Bush or Cheney qualify for the Iraq war? Would Truman qualify, given the historical debate over whether the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were militarily necessary? Should our standard for dispatching avenging angels be dependent on our own behavior? Or if not, should said avenging angels target our own leaders when they cross the line? And in that case, who dispatches them? The Federal Reserve?
Finally, and probably most practically, what do we do when other countries retaliate using their own standards? Pretty soon every country on the planet is in the business of knocking off each others' heads of government, and where does THAT get us?
It's illegal and it should stay illegal, just like torture. That inhibits its use. And if and when there really are situations where the president decides s/he's gonna send in the sharpshooters in the little rubber boats, the legal barrier is a clear "acid test": if s/he can't do the time, s/he shouldn't do the crime.
Republicans are pro-life from conception to birth. after that it is not so sacred anymore.
However, I'm against the death penalty because it is very impractical, and just causes more harm than good.
The victims, Archduke Franz Ferdinand - heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his wife Sophie, were in the Bosnian city in conjunction with Austrian troop exercises nearby. The couple was returning from an official visit to City Hall. The assassin, 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip burned with the fire of Slavic nationalism. He envisioned the death of the Archduke as the key that would unlock the shackles binding his people to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
------------------------
Gavrilo Princip was convinced he was doing the right thing via assassination.
It is always, always wrong. No one can convince me otherwise.
Two questions:
Assassinating Hitler in 1933: would that be all right?
Are you against all kinds of wars?
It is hypocritical to rail against the crimes of the Bush administration while you harbor the same violence within yourself.
If we are ever to evolve into a peaceful society, the kind of world we all want to live in, we must start by purging the hatred inside. As Gandhi said, you must become the change you wish to see in the world.
Ghandi was also hated black people, so it's no surpise you would quote him in your racist argument to let millions of blacks live under oppression.
There will always be misguided brutal people in this world. There is no way of "evolving" out of that. That is just naive and ignorant. You can live in your fantasy world, but I choose to live in the real world.
I choose differently.
Real world or fantasy??
And that always makes me think of the book The Oxbow Incident. Good read.
And I don't see how a well thought out and executed assassination attempt can be equated to a lynch mob. That was just ignorant.
Inaction is just as bad as the act of killing itself. The results are the same: people die. Only difference is instead of one person dying, millions die.
It's wrong, and I'm embarassed for you that you'd even consider condoning such a thing.
"We" don't run the US government. The people who do run our government HAVE been assassinating foreign leaders for decades - Lumumba comes to mind and so does Diem; Castro and Chavez have been targets.
And when our "leaders" think about fags like you and me, especially uppity fags who get in their way, I don't think they refer to us as "We." The Rule of Law protects the weak. Reigning in the thugs, starting with our own, is in everyone's best interest, except perhaps for Rumsfeld and the CFR.
1. The keystone kops vs. Fidel Castro in the early 60s may well have lead to the death of JFK. No, no tin foil hat here and truly we will never know but it is within the realm of possibility. Certainly the attempts cemented Castro's hold on power within the country.
2. The above mentioned overthrow and assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Certainly his replacement, Joseph Mobutu, was no improvement.
3. Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam. What precisely did we gain by backing Nguyen Van Thieu instead for the next decade (and tens of thousands of dead)?
4. Salvador Allende. Not only brought to power Augusto Pinochet, one of the most brutal and murderous dictators the Americas have ever seen, it inspired one of the rare car-bombings within the United States.
No, even if I could countenance murder "in a good cause" in this case, the expectable end don't even justify the means.
Just as there are some people in the USA that thinks a black man shouldn't be president over good ole white folks, there are some governments out there that think the same way. What would you think if one of them "helped us out" by knocking off OUR President?
But obviously bringing him before the Hague would be an ideal situation.
So, obviously, you call for the assassination of Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, and the entire Joint Chiefs. Or do you have a double-standard to your 'reasoning'?
We as a people should should make policy decisions by weighing the interests of both sides and see what benefits which side the most and to what extent, and conversely to what extent is the opposing side put at a detriment. Using that formula there are situations in which assassination is proper.
Mbeki's government hasn't been out there banning condoms or anything like that, the AIDS policy isn't very effective, but he's not, or hasn't been actively fighting legitimate policies as far as I can tell.
By your logic it would be fine to assassinate any leader of a country with a poor healthcare system, which would by practically by definition cause excess death, or for global warming denialism.
Nope, not OK, no way, no how.
but seriously, no, that's hella stupid.
As for Mbeki, he is the head of state of a functioning democracy. The people of South Africa certainly had means to get rid of him before, but they did not. Assassinating democratically elected leaders seems to be a particularly bad idea, since it damages the structures of democracy in the country in question.
Additionally, the use of political assassination to serve one ideological end legitimizes assassinations by those of other ideological temperaments. I'm sure Bush would have liked to have bumped off Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales.
It's notable how unhelpful the show trial and execution of the undoubtedly odious Saddam Hussein (in essence an assassination) did little to help the people of Iraq.
I am a firm believer in the Golden Rule. For example, we used to not torture other soldiers because the USA was better than that. Now we torture civilians for fun, so we have NO legitimate position to complain when our countrymen, civilian or soldier, is tortured by others.
Since Bush/Cheney have started two illegal wars solely for the profiteering of their GOP pals, causing the murders of tens of thousands of civilians and the forced displacement of millions of other civilians, then, by your logic, a foreign entity has every right to assassinate our nation's Executive Branch? (Attn: Secret Service- I am not advocating or condoning such an act. I am engaging the commenters here in a hypothetical discussion.)
I do not see that as an answer, so I say, no, the US never has any legal or moral right to assassinate the leaders of other nations, ever.
I do advocate for two leaders to challenge each other to single combat, rather than hide behind armies of millions to do the bullet-catching for them. Something like the climax to The Postman, but better...
As far as assassinating foreign leaders..
No it is not ok.
It is a shame that he has been permitted to continue this murderous administration to the point that the people of Zimbabwe who are innocents have died, endured, and undergone this. Mugabe is another Stalin, another Hitler, another Pol Pot. Righteousness is caring for the innocent and the weak, and the people of Zimbabwe are certainly the innocent and the weak.
I don't want to colonize Zimbabwe, just give them a reasonable chance to survive.
a long time and it has an illustrious history. As for the Bible stuff, I
taught Bible School for a while, and while teaching it I did a lot of research
on the origins, the original meanings, teachings and meanings which have been
distorted. I do know there are innocents, as in children, in that country
and they deserve a chance to have a decent life. One has to realize that
replacement of a tyrant in Africa, and any country sometimes just leads to
another one who becomes a monster over time, as well.
I left organized religion after I taught Sunday School and have come to
believe that organized religion is a danger to the spiritual growth as well as
society as a whole. I do, however, think that if Jesus isn't the son of God,
he had some FABULOUS IDEAS, and he spelled out what was a righteous war, and
not a righteous war. Afghanistan was a righteous war, but Iraq was not. I
never believed that going into Iraq should have been done and took terrible
abuse from many people prior to the war.
In a message dated 12/14/2008 12:56:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
writes:
Oh brother (unregistered) wrote, in response to TXfemmom:
Nothing like good ol' Western paternalism and relying on the Bible. That
last sentence is classic, as is the stupid concept that all Zimbabweans are
innocent and weak. You don't know much about "the people of Zimbabwe" or its
history, I am guessing. I love all of this "we have to kill" so-and-so, blah
blah blah, as if killing a single leader will result in some magical
transformation. You pulling the trigger? Keep your Bible-addled brain out of
international affairs. I can't even believe the question of state-sponsored
assassination is even on the table.
Link:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/is-it-ever-o...
--
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at: http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40v...)
Unfortunately, the loudest voices calling for political assasinations and for war are the loudest calling for repeal of Roe v Wade. No consistency at all.
A diplomatic boycott followed by a complete economic boycott (to deny Mugabe the ability to continue bribing his supporters) should have been implemented months, if not years ago. Remove Mubage's ability to pay off his hired guns and he would be out in weeks.
Sorry for asking.
If it's OK for us to take out a Mugabe, or a Saddam, or Kim, then it's OK for someone to take out OUR President. Now, before you say, "great, I wish someone HAD taken out Bush", ask yourself: Are there Israelis who would like to take out Obama? Are there Serbs who would have felt justified in taking out Clinton?
These slippery slope arguments are rather weak. Slippery slope arguments are what stupid people use when they can't come up with anything intelligent to say. It's like when conservative dim wits say "Well if you let the gays get married [not sure why they put an article in front of gays] then you have to allow bestiality. It's a slippery slope." No it's not you're just an idiot.
Furthermore, I think if another country wanted to kill our leader they wouldn't stop and think, "Well W.W.A.D. (what would America do)." No they would just do it, (i.e. Sadaam and Bush 41). That argument is just stupid.
Peace to you.
my position on war is that war is inhumane and as a species, if we don't become more humane, we will annihilate ourselves. therefore, war is not an intelligent option.
There are too many reasons to list them all but as a try.
- Murder is murder is murder. Where do you stop? What about reciprocation?
- It doesn't work. Those leaders don't exist in a vacuum, all on their own. Killing one would just mean a chaotic transition to one of his followers and then, that guy would have a martyr to whip up support and play the victim.
- Like it or not, we live in an international order where each country is sovereign and accountable to no one for what they do at home. The opposite, "superior" countries imposing their will and values upon other nations, has already been tried: imperialism, colonialism "for the good" of the colonized, etc. We've already been down that path. It doesn't work.
- Even as an act of war, there is a very good reason to specifically spare the leaders while the far more innocent grunts and civilians are slaughtered wholesale : you need someone to talk to, bring the war to an end and enforce surrender on the vanquished population. If you really need to, you only kill them once they are done talking and surrendering.
Mind you, I'm not of the "US and Western countries are always wrong" hair-shirt school of international relations. I have no doubts that for all their faillings, liberal secular democratic societies and values are vastly superior to all other existing systems. I have no doubts that liberal democracies should be far more harsh and brutal toward illiberal regimes and cultures then we are and that we should be extremely consistent about it.
But :
1 - We are far from perfect in living to our own lofty ideals at home so that should instill a good bit of humility on what we do to other countries abroad.
2 - Our presumed superiority doesn't mean we can go around the world and further our ways through manipulation and murder. Not only it is probably unjust; it also doesn't work.
You should never forget that stable liberal democracies only come in existence in two ways:
- In the very rare case where an illiberal country justifiably suffers a total, abject military defeat at the hand of a liberal democracy. After the defeat, all the social and cultural structures that propped the previous illiberal political order are totally discredited and it's easy for the victor to rebuild and mold the vanquished to its own standards. The only valid examples are Japan and Germany after WWII and even those examples come with a lot of qualifications and cautionary notes.
- By endogenous political evolution, through revolutions, reform movements, etc. The way it happened over the past two centuries in many countries including ours. It's slow, messy but it's the best way but it takes democrats to have a democracy and it takes time to forge democrats. Each country has to figure out its own ways, to go through its own trials and tribulations without undue interferences from outside. It has to become embedded in the socio-cultural structures.
Killing the occasional leader (or anyone else) we don't like is not helpful. It's just a "quick fix" that yields no durable positive results. It creates martyrs when the best way to stop and discredit illeberal leaders and ideas is to let them fail on their own.
Mugabe will probably be a far better and long-lasting lesson for many populations and politicans in Southern Africa than he would ever had been if we had snuffed him. You should note that South Africa got rid of M'Beki the right way and that he and his ideas are now powerless and utterly discredited.
What happens when a foreign regime decides that our leaders are "orchestrating a genocide"?
What exactly was Vietnam? I can't find a more stark comparison. We killed a whole bunch of folks over there. Maybe more than........
If you think the filth of this world is going to wake up one day and have a change of heart, you're fooling yourself. It's a nice idea - but that's all it is, an idea.
To bridge that gap between what a government should do and what people sometimes have to do, ideally, in my mind, you'd be able to create situations where you can put a man in a room with his victims and a loaded gun on the table, and then walk out of the room and lock the door. Let them decide whether to use it. Then, most importantly, let them decide how to replace him. Make it clear that if they turn around to treat others the same way, they'll find themselves in a very similar room. This idea of nation-building and bombing people into democracy is absurd on the face of it, and doesn't really seem to be working. Let them create something that makes sense for them, as long as it doesn't create a new group of victims.
So far the "we don't do it, they do do it" truce is holding -- let us hope it stays
The problem is, there's likely to be a Goering or a Goebbels right behind your Mugabe. And by the time you realize he's got to be taken out, hundreds, thousands, millions are already dead. The problem is never the individual. It's always the system. You have to look at how the system works, or fails to work. Why do Hitler's and Mugabe's rise to power, and then wildly abuse it? Because their own people allow it, even support it. And because our people and our leaders allow it, and even support it, actively or passively. It might be more effective to kill our own leaders. After all, they are supporting more than one Mugabe at any given time, in the name of "democracy and free enterprise," aka "anti-terrorism" and "anti-communism," or just because there's oil or uranium or bananas or whatever it is that the system requires, in the monster's country. So we're all monsters. Maybe we should all kill ourselves. Maybe we are killing ourselves, slowly. Maybe the whole system is insane. But killing is never the answer.
The idea that a modern, educated, free and independent people, or group of nations, still need a warlord to lead them, a man on a white horse to save them, a messiah or just some guy with big ju-ju to dominate them, is the notion at the root of the problem. It is Simian Behavior 101. We have the means, the motive and the opportunity to NOT keep on creating and supporting systems based upon violence and inhumanity, to take conscious, rational, moral and ethical control over our own lives, individually and collectively. The fact that, instead, even the "advanced" "developed" "civilized" countries and peoples of the world still choose to allow their lives to be run by the biggest, greediest, most violent, cunning and sociopathic apes is the problem.
Here in America, our own super-Mugabe, George W. Bush, is about to walk away from crimes that dwarf those of Mugabe. The fact that he committed them all after thorough vetting by lawyers, diplomats, generals and legislators, with the blessings of our churches, our media, our political parties and ourselves in two elections we allowed to stand, only makes it worse, for all of us. Not only did we let it happen, now we're letting him and his gang walk away scot-free, and richer for their crimes. Our "solution" is to invest all of our individual and collective powers in one new individual and his gang, instead of taking direct control ourselves: Change the person, not the system? We need a new car, so we get a new driver? Not!
We're actually using the potential means of control, the Internet and electronic funds transfer, our democratic institutions and freedoms, to give it all up to one guy again, and just HOPE that he doesn't f*ck up. But he will. He can't help but f*ck up, because we won't be there to help and support him, to watch over him and keep him honest. We can't. The system doesn't allow it. It's winner-take-all, until next time, next winner, next mess. No human being should ever be burdened with that sort of power, no matter how smart or reasonable or decent he or she may seem to be. By overloading one person with all of our collective and individual powers and responsibilities, and then walking away for four years, we are guaranteeing failure of the system, and the individual we dump it on.
We are Mugabe, every one of us. We must take responsibility for our own lives, our own actions, individual and collective. Instead of looking for someone to blame, someone to follow, a great big Mommy or Daddy to take care of us and make the boogy-man go away, we should use our technology, our resources, our rational minds, our consciences and our democracy to move the world away from this childish, sociopathic, even psychotic game of ape-like dominance and forced submission, and into a new era of humane intelligent adult responsibility, cooperation and dedication to the principles we claim to espouse. Otherwise, our history will go on being full of names like Caligula, Attila, Pizarro, Cromwell, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Pinochet, Rios Montt, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Mugabe; all governing and murdering in our name, with our active or passive support, as long as we allow it. The individuals whom we allow to govern us are only a symptom of the sickness of the system, and the weakness of the individuals within it. Us. WE need to fix OUR system NOW. Or history will judge us harshly, too.
Violence is never the solution, it is always the problem. We don't allow it in our personal lives, our communities, our families. We cannot allow physical or economic violence to be used in our names by our governments and businesses. We have to stop the simianism, which is "evolving" into corporate fascism. If we don't, the brief experiment with democracy will be over before it ever really got started. Get active, stay active, take over your local political Parties or start new ones. Use your power as voters, taxpayers, workers, consumers and "netizens" every day. Send a clear and unwavering message, and make sure it gets delivered, every day. If there is any hope for "Change," it lies within us, not our superstars, dear brutes. Grow up.
.
When I was a kid and read the Dune trilogy (which after reading, at 15 I became a LOT more politically astute, learning through it that things are never what they seem, that the games within games, that just like religion, politics is "dog and pony show" for the masses who do their part by buying into the jingoism...while the leaders play a totally different game...religions at the higher levels are VERY close to one another, but the religion for the masses is dumbed down, and made to seem different) learned that a "hero" can be one of the worst things to have in a time of change and difficulty. I like Obama (wanted Kucinich in there even more, but am very glad for Obama, and the historic part of I think is wonderful) but you don't EVER trust in a leader that weilds power over you.
Even the good ones...leaders of countries are NOTHING like you and I. That is one reason it prematurely ages every president. They are in a kind of high, they are weighing things in terms of "I do this and X number may die, I do this and maybe Y number, but I have to think of my philosophy too". They learn to justifty acts that would make us throw up.
None of us are "the good guys". The list that the OP covered is just the tip of it all.
another point, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan are not comparable to WWII and the civil war.
All the wrong people die in wars. Look at history. Innocents, kids that buy into the jingoism and think this is a "way to help" or "serve my country" when we have some madman as a president starting immoral and unjust wars.
Violence will always be with us, but it is up to US to choose whether we will be violent. There are other ways, one of which is to try to help but let countries find out for themselves what they will do with bad leaders. NONE of the current leaders though would like to truly see "the people" have that power. They all are afraid of true democracy.
Agreed. There has never been a war that couldn't have been avoided. If we the people, all over the world, simply refused to fight, took violence off the table as a means of "statecraft" or civil control, there could not be any more wars. They'd figure out some other way to achieve their goals, just as each and every one of us does every time we're in a tight spot that we wish we could laser-gun our way out of. Reason prevails in our own little lives, it must prevail in the lives of our countries. If it is unacceptable to kill one person, how can it be acceptable to kill a million? No more wars, no more assassinations, period.
The disturbing thing is that our brilliant leaders have had over seventy years now to think about how and why Hitlers rise to power and then get away with spectacularly abusing it. Seventy years to come up with a PREVENTATIVE solution. With all the tremendous resources at their disposal, and that of their corporate masters, they got nuthin'. So much for "leadership," and the "Great Man" theories of history.
It's time that average Joe's & Josie's, unannointed though we may be by rigged elections, corporate sponsorship, and high academic honors like Dubya, enforce the rules of common sense that we all follow before any mere law, on a daily basis. The same stuff we teach our kids, we must teach our governments and corporations: No violence. Learn to live with your neighbors. Cooperate with others to achieve your goals. Try and be a good person. Don't make trouble unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, NO VIOLENCE!!!
Who doesn't live by these rules? Psychos, criminals and statesmen. We need to fix that.
.
OK, now let's do it.
.
Yup. Thank you.
.
TROLL
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]
[wikipedia]
trolling
Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
[urban dictionary]
Trolls' characteristicae
1) They have a lot of free time, they are mostly lonely people.
2) They often ingratiate themselves to a person or two on the group and use them to stay in the group. They may protest with these "friends" that their right to free speech is being curtailed.
3) They sometimes use "socketpuppets", i.e. fake identities that may be used to sustain, or to inflame the troll's position or theory or attack. At times the socket puppets' names are anagrams or similar to the troll name. Thus a troll may engage in artificial conversations with himself. However impersonating multiple people is frowned upon by the more able trolls and is considered the lowest of the possible troll tactics.
rebuking trolls
This said, the above methods (and other more nasty ones) are better left to professional webwizards and "older ones" (that may often be willing to help you for a worthy cause). Usually the best method when dealing with trolls is always the same: NEVER ANSWER TO THEIR POSTINGS! ("Please do not feed the troll")
The whole point of trolling is to have you react. So do not react! It's as simple as that, duh. That is something that enrages trolls (disqualify them: other lurking trolls will take note of their failure and they know - and fear - it).
By not reacting, you have completely defeated their purpose in life. In other words, the troll sees his self-worth in how much of a reaction he can inspire - ignore him: it's your best weapon.
Should you, my advices notwithstanding, answer a troll, then calm down! Do not read any of the troll's responses to you. He is just trying to draw you further into its lair. Once more: NEVER ANSWER TO THEIR POSTINGS!
[searchlores.org]
Maybe a capture and a trial...but a killing? Forget it. The negatives are just overwhelming.
The International Criminal Court could order the execution of a leader following a trial, but if one state considers it right to assassinate another leader, so can any other state. Im sure Mr Mugabe and others would like to apply this policy themselves and are only prevented from doing so because they dont have the resources. We cannot assume that those that have the resources would always use the consequent power in a benign or fair fashion. Rather they would use in self-interest. I wouldn't want any state having such a policy, USA China, or Russia, Ireland etc etc.
But even if that weren't so, it would be wrong, because as pointed out, unintended consequences, slippery slopes, the automatic assumption that we are the "good guys" and would never misuse such power....there is NOTHING in history to support that thesis.
When you get right down to it....even trying to "help" often ends up in hindsight making things worse.
What happens when the problem is still there after the person is dead? Then the killer is both a murderer and a fool.
Murder is never a simple solution. Use your brain a little more, please.
It's just not okay to kill them. Period. Damnit.