Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size
Login

Military Photos



Current poll results


Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassinate terrorists?

Yes82 %82 %82 % 82.22 % (296)
No11 %11 %11 % 11.39 % (41)
I do not know1 %1 %1 % 1.94 % (7)
I have no opinion0 %0 %0 % 0.00 % (0)
Other, please list in comments4 %4 %4 % 4.44 % (16)

Total votes: 360
One vote is allowed per day

[ Voting booth | Other polls ]

Comments

Display Order
Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 16, 2003
The premise of such a question must be that if it is okay to assassinate (i.e. purposefully kill, not in combat, on the order of a government official) for our military, then we have to expect it to be okay for others to do the same to us; and cannot be either surprised or outraged when this happens. There is a very fine line between murder, assassination and killing in combat. Of the three, the only form which is truly and morally sanctioned is death in a fair fight between adversaries, in self-defense. In one sense, an assassin is, by definition, a terrorist no matter for whom their killing is done nor what uniform they wear and flag they fly. Assassinating Hitler, Pol Pot, Amin, Stalin, Saddam or Bin Laden would accomplish next to nothing if the aim is to end the terror. Hideous cowards do not get their power without accomplices.

Being sent by a government or group solely for the purpose of killing is immoral, no matter who does it. At no time in history has killing, murder nor assassination ever resolved the issues which were said to have been the justification. Great and painful victories directly against aggressors have been won on the battlefield, in a combination of ways. But in every case, the deaths of millions did little to prevent the carnage from happening again, and again and again. So, it is impossible to find a reason to continue doing what has proven to be ineffective in solving ideological disputes; most of which are based upon natural resources, land or money.

In an UNjust war, it could be said that EVERY death of the "enemy" is an assassination. Private citizens who assassinate public officials are regarded as disgusting criminals, but the assassin sees their mission in the same terms as a killer sent for political reasons by a government. Terrorists who are heedless of civilian deaths are, technically, assassins in the worst possible form. Yet, it is impossible to claim moral superiority by calling accidental killing of civilian non-combatants "collateral damage"; i.e. unintentional murder.

There is a part of human behavior which, when set loose in any way, cannot stop bloodshed except with the most extreme effort. The "Dogs of War" do not often readily respond to voice commands. Having said that, our troops at war today throughout the world, have exercised exemplary restraint; and this gives one hope that such conduct might lead to the realization that peaceful ways will prevail, one day soon. Revenge and retaliation often accelerates to become outright brutality, and it appeals to those whose imbalanced minds are well-suited to murder.

For any nation claiming to abhor violence and the suffering of innocents to even suggest assassination, or war, or death penalties, or state-sanctioned murder and killing of any kind is evidence that in spite of our great advancements we have evolved not at all from the most primitive stages of human development. When any person anywhere dies in a declared or undeclared war (or assassination), the effect upon immediate family members is never forgotten, over uncountable generations yet unborn. Resentments and anger are thus made permanent, and the seeds of violence are widely spread on fertile soil.

Were military contests to take place in open fields of battle, far removed from civilian populations, then some degree of honor would return to warfare; and even then most people would still pray for governments to make an end to War.

Bluehawk

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 16, 2003
Bluehawk:
I never wanted to be in a fair fight with anyone. If we have stelth aircraft and the other guy doesn't, it's not fair. If we have better tanks, arty, commo, supply, training, it's not a fair fight. Fair fights are two men, each armed with an identical knife.
I know the point you were making however it may have been over stated. Having so much power and the willingness to use it is the best war because it doesn't have to be fought.
The killing of a leader who would cause the deaths of 100's, 1,000's or more Americans is a means of self defense. Yes, two can play that game but if the other side knows physical violence would not be in their own best interest, it's need would be greatly reduced.

Andy

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 17, 2003
I know what you mean Andy, maybe we would agree that it's a kind of addiction...we seem unable, don't we, to escape it all. The only thing I can think of is the needless suffering...

Could it be, possibly, that a "fair fight" might mean two adversaries (equal or not) going at it willingly on purpose?

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 17, 2003
Assassination is a brutal act.
War is worse.
In war there are more brutal acts than one could shake his wanker at.
If using assassination to prevent a knock down drag out war as an option, I am all for it.

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 20, 2003
Hell yes......

Do the Terrorist have the right to do 9/11 again???

We have all the rights no matter come hell or high water.......

enough

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Andy
on Jul 20, 2003
The bottom line...does it save the lives of grunts on the ground ( of which I was one ) ??? ..if yes ( always is )...then it is acceptable and proper...In any war, if you are not ready to commit totally, TOTALLY, to achieve victory... you are already losing...our enemies usually recognize no rules, Geneva convention or otherwise....there it is, it don't mean nothing..

Larry aka MORTARDUDE

DEO VINDICE

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 21, 2003
Aw hell then, why not let's just kill everybody who disagrees with or threatens us in any way, admit that's the only solution and get on with it. We got the biggest baddest arsenal ever known, and best fighters, and best democracy...so, no problem.

Then, when America is the only remaining power of any kind, we'll need to start on killing ourselves. Eventually the perfect world will exist right here at home, if anybody is left alive.

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 21, 2003

It seems that too many people are being too paranoid.I believe that in any case that common sense will prevail as it should in nearly all international situations


Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 25, 2003

Very well said, but in all honesty, what you write would be great in a perfect world. Alas, it is not so great out there...I think it is 'just' to assassinate terrorists for several reasons. ONE: They have declared war on us and thus they are legitimate targets. It is honorable as you say, to put on uniforms and meet on the battlefield, away from innocent civilians, but they refuse to wear a uniform, refuse to attack only military targets, and have declared that God is on their side (like any army would do, and has done in the past, why even Hitler said God was on his side...). Why let them strike us and not retaliate simply because they are in Jeans and (leftover) disco shirts? I don't think the goal is to 'take out' simple civilians who we suspect could be bad guys, I think the goal is to take out terrorist leaders who have openly declared hostilities against us. TWO: We all like to think we are the best species on this planet, that we are civilized and advanced, and true, cockroaches have yet to land on the moon (or fake landing on the moon, depending on your level of paranoia~sorry, couldn't resist taking a jab there..) so that makes us the best on the planet, but we are still animals. Yes, sad but true, and mother nature and instincts still rule. If we sit back and take the moral high road, we may feel better about ourselves, but that means the attacks will be more frequent and more violent. I do not wish that. We should take action. Violence is terrible but if you don't push back when shoved, then they become the evil bully and no one else is going to stop them. What does a mother do to protect her young from a hungry wolf? Snarls, growls, and if need be, attacks. She doesn't sit idly by for death to pay a visit. It is sad that we have to sink down to their level and fight this way, but they choose the turf, not us. I don't think giving them money to make them go away is the answer either. Some day we will run out because we have given it all away just to stay safe. Hit back, and hit harder. We are all animals, and animals respect the most powerful of the pack...A terrible analogy, but true. If they behave like animals, then we have to react in terms they will understand. Like you said, some of us have not evolved from the most primitave stages..


Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 25, 2003
All true Beagle, all true...every word of what you wrote.

I could almost rest "comfortable" with it myself, if it just weren't for the governments who are so damn willing and eager to find reasons to send people to die for ideas, and are so damn often full of BULL no matter what they say. They get everybody all stirred up about patriotism and defense of country, and 9 of 10 times are stretching the truth or outright lying to us. It's that 10th time though...that one out of ten where even I would put on the suit again if they'd raise the age limit... like WW II.

From anything I've been able to deduce about this so-called "War on Terrorism" is that so far, except for temporarily taking out the Taliban, we are basically attacking the wrong enemy in the wrong places. They've got our people all over half the world, and are now setting their sights on Syria, Iran, and North Korea; to say nothing of Columbia. That god-forsaken American Enterprise Institute is running our freakin' government and hasn't got a clue. Bush is trying his best, but he's getting some REAL bad advice.

I was IN during the early 1960s, on a flight line where we were training pilots and crew chiefs on the old C-123 (just before the 130 took over) for Nam. We weren't told that was what we were doing, but it was. The only way we found out was when they started sending NCOs from Nam back to us. Every one of them began telling us, over Hearts at lunch usually, about how our guys were being held back in Nam under bizarre rules of engagement and crap like that. It was real upsetting to young kids who had never doubted the call to arms in the slightest way. I haven't trusted those bastards ever since, and never will again. I do believe we would ALL know, with no doubts whatsoever, if and when there really was a good reason to go someplace and destroy an enemy. In fact, it'd probably be people like us who would be telling THEM that the time had come!

Good ole Charlie Rangle, gnarly Korea vet, last week called this taking out of Saddam's sons an "assassination", which it surely was not in any sense. Those two committed suicide by cop, and they knew exactly what they were doing. A nasty and quick way to die is to take on the US Army in a fire fight.

These are the problems, those damn lines are not clearly drawn, and our government isn't being much help in clarifying either, but their gums sure are flappin' regularly.

The least we could do is to maybe force those SOBs to get it right more than one in ten times.

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Jul 26, 2003
Beagle, a P.S.
I should have been more specific about WHICH folks out there in DC habitually get us in trouble...in my opinion.

Our problems usually come (in EVERY administration) from Congress, the National Security Council, Dept. of Defense, and from hawks on the White House staff of one kind or another; the ones who are itching for a fight constantly, or so it seems, at any cost. We have a serious threat today because of that American Enterprise Institute and the influence its people have on the President and others in government. I have never been more proud of or confident in the performance of all our armed services... they do as ordered. The danger exists when unlawful orders are or could be given. It's practically impossible to stop a Bully with a big title.

The sole mediator is always the State Dept., but they are normally interested in diplomatic solutions which admittedly, (as in WW II), don't always work.

I sincerely believe if our current President and Secretary Powell had been left free to develope solutions of their own to 9/ll and the middle east in general, that none of us would be having this conversation, again, about assassinations and the futility of war.

I realize we have gotta go with the hand we've been dealt, and that my jaws are flappin' about it all probably as much as anybody else's, if not more.

Luckily I am a civilian at this point, and can speak some mind on the topic without reprisal (that I know of).

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 02, 2003
After a couple of weeks having this poll, 80% think it's just fine to go around assassinating other people for sure, and about 17% think that we'd better not.

Maybe it's time for us all to listen once again to Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant".

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 08, 2003
The good news is: I Don't Know's are up to 2.5%

The bad news is: Yes's are up to 81.5 %, and No's are down to 14%.

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that killing other people is aberrant behavior?

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 10, 2003
Now it's:

Yes 81.16%
No 14.49%

Long odds, but we're gainin' on 'em!

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 13, 2003
14.68% YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

Keep 'er comin' people!

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 17, 2003
Okay, I get it.

The Yes's are definitely gaining ground here in the last several days.

Let's have another poll on this topic which asks the question:

SHOULD THE MILITARY OF OTHER NATIONS HAVE THE POWER TO ASSASSINATE LIBERATORS?

I vote "No"

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 22, 2003
Where in the world do all these war-mongers come from?

What ever happened to: "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

Question: Has anyone out there ever been the target of an assassin?

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 22, 2003
Where in the world do all these war-mongers come from?

What ever happened to: "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

Question: Has anyone out there ever been the target of an assassin?

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 23, 2003
As in the rest of life, seems like the more one asks for peace, lives peacefully, works for peace, builds peace... the more is violence and war offered in response.

The No's are edging downwardly, every day, not by having voted, but by the ever-increasing number of Yes's as a percentage of all those voting.

Ordinary people who under other circumstances would gladly put a man to death for having murdered one of their own, are far more likely to kill someone else not in self-defense, for the sake of an idea, fully expecting their act to be legally sanctioned and go unpunished because it would be called "assassination".

The difference, again, is what exactly?

Violence is an addiction.

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 23, 2003
assassin: n.
1. A member of a secret order of Moslem fanatics who terrorized and killed Christian Crusaders. 2. A murderer, especially one who carries out a plot to kill a public official or other prominent person... From Arabic, "hashshashin", plural of "hashsash" or hashish addict.

assassinate: tr.v.
1. To murder. 2. To destroy or injure treacherously.

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 25, 2003
Of the 62 or so Polls posted by Patriot Files, only 7 of them have drawn more votes than this one about assassination:
1. Age joined military?
2. Toughest military programs?
3. Homeland Security?
4. Permanent UN peacekeepers?
5. Military sue military?
6. Homeland Security permanent mission?
7. International opinion governing?

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Aug 25, 2003
Last time I "Googled" war, peace and love, here was the number of sites available:

War = 52,300,000
Peace = 17,500,002
Love = 65,300,000

LOVE WINS!

LOVE + PEACE REALLY REALLY WINS!

How 'bout it?

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Sep 06, 2003
"A pint of sweat will save a gallon of blood."

General Patton

Re: Should U.S. military agencies have the power to assassin
by Anonymous
on Sep 07, 2003

This poll has now advanced two notches upward in rank on the Top Lists of all PF polls, and still rising.


Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in
Military History
Forum Posts

Military Polls

Is the Department of Veterans Affairs ready to handle the expected increase in medical requests?

[ Results | Polls ]

Votes: 117

This Day in History
1950: Detachment X, 35 men of the 507th Antiaircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Battalion, was the first U.S. ground force unit to arrive in Korea. Within a short time the detachment shot down a Yak fighter with quad .50-caliber machine guns, suffering five wounded in the action.