Your argument in #15 sounds nice, but it may be obsolete.
As you know, modern warfare has slipped from historical black and white to near gangsta criminal activity: undeclared warfare conducted by armed civilians. The times have changed and the old rules of civility may no longer apply if a people are to survive.
If it was acceptable for snipers to take out young privates on the battlefield, then it was equally acceptable to likewise take out the private’s CinC.
If continuing acts of deadly aggression can be credibly linked to a particular head of governement, why shouldn't a similar rule adapted to realities on the ground prevail today?
frog in a pot wrote:
Assassinate, no.
“Your argument in #15 sounds nice, but it may be obsolete.
As you know, modern warfare has slipped from historical black and white to near gangsta criminal activity: undeclared warfare conducted by armed civilians. The times have changed and the old rules of civility may no longer apply if a people are to survive.”
We have supposedly attacked Qadafi for “humanitarian” reasons because he has threatened his own citizens. Consider this: A Libyan General took command of a group of Qadafi loyalists and was ordered to quell the rebellion. They found a cache of rebel weapons in a small town. First, the town was stripped of everything considered valuable. Nine citizens were given a farcial trial and executed. Quadafi forces then burned the entire town to the ground.
Qadafi’s forces then began attacking soft targets, factories and food production sites. Qadafi declared that there would be no peace until everyone sympathetic to the uprising was destroyed. Every dwelling they came across was first stripped of its property then burned, leaving women, children and the elderly without food or shelter. All factory workers were ordered to be gathered up and shipped to locations making goods for Qadafi’s army. Children were separated from their mothers, never to see them again. Qadafi managed to quell the rebellion by decimating a large part of the Libyan population with his brutal assault against them. The suffering endured by women, children, the sick and elderly that were left without food, shelter or a means of living was monumental.
So, is the above enough to justify the assassination of the tyrant that ordered it? Does such treatment of one’s own countrymen to quell a rebellion merit death?