On Sep 1, 8:29 am, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>> Why would it be a Bad
>> Thing to assassinate Hitler?
>
> When do assassinations of bad guys ever change anything?
Huey Long, de facto dictator of Louisiana, exercising supreme
executive power in that State even as a Senator, who associated
with extreme rightists such as Father Coughlin while bottom-fishing
with socialist rhetoric, and who was called a fascist by FDR, was
assassinated by a guy who was on his enemies list, and who he
was allegedly going to destroy with allegations of being part black.
One less demogogue to take advantage of the Depression.
Next question.
Stalin may have been assassinated by Kruschev and Beria
with poison. Result: a million less murders a year.
> Was anyone so stupid as to actually believe a show trial and
> eliminating Saddam could cause utopia to break out in Iraq? Â Another
> bloody dictator will take over as soon as we pull the troops, whether
> that's in 50 days or 50 years. Â The only difference is the new one
> will be an ally with Iran.
Your faith is strong, little one. I know, I know. You believe that
them arab people can never practice democracy. It's a racist
thing for you. After all, when was the last time Japan had a coup?
> The book _Hitler's Willing Executioners_ pointed out over a decade ago
> that Hitler had widespread support. Â Assassinate Hitler and another
> genocidal leader would have done the exact same thing.
So? A lot of books point out a lot of goofy things. Next, you're
going to be telling us about Edgar Cayce and the long strange
walk of the Dark Seventeen. Anyway, at the time that Hitler
rose to power, there were only 7 million Nazis. At the same
time, there were 20 million Stalinists and other leftards. Are
you saying leftards are as bad as Nazis? That even if those
leftards were well-armed enough, they couldn't have changed
the Kraut way of life?
> Nietzsche knew what would happen before Hitler was even born.
He knew what was going to happen with Socialism before
Lenin was even born as well.
> You can argue assassinating good guys like Lincoln, JFK, MLK or Rabin
> makes things worse, but there is no reason to believe the converse is
> true.
You're an idiot. Clearly, if Hitler had been assassinated, the
human rights situation would not have been as bad, nor the
warmongering situation, which was clearly insane and self-
destructive, and motivated a bunch of top guys to try to kill
the meth-addicted idiot. Also, when Stalin died, the human
rights situation in the Soviet Union changed considerably
for the better. Stalin may, in fact, have been assassinated.
There are those who hypothesize it anyway.
> Society benefits by preventing assassinations. Â That's why we have
> the
> Secret Service, FBI and BATF. Â To keep gun nuts from popping off
> gummint officials.
Well, Stalin had the NKVD to keep gun nuts from popping him off,
of course. But exactly how did society benefit from that? 20 million
dead Russians can't be wrong, I guess.
>> Why do leftards love genocide
>> so much?
Because there's too many folks who push them too far.
> Q: Â Why does the Tim McVeigh wing of the NRA love assassinations so
> much?
Q2: Why does the Ayers Weatherman wing of the Georgist
Party love neo-McCarthyism so much?
> A: Â They are too dumb to get their way in an honest civilized
> political debate.
A2: They are too dumb to get their way in an honest civilized
Usenet debate.
> So they sit around doing nothing but living in a fantasy world
> daydreaming about shooting bad guys.
So, somehow executing Timothy McVeigh is better than
assassinating him? Why are 20 million dead Russians
better than one dead Stalin? Is it because a million deaths
is just a statistic, while one death is a tragedy? Nope,
it's because killing (like living) is better left to the public
sector. That pretty much sums up your position,
eh?
