Once a person has crossed into terrorism, (real terrorism, not the imaginary british definition that includes vandalism..)
Talking about root causes doesn’t solve the immediate threat. At that point, neutralization becomes a matter of security, not reform. Root causes like poverty, injustice, foreign interference matter in prevention, but once someone chooses terror, you’re not dealing with grievances anymore; you’re dealing with violence.
That’s why I’ve never understood the taboo around targeted assassinations and taking out some people ..compared to drone strikes. Droning is cowardly and ethically warped: it kills at a distance, often wiping out dozen of innocent families in the process even with the most precision, leaving behind trauma, rage, and endless cycles of vengeance. And recently the US along other countries refuse to disclose true numbers of innocent deaths..now that's terrorism.
Assassinations, by contrast, at least aim at the source directly. They can remove a destructive figure without the massive collateral damage drones cause. And they unfortunately are sometimes terrorism.. but they are too often the cleanest way to restore a playing chance. And they can be the lesser evil.
Yes, even assassinations carry their own dangers. Eliminating one leader can create a power vacuum, fuel revenge too, or destabilize entire regions. So if one endorses this method, they must accept the mirror it holds up: if the world is better without certain destructive individuals, then the same logic might one day be applied to you as a part of the process. You embracex this method. And it is less unethical ..the weak don't own drones but they own that ability and it is scary for those who already yield it. Because talking about this as less immoral means offering people a chance to rationalize and reflect on getting rid of you.
That’s why I’ve never understood the taboo around targeted assassinations and taking out some people ..compared to drone strikes. Droning is cowardly and ethically warped: it kills at a distance, often wiping out dozen of innocent families in the process even with the most precision, leaving behind trauma, rage, and endless cycles of vengeance. And recently the US along other countries refuse to disclose true numbers of innocent deaths..now that's terrorism.
Assassinations, by contrast, at least aim at the source directly. They can remove a destructive figure without the massive collateral damage drones cause. And they unfortunately are sometimes terrorism.. but they are too often the cleanest way to restore a playing chance. And they can be the lesser evil.
Yes, even assassinations carry their own dangers. Eliminating one leader can create a power vacuum, fuel revenge too, or destabilize entire regions. So if one endorses this method, they must accept the mirror it holds up: if the world is better without certain destructive individuals, then the same logic might one day be applied to you as a part of the process. You embracex this method. And it is less unethical ..the weak don't own drones but they own that ability and it is scary for those who already yield it. Because talking about this as less immoral means offering people a chance to rationalize and reflect on getting rid of you.
31-35, F
