Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Stinkman · Post by **Stinkman** » Sun Jul 21, 2024 7:04 pm

Excellent and concise breakdown of the geometry of the shooting.

bong.kuit · Post by **bong.kuit** » Sun Jul 21, 2024 8:43 pm

John Bingham wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 8:06 pm
bong.kuit wrote: ↑Sat Jul 20, 2024 7:40 pm I was more aiming at some kind of rule under international law or a moral directive, and to show that it is a difficult question.

Why is it ok to kill Bin Laden but not Netanjahu?
Because one was self-appointed and operating outside any conventions or diplomacy and the other is the elected leader of a state?

I agree that for a coherent discussion one needs to make a distinction between states and their representatives and VNSAs. Comparing Bin Laden and Netanjahu confused things and made the scope too wide.

My initial question was about Stauffenberg, who was a VNSA, and him being celebrated in Germany for trying to kill an (initially) elected leader.

newkidontheblock · Post by **newkidontheblock** » Sun Jul 21, 2024 9:20 pm

Stauffenberg was trying to carry out a coup and depose the Nazi government. The Heer (and Prussian military aristocracy) hated Hitler. So did the Industrialists who ran the factories. So did the bankers who funded the Reich. They all wanted to control Hitler. Instead, he controlled them.

Bin Laden wasn’t trying to change US government. He wanted to destroy America and the western way of life. (His brothers and sisters and family all went to University in the US and in the West, because the US considers the action of one madman as his actions alone, not a family sin to be punished).

Netanyahu is elected and is held accountable be voters. The voters can change him at will.

So what was the point to be made?

So how are they all the same?

newkidontheblock · Post by **newkidontheblock** » Sun Jul 21, 2024 9:27 pm

Stauffenberg was a traitor. His family suffered. Rommel was forced to commit suicide for his actions. Only after the war, during de Nazification was he elevated to a hero.

Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison would have all been hung had the US lost the War of Independence in 1776.

bong.kuit · Post by **bong.kuit** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:15 am

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2024 9:20 pm Stauffenberg was trying to carry out a coup and depose the Nazi government. The Heer (and Prussian military aristocracy) hated Hitler. So did the Industrialists who ran the factories. So did the bankers who funded the Reich. They all wanted to control Hitler. Instead, he controlled them.

Bin Laden wasn’t trying to change US government. He wanted to destroy America and the western way of life. (His brothers and sisters and family all went to University in the US and in the West, because the US considers the action of one madman as his actions alone, not a family sin to be punished).

Netanyahu is elected and is held accountable be voters. The voters can change him at will.

So what was the point to be made?

So how are they all the same?

My question was where the line should be drawn when it comes to political killings. I never said these people are "the same".

newkidontheblock · Post by **newkidontheblock** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:06 am

There’s a line drawn to political killings that need to be crossed?

Martin Luther King was killed in the name of peace.

So was Ghandi.

Both preached non-violence and visions of peace . Both gunned down by their people for betrayal.

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:38 am

Each and every wannabe assassin needs to know for himself (not too many female political assassins around) where to draw the line. Ultimately, it will be history that will pass judgment, often long after the assassin is dead.

I can't see any possible justification for shooting a candidate - someone who isn't currently in office - at a rally such as in Trump’s case. I'd say the minimum criteria are or should be: Someone in office doing horrible things who cannot be stopped by other means.

Ghostwriter · Post by **Ghostwriter** » Tue Jul 23, 2024 2:02 am

Alex wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:38 am
I can't see any possible justification for shooting a candidate - someone who isn't currently in office - at a rally such as in Trump’s case. I'd say the minimum criteria are or should be: Someone in office doing horrible things who cannot be stopped by other means.

Reminds me of this :

Gonna rewatch it, nice movie break during the politic-olympic-economic medias intense stereo-bollocking of these late days...^^

bong.kuit · Post by **bong.kuit** » Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:34 am

Alex wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:38 am Each and every wannabe assassin needs to know for himself (not too many female political assassins around) where to draw the line. Ultimately, it will be history that will pass judgment, often long after the assassin is dead.

I can't see any possible justification for shooting a candidate - someone who isn't currently in office - at a rally such as in Trump’s case. I'd say the minimum criteria are or should be: Someone in office doing horrible things who cannot be stopped by other means.

Sounds like a good start to me, even if still a bit vague.

I don't think it would be justified to kill Trump, but I see certain parallels between the ideas of shooting Trump and blowing up an Iranian general eg., just on different levels.

Pretty sure I'll be contemplating this question for a bit longer...

Harold69 · Post by **Harold69** » Tue Jul 23, 2024 8:09 pm

bong.kuit wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:34 am
Alex wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:38 am Each and every wannabe assassin needs to know for himself (not too many female political assassins around) where to draw the line. Ultimately, it will be history that will pass judgment, often long after the assassin is dead.

I can't see any possible justification for shooting a candidate - someone who isn't currently in office - at a rally such as in Trump’s case. I'd say the minimum criteria are or should be: Someone in office doing horrible things who cannot be stopped by other means.
Sounds like a good start to me, even if still a bit vague.

I don't think it would be justified to kill Trump, but I see certain parallels between the ideas of shooting Trump and blowing up an Iranian general eg., just on different levels.

Pretty sure I'll be contemplating this question for a bit longer...

Thomas Matthew Crooks was a bright engineering student, a political visionary, and a nutter. He will be in the history books as a John Hinckley Jr, rather than a Lee Harvey Oswald. He will be an inspiration to other nutters with firearms between now and November. One of them will put a bullet in Trump’s neck, paralyzing him from the neck down. The Donald will live to the ripe old age of 100 and become an elder statesman and an advisor to the Harris administration in the next 8 years and in future presidential administrations right up until the end. It came to me in a dream.

Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Re: Trump - Assassination Attemp - Shot to the head

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: