4 ms·
> So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? Honest question: has assassination ever actually been effective at effectin
by Blackthorn 11y ago
> So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person?
Honest question: has assassination ever actually been effective at effecting the political change the assassin wants?
It's probably easier now to assassinate someone than it ever has been in human history, but the actual number doesn't seem higher per capita (maybe it is, feel free to correct me on that).
- jkraker 11y agoI feel like it's more war than assassination. I may be looking at it incorrectly though.
- bainsfather 11y agoYitzhak Rabin's - his assassin succeeded in halting the peace process Rabin was leading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin
- dogma1138 11y agoNo it didn't, the peace process continued even under the "right wing" government which was elected after wards. It crumbled for many reasons but the assassination wasn't one of them.
- omonra 11y ago1. The goal of US drone assassinations is not to effect political change but to keep the status quo. That's a different question than one you asked. 2. On a more general level, your question can be rephrased as 'has violence ever been effective at making a (political) difference'. The answer to that is - absolutely. It has actually been the most effective strategy at effecting change throughout history.
- Blackthorn 11y ago1) Fair point 2) This is not a valid generalization and represents a leap of logic. I was talking specifically of assassinations.
- omonra 11y agoOk - re #2 - look at what % of political movements succeeded despite most of their leaders being killed. I'd say that since majority of political movements succeed with live leaders, it must mean that the ones whose leaders were killed in time, did not succeed. It's like the WW2 story about looking for holes in returning fighter planes :)