Ok. So, what does the term “assassination” actually mean? “Assassination” is defined
undertaken without any legal process. It may be undertaken either by ones own
From what I get to understand from this definition, it’s difficult to justify the
“assassination” of a dictator.
Is “assassination” justified morally?? Not exactly, as it does not prevent evils. Had Hitler
been assassinated, would the Nazis have acted differently??? Would they have stopped
being fascists?? Was Rome able to wash itself of all evils after the execution of
Mussolini?? These are the examples which show that “assassination” does not prevent
In fact “assassination” does not have the backing of the law so in that case
assassinating a dictator would mean stooping down the level of a dictator. A government
founded on such an act is most likely to fail – the “assassination” of Julius Caesar was
followed by a civil war. Looking back in Indian history there are quite a few examples.
Mogul history especially the later rulers like Aurangzeb who attained kingship after
executing previous rulers who happened to be his own father son found the tables
turned on him.
regime. But, this most often turns out to be a misconception. “Assassination” does not
necessarily causea fall of a regime, because once a tyrannical leader is done away
with, someone else believing in the same autocratic values emerge, mostly from the
family or the followers of the tyrant. This is so because dictatorial systems are not
perfectly personal though they appear to be so. Here again quoting Indian mogul
history, let me tell you that one dictator succeeded the other after the execution of the
“Assassination” has never been the best mean of affecting change in a regime. Instead,
it often results in the citizens rallying around a regime counter productively. Looking
back and glancing at the example of Fidel Castro, the Cuban economy suffered even as
the citizens through a mixture of fear and admiration continued to support Castro’s hold
There is this other possibility to be considered also. What happens when an attempt at
targeted “assassination” fail at first strike? The consequence is loss of valuable lives of
men and drainage of the treasuries in pursuing through subsequent attacks!!! Because,
a failed attempt only results in the tyrant strengthening himself and his hold on
power.Fidel Castro continuing to rule Cuba for years together after 1959 exemplifies the
point.
In modern context too, I will say that “assassination” is in no way going to aid
international stability. On the contrary it would only push us back to the days of jungle
rule where survival of the fittest was the order of the day. The establishment of The
Yes, there are always better and effective options to “assassination” . Bringing a dictator
brought about a change in tyrannical regimes. Slobodan Milosevic being on trial and
effectively as was done in the cases of East Europe, Yugoslavia and Iraq more recently.
“assassination” .
yes, the targeted “assassination” of terrorist is totally justified because terrorists are
defined as ‘ combatants’ who are engaged in armed hostility and terrorist attacks. So
assassinating them is for the cause of ‘self defense’ and targeted killing done for self
Coming back to ‘dictators’, bringing a dictator to justice does not mean protecting him by
law. In fact I strongly promote the inflictment of more effective and long lasting
ultimate penalty of death. That would be more demoralizing for dictators, highly egoistic
that they are. He should be denied the status of a ’martyr’. In that, the US armed forces
do have a better record of effectiveness. Going back in history, it was fear of such
Politics have never been a black and white affair. Ways and means to punish tyrants do
exists even within the boundaries of law. Israel only needs to act more strategically so
that it can preserve its right to self defense without harming itself and the international
community. By devising such strategic means that would enable it to have the cake and
save it too.
To conclude, instead of giving the dictator the self satisfaction of becoming a martyr,
breaking him down mentally would be a more lingering and effective punishment for him
as well as for the would be tyrants who would have examples of such punishments
Insteadof resorting to outright “assassination” and cheapening the value of life wouldn’t