Originally Posted by Ken Howell
Ending World War Two was worthy of global applause.

Assassinating Hitler to do it, however justifiiable or necessary that may have been, would not have been worthy of the same applause.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved tens of millions more lives than it took � thunderous applause and woeful tragedy, not an either-or matter at all. Neither one alone nor the other alone.


Wasn't so much speaking to applause, I agree there is no need for applauding any killing, but rather the acceptance of assassination.

People in general, tend to get tripped up in justifying murder, on some individual sliding scale of the victim's merit.

I find it interesting that we as a society, often find shooting a soldier from 20 yards, or firebombing a civilian populace from 20,000' an acceptable practice, yet wince when a leader of a country is shot at point blank range.

I see little difference in the act itself, the difference lies in the moral justification. A whack job who murders a congresswoman will find little sympathy with the populace and be properly punished. A whack job who murders a tyrant, may find refuge with the people who were oppressed by the tyrant. A whack job who murders a Hitler may end a war and be treated a hero by millions of people.

The differences lie not with the act, but within a sliding scale of acceptance by others...i.e., you do not want to be someone who is in a distinct minority in feeling that individual deserved death.

It is for this reason that Jared Loughner will find little sympathy within the populace for his actions, and will deservedly spend the rest of his life in prison or be executed. Not because he was an assassin, but because he assassinated people the vast majority of us, will deem undeserving of death.

[Linked Image]