Systematic Altruistic Assassination: Key to the New World

lets say i start an organization of all the people like us who are fed up with this bullshit, preferably muslims with sniper rifles. then i issue an ultimatum that explicitly defines what things are good and bad, and if any leader across the world is hurting people for his own selfish gain, he will be bombarded with snipers every time he goes near a window. i mean if you have lots of snipers in all windows, how can anybody be safe? and how can terrorists hate america if they dont know that it was us?

the ONLY problem i see with assassinating saddam, kim jong, saudi royals, sudan monsters, charles taylor, the only problem is that you have these moral nothingists who say “uh well you cant really say kim jong is bad cause uh what if you were him you wouldnt want to be shot” and you will be shot too nihil.

no just kidding but seriously, what is the problem with systematic assassination if humans can prove that they are able to really not be corrupted by money and all of the things that would very quickly corrupt such an organization.

why do only the good people get shot? lincoln, kennedys, that shi-ite guy recently who was all about peace in iraq, the palestinian guy who got shot by the jew. screw that, how about instead of starting wars by shooting good guys, lets freaking wake up already and start ending the wars/internal suffering by killing very clearly bad guys. are they not clearly bad? is it a US conspiracy to keep these animals in power so that their countries will remain our slaves and we will remain on top of them? thats really the only reason against SAA that makes sense to me, huge conspiracy. ill probably die real soon, screw you secret service.

An obvious relativistic reply to your questions is to state that what the saudis are to us, kennedy and Lincoln was to someone else. Then, you may say, but the saudis and terrorists are bad, but relatively, so are our assasinated presidents and civil rights leaders to someone else. Assasination is just hatred carried out to an extreme extent. To assasinate everyone our White American Capitalist society hates is to initiate WWIII.

A modest proposal!

How about we legalise sharpshooter rifles worldwide – let everyone who hates someone to shoot them. Only those with no enemies will be left!

But “good guys” try not to harm others; usually try to try someone first (perhaps we could do that in absentia) – then they kill/imprison them.

:: raising glass:: Pinochet, your days are numbered!

my real name

well i have faith that our civilized world isnt a complete failure, but so far im reading stories about we put this douche on trial, and we failed to convict him so far. wtf!?

what if, 20 years ago, some chilean exiles came to the SAA organization and said that pinochet was pure evil and needs to be stopped. first of course we will take diplomatic action, and when the animal uses the sanctions to impoverish his country and perhaps slightly decrease the number of diamond statues in his many palaces, then we can objectively identify the fact that one single man is unfairly taking a ridiculous amount of money from the poor people and he is living in a stupid amount of luxury and he is murdering people and lots and lots of disgusting badness that we can video tape easily.

so once it is established that the world will contain a much larger number of smiles when one person is dead, the SAA can work with the armed forces and their leaders to make sure that a good govt will take over, and then shoot the piece of crap. then one of the generals will take over and he will know that snipers with itchy fingers are waiting for him to selfishly hurt people for no greater good of any kind.

heres the big question: is it possible to objectively identify that saddam/pinochet/kimjong/hitler/stalin overall brought badness to the world and not good?

forget the slippery slope bullshit! can you identify why gulags are wrong? is it possible? is it possible to determine that kiling stalin and putting kruschev in charge will be good?

the reason why people thought lincoln and martin luther king were evil and worthy of death is because those people thought that black people were subhuman, and their beloved white culture would be irreversibly polluted thanks to the evil of lincoln.

well thats because they are wrong. i think in todays world we can all agree on things such as “kurds and shi ites are just as human as sunnis, therefore saddams murders are objectively bad”.

why would somebody want to kill kennedy? i mean of course he wasnt perfect, but he was no saddam or white-supremacy-destroying lincoln. i think if somebody kills someone who i think shouldnt have been killed, they were either under an incorrect impression (black people should stay slaves) or they are selfish animals and wrong (kennedy stopped some organized crime so the mafia kills him i dont know)

so the big question: is it possible to objectively identify that killing someone will create more smiles than frowns? if so, why shouldnt we create more smiles than frowns?

All you need is some committee or group of officials to keep people who are wrong out of the ‘shoot the bad guys’ gang, and you’d be all set.

well duh. but seriously all it would take is people who really care and who cant possibly make money off of it. i mean if human equality is the goal of this group, then they cant go wrong. it is that simple, and i would like one example of a group with this motive going wrong.

Who picks the members of the group? Lots of groups have been founded with precisely such lofty goals in mind, and their victims have learned all too well that even those who really care and who can’t possibly make money off of it can perform actions or institute structures that eventually result in murder and suffering. Recall how lofty are the goals set out in the U.S. founding documents, to which sincere, concerned humanitarians pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. There is no magical solution that does not involve the evolution of the individual (of most individuals throughout the world) into a kindhearted badass who will neither initiate nor tolerate force of any kind.

your last sentence threw me off. but before that, you describe the founding of our country? the problem with our country is that eventually asswipes got a hold of it. i guess i would have to prevent this from happening and im not sure how, maybe ill make sure i get all the work done before i and my contemproaries die and ill shut it down before our disgustingly evil children get a hold of it.

i absolutely cant think of any society that did bad while not being corrupted by evil asswipes. if quakers started assassinating, they would kill the guys we all know deserve it and only those. what is an example of good people actually doing bad because they were mistaken about something. and how difficult would it have been for them to get the correct information about their mistake.

The problem is you can’t tell an evil asswipe just by looking at him, and frequently cannot tell even by looking at his past actions.

It is clear this group will be non-democratically selected; anything else would allow charismatic/popular evil asswipes to get in. Once you’ve made that concession, how do you propose to keep checks on the group?

Basically, I agree that if anyone should have the power (right?) to conduct assassinations, it should be the Quakers (with maybe a coupla UUs and Buddhists thrown in for good measure :smiley: ) - but once you’ve decided that, all of the world’s psychotics and scumbags, and basically anyone with a political agenda, will become Quakers hoping to get a seat on that board. Were we to put Quakers in charge of this, within a few generations the word “Quaker” would be synonymous with (the usual litany of oppressive nouns). The same is true of any group of people you care to put in.

yeah ive thought that same thing. the people who get in charge are the ones who will do anything to get in charge. once they are there, the thing they are in charge of goes to shit because these kinds of people are the devil.

saddam got to be in charge of iraq because the place was in a huge unending melee of turmoil and he was the most ruthless destroyer of dissent. needless to say these kinds of people arent the most efficient leaders, but it was the only kind of person who was going to be in charge of iraq at the time for more than a few minutes.

the only way would be to make the assassination squad super secret and to find some way to objectively identify the evil asswipes. maybe only recruit people who have worked for a volunteer organization in africa. yes, that will be the place to recruit them. ill send someone to hang out in africa and look for people who hate jerks and who love helping people.

your definetely right though, it needs to be very secret or else i will soon destroy the quaker name. this leads me to believe that there currently is a super secret society in charge somewhere. and there should be, except they are doing an awful despicable job.

You’re talking about a star chamber. A vigilante group with self-styled “values” deciding who lives and who dies. The problem with such a group is that, regardless their values, they end up little better than their victims. If may be a fun fantasy to play God, but I think I’d rather take my chances in a society governed by rule of law, than a society where the ‘secret police’ are allowed to assasinate at will.

Who’s to say that Pinochet wasn’t busy doing just what you propose? After all, you don’t want a bunch of dissidents threatening societal “stability” do you? He was busy killing for the “good” of his society. BS? Of course. How will your assasins explain their killings? Promoting the common good? Prolly ought to re-think this one.

JT

whoa whoa there mr god, get out of my face with your LAWS. who do you think you are telling me i cant do certain things like hurt people for no good reason and steal their stuff and build gigantic palaces?

what gives you the right to say “this is a law: you cannot kill tons of people and steal their money and build palaces while your country rots” what are you god or something?..

oh wait no thats a good law. the problem is nobody gives a god damn if people violate it as long as they are in another country. the only people who do give a crap live in that country and are not able to succesfully assassinate their oppressor. and maybe the US gives a little damn too, but they are too worried about these things you speak of, like violating some silly uberlaw that says “you cant make laws unless you collect taxes from the person your lawifying” or some such nonsense.

anyway, my law says “no building palaces when your country is under economic sanctions; no killing tons of people who didnt really do anything” if a group can find irrefutable proof that a jackass is doing these things, and they make sure that some kind of stable leader takes over, whats the problem? silly undefined uberlaw?

me!! i can give you evidence that pinochet did not accomplish the mission: “destroy evil world leaders who are corrupting the planet” he was in fact being a paranoid douche who just went overboard one day and realized he needs to kill innocent people in order to maintain his position. proof will easily show that. i dont know what the problem with the trial is, but im sure its some retarded technicality, and im sure the prosecutors are 100% sure that this man was atrocious.

This is where your AI can be really useful. Create a robotic-human that cannot be corrupted.

Btw, isn’t there an organization that protects members of the elite world-leaders from assasination?

well i think trusting robots has been pushed back a century or two thanks to hollywood.

and if that same organization protects saddam hussein, kim jong and milosevic, screw them, they should be the first to die then. if they really dont care what their protectee does, then that is sad. they should know they are working towards an evil purpose if they are protecting milosevic.

really, amoral nihilists, is there really a problem identifying that milosevic or charles taylor are really evil? what is an example of a borderline ruler who is accurately considered good to some and evil to others?

I think one of the biggest concerns is that simply executing tyrants will create a power vacuum that will result in chaos.

The existence of a tyrant as a head of state isn’t just a case of big bad guy. No tyrant exists alone. A tyrant can only exist if there is a support that serves their will. Additionally, tyrannical actions tend to prevent widespread violence between hostile groups within a country. Removing a tyrant can inflame civil wars and chaos.

I do not apology for the bad guys list you gave. I have absolutely now concern for powerful people like these. That said, I do not support simply executing them and seeing what happens. Revolutionary forces within a country are the only force that can successfully transform a country. Removing the tyrant will only create a vacancy in the position of great power. This vacancy will be fought for and this fight is quite capable of eclispsing the violence associated with a dictatorship.

yeah, id have to make sure i talk to the military powers and see if they have another leader theyd put in his place. and maybe he would behave if he knew the punishing wrath of future man was watching him sin. cause everybody knows theres no other punishing wraths around here.

Revolution or not, there is always a danger of the leadership position being corrupted by a replacement.

The biggest problem of a dictator/tyrant is grooming a successor—whether it’s a son, a second guy in command, etc.

NabberGnossi is right by saying that a tyrant does not act as a lone power. He has support domestically and internationally–otherwise, he will fail.

Assassination requires that it must breach security surrounding the target. Think, perhaps, of a tight circle of security. So, how to breach this security in order for the assassinatin to be successful, since you need access to the target (tyrant)? You must have someone within this circle to cooperate. A successful assassination always have a contact inside.

Those are exactly the guys who do get assassinated by the U.S. In the early-mid eighties there were a couple of drug kingpins in Colombia who basically pushed out the CIA’s handpicked cartels, and then used the money they made from selling drugs to Americans without going through the Ollie North/CIA middlemen to do things like build schools in their communities - they helped quite a number of people locally, and the CIA offed them for taking away their black ops slush fund goldmine, and nobody threw a hissy fit because the people who got killed were these armed and dangerous guys who sell drugs to our children. The CIA’s buddies then resumed control and quality of life has gone down - meanwhile armed and dangerous guys continue to sell drugs to our children.

ok step one, destroy american govt…DAMMIT history makes me angry.

this is why i believe the universe and humans were designed to harvest selflessness and not create happiness.