3 free kills

Ok you are now the leader of major country and you get 3 free assassinations to use, with now way of tracing it back to you

Who do you knock off?

I don't know that I'd want anyone killed in cold blood. (Even if i could get away with it.)

My reply to Jonathan's statement made no sense after re-reading his statement and has been removed

Ignore this post (here come the replies)

Maybe the current North Korean dictator, or perhaps the leader of the former Soviet republican regime that apparently boils people to death. Get me a list of politicians with the highest body counts to their names.

It really comes down to revenge and self satisfaction .. You think about the worlds biggest issues or biggest assholes and they are usually representative of the problems or system they are working in and its really quite unsure that you will solve a particular problem by offing the current leaders.

I agree Kim jung il is a knob but there is no reason to believe his son won't be the same, ditto for who ever the army moves forward to replace Robert Mugabe, Business leaders are even less effective targest to off as the coporations have a life of their own built into corporate culture, you could take out hole boards and eager young minions would kill each other for the chance to behave exactly the same.

So who are those few people who 1. deserve it? 2. who's deaths will inspire revolutionary action by those they've oppressed? 3. that english bookies will make odds on?

kubera wrote:

It really comes down to revenge and self satisfaction [...]

I view revenge as being unworthy of civilized humanity because, despite its emotional power, it's the recourse of those who can't govern their uglier instincts. What hero ever promoted revenge?

Sorry, didn't mean to quibble earlier. It's a fantasy; anything goes.

kubera wrote:

[...] its really quite unsure that you will solve a particular problem by offing the current leaders. [...]there is no reason to believe his son won't be the same, ditto for who ever the army moves forward to replace Robert Mugabe, Business leaders are even less effective targest to off as the coporations have a life of their own built into corporate culture [...]

Won't solve the problem of evil, of course, but I feel that an opportunity to neutralize thuggishness (the worst kind of behaviour, no?) ought to be taken. I do see your point, though, illustrated with a different example: a mugging. Stopping a mugger prevents an actual crime, whereas the elimination of an office holder doesn't necessarily stop anything. As Yoda might say, its own momentum has an institution.

Assassinating a political leader might give successors a pause (especially since I have more than one kill, and moreso if it's not known that I'm limited). (In fact, the assassination of enemy leaders might well curb much warfare.)

I wouldn't target business leaders, as they don't employ aggressive force apart from lobbying the state. But it's your choice.

Rewrote/reworked previous post.

kubera wrote:

[...]

You think about the worlds biggest issues or biggest assholes and they are usually representative of the problems or system they are working in and its really quite unsure that you will solve a particular problem by offing the current leaders.

I agree Kim jung il is a knob but there is no reason to believe his son won't be the same, ditto for who ever the army moves forward to replace Robert Mugabe, Business leaders are even less effective targest to off as the coporations have a life of their own built into corporate culture, you could take out hole boards and eager young minions would kill each other for the chance to behave exactly the same. [...]

It seems you've come up with an argument for libertarianism. Do you see it?

nope don't see it.

I suspect you want me to agree its the system that's the problem so we should do without the system. I do agree a lot of the problem is the system itself but like owning a broken toilet I don't give up and shit in the corner I try to fix it.

If I had to choose 3 I think one possible angle would be taking on those who are most dangerous to the open dissemination of information such as those who through concentrated ownership of western media stifle the range of political discourse to a very narrow spectrum. Having media that caters to a narrow view can be ok up to the point that facts are fabricated to support opinions. Alternate interpretation of data is valid, just making shit up is not, Ruppert Murdoch, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Koch Brothers are all prime examples of those who do this or empower others to There are examples on the left side as well, and in Canadian media. Judging who does/has done the largest net disservice to the public would be rough choice.

Striking down major hypocrites might be options. Closet gay hate spreading homophobic preachers for example. Fiscal conservatives who ran on transparency but who are bankrupting our country under a veil of secrecy. Pro lifers who support execution. Damn I'd need a whole toe tag factory for that one.

kubera wrote:

SteveL wrote:

It seems you've come up with an argument for libertarianism. Do you see it?

nope don't see it.

I suspect you want me to agree its the system that's the problem so we should do without the system. I do agree a lot of the problem is the system itself but like owning a broken toilet I don't give up and shit in the corner I try to fix it. […]

Since we’re talking about a persistent problem, trying to fix the toilet is like replacing an office holder. Neither suffices.

Although comically apt, the toilet analogy is weak. Let’s try to make it work, anyway. The toilet is the office holder and the political system is the legally mandatory presence of a conventional toilet in your home. (It’s only mandatory for the purpose of the illustration.) The toilet can’t be fixed and every replacement unit has an unfixable design problem (some are worse than others).

Thus, your toilet malfunctions but you are not permitted to seek another solution. All you can do is order defective replacements. To take the analogy a little further, we might still be using outhouses if we were denied the freedom to scrap that system.

Libertarians don’t give up. They maintain that the decision of how best to manage human waste disposal in your home is yours to make. It is the non-libertarians, those who cling to politics, who won’t allow the problem to be solved and have thus given up. Because of them, we are forced to pay for faulty toilets through the political monopoly that they uphold.

If the replacement of an office holder is insufficient remedy, the larger organization is the greater problem.

I realize no one ever gave me a list.. afraid Vic Toews is watching you?

I would say Rupert Murdock but he's too close to death to waste the effort.
Sheldon Adelson ditto
perhaps the Koch Brothers , but you must hit both to make a difference.

I think I'd stay to press types who have no sense of reality/truth. stay local, Canadian to intensify effect.
Ezra Levant for sure, he's just such an ass wipe, impact minimal, satisfaction high
Pierre Peladeau controlling owner of Quebecorp,, market concentration, bias and sleaze. impact moderate, satisfaction moderate.

Peter Mansbridge because he basically gargled Harper's balls last election while interviewing him.. 2 hours of softball questions pre screened by the PMO. That's not journalism

however I doubt any of these would actually make a big difference . 3 bodies in a sea of 7 billion (most of whom have power are pricks ) cannot fix anything.
Perhaps I should just go for shear satisfaction I would want the 3 kills to be instant and unknowingly triggered. the first 3 people who made my pissed off meter hit 11 would explode immediately , I just hope they are not driving in front of me when they go boom.

Obama, Holder, Bloomberg.