Is this discussion compatible with forum guidelines?

[Jannes]

Edit: I would like to discuss at which point it would be reasonable to kill the leader of a country if he goes too far. Its obviously a theoretical discussion. Is that compatible with forum guidelines "dont incite violence" ? 

Lol when you become so vague, it makes it like its super real. Like when you suddenly become quit during a conversation, everyone turns their ears. 

Edited Sunday at 11:10 PM by Jannes

[Sea]

There were multiple assassination attempts on Hitler during WW2 and two attempts on Trump during the election campaign. These kind of leaders are good at surviving.

[Basman]

It will remove a politician from the game, and if that politician is for example an authoritarian then you will have less authoritarianism in your politics. But it is undemocratic and uninstitutional. Your undermining the entire game of representative democracy when you start killing your rivals. 

If you normalize the killing of political leaders in general you create an environment where political control is a matter of physical survival, which reduces a country's options for constructive action. You can't have checks and balances if divided power is physically dangerous.

[Lucasxp64]

It's only fair if doing so would avoid a genocide, war or the destruction of democracy itself. Under regular democracies it's too destabilizing and it always fires back too harshly. Like the trump attempt, it ended up bringing him up.

There was an attempt against Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, he got stabbed and it had similar effect.

Funny enough, Jair Bolsonaro in his last term (which he lost to Lula), he had plans and almost carried out a coup d'état by planning to kill Lula before his official term (the current president that won) and some of his closest allies (it was fully documented). This was the first time in Brazilian history that an attempt to a coup d'état didn't receive amnesty. The impunity for the crime against democracy should not exist.

There should be an iron fist against attempts to destroy democracy. Which is a delicate balance, if an entity is trying to destroy the government's democracy, then an extra-judicial decapitation order might be the only way to protect the state from finding itself in a state that it wouldn't be a democracy anymore, and any peaceful/legal repercussions would become impossible. So under those circumstances it seems internationally reasonable although it doesn't seem legal in international law, although technically someone like that should be tried officially by the ICC (International Criminal Court) but is always impractical/impossible due to the impossibility of breaking through the veil of sovereignty: A dictator doesn't give himself up, he gotta be taken down forcefully to restore democracy.

It's a delicate balance.

Edited Monday at 12:41 AM by Lucasxp64

[Terell Kirby]

Reframe the discussion topic as: Consequences of political violence- when is it appropriate and when does it backfire?

that would be more politically correct

[BlueOak]

Here is a discussion.

Power. People like to put rules on what power should be. Many follow these rules.
Most leaders do not have these rules.
Consequently, there is always a delusion or disconnect between reality and conversations.

Would a leader, someone not following these rules kill a rival, yes.
Would people be outraged, yes. - Would that matter, most times no.

You and this forum (all forums) are operating under different rules to reality. I am not discussing the rules, its not my forum, and I understand why they exist, as people and institutions that govern communications have expectations, which sadly do not line up with how reality functions.

I am just pointing out why this disconnect exists

Edited Monday at 09:14 AM by BlueOak