Because killing a leader without a plan for who will replace them isn’t very efficient. A leader, unless he is particularly skilled, is rarely string enough to actually have that big of an influence but it’s enabled by the institutions. The only way to change the institutions is weakening the ones you want to weaken.
How come assassinations went away for the most part? Why send a bunch of god fearing young kids into a battle the upper class started or wanted when clipping one leader would stop it?
Submitted 6 days ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
dnick@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
redsand@infosec.pub 5 days ago
You could aim higher than politicians but few are so bold in history.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
Because killing a leader without a plan for who will replace them isn’t very efficient
And often leads to a worse leader seizing power out of the chaos and power vacuum that the assassination created.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 6 days ago
Imagine you’re the leader of a country. You’ve got beef with the leader of another country.
You can resolve your beef by sending thousands or tens of thousands of plebs to die, while remaining safe yourself, or you can normalize directly targeting each other with assassins.
In the first case, you sit safely on your ivory throne sipping wine while the conflict resolves itself. In the latter case, you’re constantly looking over your shoulder, wondering who’s going to come for you next.
Patnou@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Yea I would put myself up before I let blood or any blood be split on my behalf
Mirshe@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Much easier to say when you’re not the one invested with massive power, and often massive wealth too. There’s a reason the saying goes that power corrupts.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 days ago
That’s how WW1 started.
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social 6 days ago
Because the CIA is like a clown car of stupid, and bungled Castro’s so bad it just made us all look stupid.
Then by an amazing coincidence, JFK got shot in the head a couple of years after the attempts.
Also Executive Order 12333 signed by Regan after someone shot him.
Plus Trump just did kill the ayatollah, it changed nothing.
In the end, all you do is make them a martyr and propel us faster into war.
AngryRedHerring@lemmy.world 5 days ago
In the end, all you do is make them a martyr and propel us faster into war.
I think the lesson they learned from the martyrs they created in the 60s (King, the Kennedys) is that it’s much easier and just as effective to assassinate character. And it’s mostly legal.
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social 5 days ago
Yup.
Fox News brainwashing and lies are way more effective than a bullet, and really really profitable.
Well, profitable up till that whole voting machine thing.
cynar@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I’d argue they didn’t, they just changed.
There are 2 groups worth noting. Government and private.
Government assassination is still a thing. Israel has used it aggressively over the last few decades. There are also signs that china has too. That’s just off the top of my head. It’s also worth noting that drone strikes etc can fill the same roll as an assassin.
Private has definitely changed. I suspect the high profile assassinations have stopped. Low level ones just had to get a lot better at not looking like assassinations. The ever classic boating accident being a good example.
The change is mostly from improvements in policing. You can no longer just move to another city to escape the law.
MolochAlter@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Because less and less legitimacy and authority is vested in the individual and their bloodline, meaning even dictators can be replaced.
IWW4@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
When were assassinations the norm?
agentTeiko@piefed.social 5 days ago
They do it all the time but its called shaping its very slow moving and if done right nobody will know you have done it. Its spelled out in the field manual fm 3-24
melsaskca@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
I think we should at least try that method, but the arms manufacturers wouldn’t allow it.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 6 days ago
Ali Khamenei might have a different view.
lucullus@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
And Jamal Khashoggi
devolution@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Izz al-Din al-Haddad also disagrees.
NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 5 days ago
“For the most part” does not mean “entirely”.
I’m not taking a side here: maybe you’re right, maybe OP’s right. But I won’t stand for such cheap arguments!
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 5 days ago
Some of your body parts seem smart…
;-)