Assassinations, Reasons Why, and Responses Afterward
Assassinations are the virtual antithesis of legal process and are viewed by many as an immoral act (Turley). With each assassination, a different outcry for change occurs. “No one really ‘wins’ in the assassination game, and the whirlwind of repercussion has an unpredictable path of death and destruction (Shea).” Political assassinations don’t have a true outcome except retaliation, whatever the reason, what comes next will be violence. There really isn’t a real reason for killing someone; you just harm yourself in the long run. Violence causes more violence which then leads to a controversy between many.
“Assassinations are often based on incomplete information. In a given attack it may never be proven that a particular individual was responsible. An intelligence agency may not sweat the specifics on evidence before calling in a hit on a terrorist (Turley).” Without common knowledge of who did it, the government jumps to conclusions on well-known terrorists or those capable of doing it. “The use of assassination does not achieve the immediate objective of eliminating a political adversary, but sets off a long-term wave of recrimination (Shea).” Lost partnerships with allies, and ruined relations for a long time. Considering that the United States and its allies are always seeking to carry out complex and premeditated plans and schemes to secure their legitimate interests in the Middle East, and in this way, they try to use every situation to their advantage, the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri gave them good excuse to further meddle in the regional affairs and developments, particularly in Syria and Lebanon (Majidi). In some ways people think that other countries did it so that they can go in and try to “fix the problem,” and in that way they just create unease in that country, and the people there believe that you are there for your own selfish reasons. Wars can start over something silly...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document