Political assassination

Tinker Grey said:

A supporter is someone who gave money at one point or other. The only benefit I'm aware of is that I don't see ads.

A moderator is a member who is empowered to make decisions like locking a thread or moving it and sometimes giving the equivalent of demerits for bad behavior.

As I am an atheist, I would never be allowed to be a moderator.

Click to expand...

Being atheist, do you see the benefits of donating your money, or using a Christian forum like this?

Pommer said:

It may be that you have a learning curve that you are as yet unaware?

Click to expand...

The learning process is never completely one-sided.

Perhaps, you would care to elaborate?

Pommer said:

You seem to be ignorant of various idioms and allusions to things in American culture that has you confused,

These turns-of-phrase are easily parsed by those in-the-know.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I disagree with this because it's just your own opinion, which cannot surpass God's viewpoint on this Religious forum.

Presupposing that your country cannot facilitate such a political event, then I am sure that God will find somebody else who is more willing and able than you.

Ultimately, the fault is not on my part, but it is on the part of your country (Isaiah 55:8-9).

If it was intended as a warning, then I am confident that God is real and he is still on my side; no warning can be one-sided without consequences.

keith99 said:

Doh! Think Charles Bronson.

Click to expand...

Charles Bronson is American, but America is not the only country within NATO with the requisite expertise.

Aryeh Jay said:

Rifles are not the best thing for political assassinations in foreign countries.

Click to expand...

Does it need to be more clandestine in a foreign country, similar to the methods used by the GRU (because you cannot guarantee the sympathy or cooperation of any foreign government)?

Gene2memE said:

They question has too many variables to answer properly.

"What would happen if a NATO/EU country were to assassinate a Third world dictator by using a military sniper rifle in a third country within the European Union?"​

Is the country acting on its own, or in concert/with the approval of other NATO and/or EU countries?

Click to expand...

According to Sketcher, it wouldn’t be prudent for the assassination to happen on EU soil, but it might still be possible to do it in a NATO country outside the EU; or it might still happen in a former overseas colony who have maintained loyal ties and cooperation with the perpetrator country.

Gene2memE said:

Is this part of a wider operation, or a single act?

Click to expand...

Probably part of a wider operation to launch a full scale military invasion of their country, but it would be important to eliminate the most important proponent of that regime prior to the invasion.

Gene2memE said:

Is it extra judicial, or has some legal body or government/intra-government body made an allowance?

Click to expand...

Presumably, such an act would still be legal under the executive orders and laws of the perpetrator country. It is far better to act lawfully than to make it extra judicial.

Gene2memE said:

Is the country of the dictator being assassinated hostile to the single country, or EU/NATO more generally? What's the general geopolitical situation? What's the European security situation?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's arguably the case that the country of the dictator is hostile to both the single country and the EU/NATO in general, because they are known to have strategic nuclear missiles targeted at North America and Europe.

Gene2memE said:

What's the relationship between the country where the assassination took place and the country doing the assassinating?

Click to expand...

Obviously, they are not as close as America and the UK, nor even as close as America and Russia who are not the best of friends.

Their relationship is probably more akin to US-Iranian relations, which has been on the decline since the Revolution in 1979.

Gene2memE said:

There are NATO countries that are not in the EU (the US, Albania, Canada, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Turkey, and now the UK), and there are also EU states that aren't members of NATO (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden). So, the question is VERY different if its a non-EU state performing a military strike within the EU.

Click to expand...

As already discussed, such a military strike within the EU wouldn’t be very wise (whether the perpetrator is part of the EU or not), but it would be far better to make it happen in a Third world former colony than to have any first world nation implicated with the military strike. Then, at least the reputation of first world nations wouldn’t be tarnished by such an act. See the colony as a dumping ground, which is far too remote to implicate the perpetrator.

Gene2memE said:

Also, why a "military sniper rifle"? What do you mean by that term? Are you talking about something in a common NATO calibre (5.56x45, 7.62x51, .300 Win Mag, .338 Lapua Mag) or something in a non-NATO calibre (say, 7.62x54 or something exotic like 14.5x114) for plausible deniability reasons?

Click to expand...

Probably, a non-NATO calibre rifle would be more suitable to conceal the identity of the perpetrator.