Just because they were both leaders doesn't mean your action is accomplishing the same thing.
Assassinations will continue regardless of "international treaty". Any time someone kills a political leader, you have assassination. The assassin may have done it because he's insane, or he might have different politics, or he might be trying to avoid a war that "kills millions".
By denying the benefit or the loss that results from the two different choices, by denying the differences in their motivations, and by any and all reasons other than "but assassination is bad, m'kay", you are equating the death of one person to the death of millions and the destruction and poverty and whatnot that accompanies war. Actually, you are saying that one person's life is worth more than those millions (in a dramatically ironic way including, potentially, that one person).
You are using an absolute statement without proper justification. You assume that assassination is wrong, and you argue as though that assumption should just be accepted.
I'm asking you to explain and/or defend that assumption.
Damn, I got to type 'ass' a lot in this post. ;-) |
