JUST PHILOSOPHISING ON - IF NOT VIOLENT REVOLUTION HOW CAN THE OPPRESSED FREE THEMSELVES FROM GREIVOUS OPPRESSORS? FINIS!

  

As well as the regime's willingness ot discount or ignore whatever pressures its external friends, enemies and allies attempt to exert upon it.

We have, for example, seen the extent to which the military regime in Myanmar went to use the state's security apparatuses as a weapon  of brutality, with which to defeat non-violent mass mobilisation of citizens opposed to it.

With regards to the 'targeted elimination' method of effecting progressive societal and/or regime changes, there is the need to address the morality of this option. 

This is understandable, when we consider the political landscape on which colonised and formerly colonised peoples and movements have fought for decades to free themselves from the clutches of imperialist nations. 

How the latter have gone about assassinating and murdering their progressive leaders. 

So, some people might ask; how can it be moral or politically prudent to argue that it would be right to return to this method of ridding society of one's political opponents? 

Well, it really boils down to the nature of the 'political opponents.' People like the Taliban leaders are about grievously oppressing their people.  

They are not about achieving freedom and independence for the people of their country, and maintaining it. The current leader of Nicaragua, the former leader of Zimbabwe. 

Former leaders such as Agusto Pinochet  and Jorge Videla. Former leaders such as Bokassa and General Franco of Spain. 

Former Leaders such as Hitler, might have been more properly opposed or challenged by the act of political assassinations. 

Rather than having thousands or millions of pe0ple being engaged in wars and suffering the subsequent massive deaths and destruction.

National leaders who refuse to submit themselves to open and honest periodical, constitutional election and legitimization by the majority of the nation's people. 

And/or refuse to remove themselves from the role of national leaders, arguably, by default, could, if not should be deemed to have lost any legitimacy they might once have had, and be eligible for removal from office by any mean/s necessary.

Thus is 'targeted assassination' a more efficient way of ridding a nation of an errant leader and cadre which is sacrificing a nation's present and/or future welfare and development.  

For their own aggrandisement and/or some unaccountable and unrenewable religious and/or political edit.

The moral and ethical dilemmas which should be considered and satisfactorily negotiated in pursuing the option of returning to 'targeted assassinations of national and even regional leaders who have put themselves beyond those compasses, should indeed be addressed. 

And yet, when we consider that it is the destiny of all of us that we humans are fated to die. 

Looked at rationally, objectively and pragmatically, what tenable argument can anybody put against the prudence of stealthily trying to prevent large-scale conflicts and wars.  

By effecting the remova; of one or more of the main protagonists, by eliminating them, when it is likely to to be efficacious?