Reason For Assassinations

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 like oil; everyone needs it for daily life. Then there are wars that start over the killing of a political figure such as, Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria, which started World War I. Benazir Bhutto, which set Pakistan in a state of unbelief, unrest and violence throughout the whole country. Also lets not forget the conspiracy theories behind JFK, or the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
What causes a person to assassinate someone? Benazir Bhutto was killed on December 27, 2007, she was a political candidate for an upcoming election in Pakistan. A bomb exploded after the fact that she had been shot and killed. Seen as a threat to the other candidate, that was their reason for killing her. “A week of turmoil has gripped that nation, as nearly 60 people have died, fuelled in large by utter disbelief expressed over the official explanation now being give in death of former prime minister, Bhutto (Shabazz).” When there is a political assassination like that it doesn’t upset just one person, it upsets the whole country and others around it. “‘A day after her murder, Fox News were calling this Pakistan’s (JFK) assassination,’ […] ‘all accounts following the attack, including those pf people close to her, those in the cars in front and behind her vary, so one wonders what the real accurate story is’” (Statesman). Other reasons for assassination are change, and changes to happen later. To set an example for later on. But who wants to learn from someone that is willing to kill a person for his or her own reasons. Assassinations put a whole country in turmoil and provoke future violence.
Whoever it was, they are enemies of Pakistan. They have destroyed all hope for Pakistan. If it was some Jihadis, then I refuse to believe in the Islam they proclaim. I do think that it was the government’s responsibility to guarantee Bhutto’s security. They can’t make any excuses about not doing so (Statesman). There have been many political assassinations including JFK, which everyone still thinks was a conspiracy. “More than forty years after JFKs death, the controversy over his death rumbles on” (Lightbrown). No one really knows what to think about his death, only that we know that Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly had done it. “An intelligence agency may not sweat the specifics before calling in a hit on a terrorist (Turley).” In that way people jump to conclusions about who had done it without the full factual information. “Hence (it is said) the reason so many people think Oswald didn’t act alone in the Kennedy assassination is that they just don’t want to believe that JFK was killed by some lone nutcase” (Feser). People just don’t want to believe that it happened and that only one man was able to do it.
Gavrilo Princip assassinated Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria. Only nineteen years old at the time when Gavrilo killed the archduke. ”Gavrilo was a young Bosnian revolutionarie” (Devoss). There were many attempts on Ferdinand’s life that day, grenades, bullets and explosions were only a few of what had happened on June 18, 1914, the day Ferdinand was killed. “Despite the rumblings of trouble, only one hundred and twenty policemen were on duty that day. Almost no precautions were taken” (Devoss). Barely any security was sweated for the arrival of the archduke, even though there were predictions of trouble. It’s almost as if the city of Sarajevo wanted him dead. “Young men flocked to secret societies. Drawn to Serbia in hopes of finding ways to support its causes in the Balkans, many found their way to the Black Hand. The Group eventually recruited six Bosnians, one of them Gavrilo Princip, and sent them to Sarajevo, armed with bombs and revolvers” (Devoss).
Recruiting Bosnians for terror attacks was the reason for getting ready for the archdukes arrival in Sarajevo.
After the attempts on his life, Ferdinand reached Sarajevo’s city hall. Being frustrated by the lack of security, the archduke decided to leave and take the road he came from instead of the planned route through the city, where Ferdinand was sure that there would be more attacks. On the way back running into Gavrilo Princip, and assassinating the archduke and his wife. “Gavrilo Princip, a national hero prior to Yugoslavia’s early 1900’s disintegration into warring fractions was now considered a criminal terrorist by Bosnia” (Devoss). This shows that Gavrilo was a hero, but ended in terror at the start of World War
One. Assassinations lead to violence, war, civil unrest, and more killings and assassinations to come. That person who does the killing will either be killed or put in prison. There are usually a terrorist group of few people that have planned the attack, but it takes only one person to carry it out, one person to start a war. One person, one action, one moment in time to change the world and o change lives for many years to come. After September 11, 2001 we went to war, which means that violent acts lead to more violence whatever the action may be. “At the end of the day, as individuals, as communities, and as a nation we live and are judged by the practices we follow” (Shea).