# data[].attributes.body
the proposition lacks any examples to prove its point about how an assassination would work

it lacks any clarification on how they would do it and didn't consider the aftermath impact on their solution

here the proposition failed to clarify their definition of saving more people, cuz it seems the proposition is being non-emphatic to the slavian people

on the other side, we as the opposition accomplished the proposed a more applicable solution, that's already been proven to work, we've also mentioned examples in the past of how the assassination wouldn't work and the proposition haven't made any comment in regards

# data[].attributes.body
people would indeed feel unsafe if putin is still alive so what would happen? that's why our solution would be for countries fearing putin to join NATO so we can secure them. we already explained this

# data[].attributes.body
they have a lot of nuclear arsenal, they're going to use them in a civil war. warmongering warlords in russia like what happened in afghanistan but with NUKES??? is not a good idea

# data[].attributes.body
as secret an operation is, the russian public and political leaders would still know only one side can do this kind of act. who will they blame other than nato?

# data[].attributes.body
again, who is this new leader you are promoting?

# data[].attributes.body
the USSR fell very late and it costed afghanistan hungary and czechoslovakia their lives. but did the cold war ended with a nuclear war? no, NATO solved the soviet problem without assassination with minimal casualty

# data[].attributes.body
you're saying if putin stays in power then ww3 could still happen. then why risk it with NATO troops in russia? do you think the russian people would just stand by and take it in that NATO killed their leader?

# data[].attributes.body
russians are not as radical? have you seen how they are supporting the war and being militarily propagandad?

# data[].attributes.body
you guys are telling me that killing putin would not cause a lot more problem than there already is? there's literally zero person in the russian political sphere that can replace him, shoigu wont, kadyrov wont, medvedev wont

# data[].attributes.body
who is that better leader after putin? tell me

# data[].attributes.body
NATO stopping conflicts in eastern europe like what they do in in the middle east? would the proposition please tell us when have NATO stopped a conflict in any place by the ways of political assassination?

# data[].attributes.body
this debate is also about the russian citizen the slavics. so nato cant just get into russia and leave without considering the russian citizen's fate? that's what made NATO fail in the middle east, they dont care about the people

# data[].attributes.body
Actions have consequences

# data[].attributes.headline
secret ops or not, the impact of a political leader dying vary on their negative impact

# data[].attributes.subject
secret ops or not, the impact of a political leader dying vary on their negative impact

# data[].attributes.body
there are no elections in russia. you already said that putin imprisoned all of the opposition, no one can replace the man without a coup or the ravages of civil war

# data[].attributes.body
CIA is good at assassination? tell me then how did assasinating bin laden solve the problems in the middle east? or gaddafi?

# data[].attributes.body
AGAIN, NO ONE IS SAYING PUTIN IS GOOD OR BAD. the proposition must regard that this debate is about how assassinating is good or not

# data[].attributes.headline
speak faster nigga and also the fucking rebuttals

# data[].attributes.subject
speak faster nigga and also the fucking rebuttals

# data[].attributes.body
Killing putin would indeed weaken russia and their political landscape and have them lose chinese trade. but again this won't justify the consequences of a civil war in russia or at worst ww3

# data[].attributes.body
preventing russian annexation in eastern europe can be done by weakening russia with war in ukraine. the soviet union fell even without NATO killing the leaders of the soviet union.

# data[].attributes.body
we are not debating on how putin is bad or good. it is pretty clear that both side of the debate right now support ukraine and doesn't support putin. we are debating on how assassinating putin is a good or bad idea and the proposition haven't explained on how they are going to do it in detail. secretly killing putin is still ambiguous.

# data[].attributes.body
NATO have done a lot of assassination in the past in the name of preventing wars. now tell me did they succeed in afghanistan iraq or libya? tell me in which NATO assassination have they EVER succeded in history. tell us

# data[].attributes.body
our side does not promote or even uphold putin or support putin. we never said so. let's be clear putin is a bad person. we only disagree on how we approach the matter

# data[].attributes.body
we all know putin has ambitions such as in georgia ukraine and even the baltic countries and finland but does this justify risking billions of lives in ww3 or even at the very least a civil war in russia because of a landshake political assasination?

# data[].attributes.headline
Fafa highlight red things that u want to read or have read

# data[].attributes.subject
Fafa highlight red things that u want to read or have read

# data[].attributes.body
to stop putin we don't need assasination because it would only cause more havoc in the region especially eastern europe

# data[].attributes.body
Millions of people, EVEN BILLIONS OF PEOPLE. will die. europe would be flattened, russia would be a wasteland and the world's economy will suffer to it's greatest deppression. everyone will suffer and for what? do you really want to risk killing them all?

# data[].attributes.body
medvedev? how? can he handle russia? it would be unstable,if russia is unstable,, civil war. u cant save the world by assassanite putin. dicktator controls a country only he

# data[].attributes.headline
it would make NATO look like the aggressor 

# data[].attributes.subject
it would make NATO look like the aggressor 

# data[].attributes.body
NATO throughout the ukrainian conflict have been very level headed and patient in their moves. this is done to make them not seen as the aggressor while what putin is doing outright invading another nation is indeed an act of aggression. if the west decided to go for a frontal assasination move against the head of the russian nation then it would have NATO be frowned upon by the whole world. a lot of nations already hate NATO and to do this kind of outrageous act would have a lot more nations supporting russia seeing them as the victim

# data[].attributes.body
assassin?
kill suddenly or secretively, especially a prominent person

# data[].attributes.body
the worst case scenario if we do this special operations is a war between NATO and Russia
The best case scenario is a civil war inside of russia, a country with the largest nuclear arsenal and the 2nd largest army in the world. it would all cause nuclear armageddon

# data[].attributes.headline
No need to act now, just a proposal till the last sand drops

# data[].attributes.subject
No need to act now, just a proposal till the last sand drops

# data[].attributes.body
as we know NATO is a international organitation that has a purpose of freedom and security by political and military means,

NATO is an active and leading contributor to peace and security on the international stage. It promotes democratic values and is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes.

After what putin did in the past invading georgia in August 2008 more than a 1000 people lost their life

, checnya in 1999 range from 25,000 to 100,000 deaths.

, the annexation of crimea in 2014

now with russia  ukraine war 2022 hat cause approximitey 10 to 25 thousands of lives. its is logical that we need to stop this man by any means neccisery

# data[].attributes.body
https://theconversation.com/the-putin-problem-is-there-ever-a-case-to-kill-tyrants-179295

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Republican senator Lindsey Graham has been among those calling for the assassination of Russian president Vladimir Putin in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The Biden administration immediately denied any such plans. But despite the White House's best attempts to deny targeting Putin, it begs the question, when is it acceptable to assassinate a tyrant?

In Libya, a US drone was involved in the airstrike that lead to the death of former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 2011. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq began with "decapitation" strikes directly aimed at killing Saddam Hussein.

No wonder Putin is reported to be "extremely paranoid" about being assassinated.

International law and assassination

Since the second world war and the Nuremberg trials, the international culture has been to prosecute tyrants rather than kill them. The assassination of heads of state is also prohibited under the 1973 New York Convention, which covers "internationally protected persons", and is outlawed under the laws of war, first established in the 19th century.

The US itself has specifically prohibited assassination under its rules of war since 1863, and each president since 1976 has reaffirmed executive orders against assassinating foreign leaders.

It also remains a rare event. Only ten leaders have been assassinated by a foreign state between 1875 and 2004.

Legal philosophy

There is a huge grey area around the issue of tyrannicide - the killing of a ruler who rules illegitimately, oppressively, and/or acts aggressively at home or abroad. Putin appears to meet this definition.

Towering figures of classical jurisprudence (or legal philosophy) like Hugo Grotius and Emer de Vattel claimed tyrants were "common enemies of humankind" who should be targeted like pirates.

But the issue of whether such tyrants can be targeted under international law is somewhat confused, with arguments both for and against.

We also know assassination has substantial effects on political stability at both national and international levels.

Political philosophy

There have been at least three different historical approaches to tyrannicide in political thought.

Read more: Weapons of mass destruction: what are the chances Russia will use a nuclear or chemical attack on Ukraine?

In Ancient Greece and Rome, if the ruler was harmful, they could be legitimately and violently deposed. For example, in The Republic, Plato condemned tyranny as the most degenerate political crime. In De Officiis, Cicero claimed tyranny was a pestilence on the body politic which, because it injures the rest of the body, should be severed.

During the medieval period, some philosophers justified complete submission to the god-given order, including tyranny. However, theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin generally argued private individuals had a tacit mandate of tyrannicide when no other means of ridding the community of the tyrant were available.

In the modern period, especially with the advent of liberalism around the 17th century, there was a push to institutionalise a protective right of the people against tyranny. For example, in 1689, John Locke argued the people retained the ability of saving themselves from tyranny through the existence of a "supreme power" or "implied reserve".

These principles can be traced to the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, widely believed to include a right to "alter or abolish" and bear arms against tyranny. This has recently led to confused attempts at subverting democratic processes also, as we saw at Capitol Hill in January 2021.

The US approach

Yet we know the US has used assassination in its foreign and military affairs. For example, a 1953 CIA training manual bluntly called "Study of Assassination" is easily found online.

Since 2001, the US has also killed over 4,000 targets in drone strikes and retains "kill lists" of terrorist suspects. The 2011 assassination of Osama Bin Laden has been popularised in a film partly written by the CIA.

So clearly, the US does assassinate people, and quite often - but can it ever be justified against a leader of a foreign state?

In 1975, a US Senate committee concluded the US had supported a number of plots to kill foreign leaders, though there was no evidence of direct involvement.

Interestingly, the very conundrum posed by Russia's invasion was anticipated by the committee. In these circumstances, assassination may be compatible with American values, it said:

This country was created by violent revolt against a regime believed to be tyrannous, and our founding fathers (the local dissidents of that era) received aid from foreign countries [...] we should not today rule out support for dissident groups seeking to overthrow tyrants.

Human rights vs chaos

Today, the justifications for tyrannicide revolve around self-defence and protecting human rights. Arguably, these justifications could be made in the defence of a state like Ukraine and the human rights of its citizens. However, these exact arguments could also be said of the illegal American-led war in Iraq.

Still, the answer is unclear.

One of the main problems is the outcome is unpredictable. In the case of Iraq, it created a hotbed for terrorism in the form of ISIS and in Libya it allowed slavery to return.

Read more: Putin is on a personal mission to rewrite Cold War history, making the risks in Ukraine far graver

Another fear is tyrannicide will spawn an even worse leader. Or result in an escalation of hostilities and retaliation. What leader would be safe in such a world?

Ultimately, the problem of tyrannicide is not only ethically vexing but legally complex and politically doubtful. More than 2,000 years after Plato, we still don't have a definitive answer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Putin problem: is there ever a case to kill tyrants?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republican senator Lindsey Graham has been among those calling for the assassination of Russian president Vladimir Putin in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The Biden administration immediately denied any such plans. But despite the White House's best attempts to deny targeting Putin, it begs the question, when is it acceptable to assassinate a tyrant?

# data[].attributes.body
the war in ukraine is a complex conflict with many different factors involved but all the reasons of invasion are fabricated and orchestrated by one man, putin. the only reason russian oligarchs and even the Officer corps are onboard with this invasion is because of putin. taking out the head of the snake would leave the russian oligarchs and officers aimless in their war, they would not have enough drive or power to continue this pointless war

# data[].attributes.body
would you kill Hitler?? maybe I need to rephrase the question a little bit, would you terminate the person whos responsible for the killing of more than 65 million people including the innocent death of 7 million Jews

any sane person would definitely approve of this

now if you take a closer look at what's happening right now, you would realize the reason for all things happening right now is caused by the effect of one dictator that is Putin, just like Hitler, his tyranny would never be genuinely gone if the leader still exist

a world would be a better place without a single tyranny being an aggressor to a bunch of innocent people's lives

# data[].attributes.body
regarding the motion on NATO assassinating putin, PUTIN THE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA THE POWERFUL COUNTRY THAT HAS 7000 NUKES'S ,

now who is PUTIN?

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin,  born 7 October 1952 is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who is the president of Russia, a position he has filled since 2012, and previously from 2000 until 2008.[7][c] He was also the prime minister from 1999 to 2000, and again from 2008 to 2012.

He worked as a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel (Podpolkovnik), before resigning in 1991 to begin a political career in Saint Petersburg.

in 1996 he join the administration of president Boris Yeltsin. He briefly served as director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and secretary of the Security Council,

before being appointed as prime minister in August 1999. After the resignation of Yeltsin, Putin became acting president and, less than four months later, was elected outright to his first term as president.

He was reelected in 2004. As he was then constitutionally limited to two consecutive terms as president,

Putin served as prime minister again from 2008 to 2012 under Dmitry Medvedev,

he was reelected again in 2018.
In April 2021, following a referendum, he signed into law constitutional amendments including one that would allow him to run for reelection twice more, potentially extending his presidency to 2036

During Putin's first tenure as president, the Russian economy grew on average by 7% per year,

following economic reforms and a fivefold increase in the price of oil and gas

He also led Russia during a war against Chechen separatists, reestablishing federal control of the region

As prime minister under Medvedev, he oversaw military reform and police reform, as well as Russia's victory in its war against Georgia

He also ordered a military intervention in Syria against rebel and jihadist groups

he presided over a military buildup on the border of Ukraine. Putin accused the Ukrainian government of committing atrocities against its Russian-speaking minority,

and in February 2022, he ordered a full-scale invasion of the country, leading to widespread international condemnation, as well as expanded sanctions and calls for Putin to be pursued with war crime charges.

we know that this man is loved by his peoplee if we kill him what could happen tothe people? who would replace him?

# data[].attributes.headline
even small scale russian internal conflict is unimaginably brutal

# data[].attributes.subject
even small scale russian internal conflict is unimaginably brutal

# data[].attributes.body
The chechen war after the fall of the soviet union was a war within one of russia's autonomous regions. it lasted for a decade and was bloody in all its stages. multiply it by 10 and you have what a full blown russian civil war would look like

# data[].attributes.body
Examples
afghanistan with nukes, Libya with the 2nd largest army in the world. iraq like insurgency with the 3rd largest airforce in the world. we are not speedrunning the apocalypse

The main debacle for the assassination of putin so that Ukraine can be free for whatever reason, isn't justifiable with the upcoming aftermath, A world war 3 with much more nukes, and bigger military power

not to mention another chapter for the history textbook

the proposition here needs to consider the future option for our world

# data[].attributes.headline
NATO have done this kind of specops many times

# data[].attributes.subject
NATO have done this kind of specops many times

# data[].attributes.body
remember afghanistan with bin laden? remember libya with Gaddafi? remember iraq with saddam hussein? NATO and US led coalition forces killed or apprehended those leaders in special operations to prevent them from doing any other crimes against peace and humanity. what happened next? afghanistan went onto decades long civil war, Libyan civil war still going on till this day and good luck going to iraq without being met by a jihadi on the way to mcdonalds. you cant just do a mission and leave without being responsible for your acts

# data[].attributes.headline
weakening russia slowly is better than to go for the fast and furious/risky option

# data[].attributes.subject
weakening russia slowly is better than to go for the fast and furious/risky option

# data[].attributes.body
the reason NATO even consider assassinating putin is to stop Russian aggression. this is easily achievable without the whole assassination at play. having Russia weaken themselves in their bloody war would be less costly for NATO and also won't risk ww3. its better to lay back and see the Russians come crumbling down from their own height

this can be seen on how NATO handled the USSR back in the cold war. instead of assassinating stalin or khruschev or gorbachev NATO just waited for the USSR to fall on their own. it has been proven to work

# data[].attributes.headline
it would make russia incapable of conducting any further offensive diplomatic foreign policy (like war)

# data[].attributes.subject
it would make russia incapable of conducting any further offensive diplomatic foreign policy (like war)

# data[].attributes.body
the war in ukraine have tied up russian offensive capability. information from the british department of defence have stated that only 75% of the russian forces sent to ukraine are still operational. this shows that this war that russia started is highly costly for their military. weaker military means the means to conduct aggresive foreign policy impossible. without a strong army and image of the army you can not conduct aggresive expansions

# data[].attributes.body
what is NATO ?

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an international organization composed of the US, Canada, Britain, and a number of European countries: established by the North Atlantic Treaty (1949) for purposes of collective security. In 1994 it launched the Partnership for Peace initiative,

in order to forge alliances with former Warsaw Pact countries; in 1997 a treaty of cooperation with Russia was signed and in 1999 Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic became full NATO members

What countries are in NATO?

The 12 founding member countries of NATO are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

What has NATO done for Ukraine?

Individual NATO member countries are sending weapons, ammunition, medical supplies and other vital military equipment to Ukraine, including in such areas as cybersecurity and protection against threats of a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear nature.

# data[].attributes.body
rather than provoking russia head on in their own soil which again would only mean russian retaliation possibly nuclear, this house would rather enlarge NATO and expand support to ukraine. not only would this not risk head on conflict with russia but it would also make the russian armed forces tied up in ukraine, having them incapable of waging more offensive special operations

# data[].attributes.body
and also to support the Ukrainian soldiers fighting their war and to make sure our NATO support can inflict pain to Russian forces enough so that they won't have any power or resolve to continue any war or to even consider starting another one

we've seen the inflicting pain created by the sanctions on Russia, their economy collapsing in a day, its just a matter of time till Russia stand on the ground with a white flag

# data[].attributes.body
rather than escalating the situation, we would propose to enlarge NATO's protection to countries like Sweden Finland Georgia and other neighbouring countries to Russia. preventing more expandable war in the threat of Russia on europe, ensuring more safety for world peace

# data[].attributes.headline
killing putin won't un invade ukraine or georgia. it would actually escalate the war

# data[].attributes.subject
killing putin won't un invade ukraine or georgia. it would actually escalate the war

# data[].attributes.headline
NATO Troops in Russia would rally the Russian nation to full conflict with NATO

# data[].attributes.subject
NATO Troops in Russia would rally the Russian nation to full conflict with NATO

# data[].attributes.headline
NATO Troops in Russia would rally the Russian nation to full conflict with NATO

# data[].attributes.subject
NATO Troops in Russia would rally the Russian nation to full conflict with NATO

# data[].attributes.headline
who would run russia then? power grab will ensue

# data[].attributes.subject
who would run russia then? power grab will ensue

# data[].attributes.headline
who would run russia then? power grab will ensue

# data[].attributes.subject
who would run russia then? power grab will ensue

# data[].attributes.headline
who would run russia then? power grab will ensue

# data[].attributes.subject
who would run russia then? power grab will ensue