https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d political assassination en-us 2017-09-27 12:27:59 UTC 2017-09-28 06:29:50 UTC hello@padlet.com resmus2010 https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191622896 2017-09-27 12:28:46 UTC https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191622896 hamrishkumar2003 https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191660306 According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, Assassination is defined as to murder (prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons. No, assassination is not an end to all political disputes. Reasons are below (With reference to India)

In a country like India, there are around 1866 registered political parties, If one political party assassinates a important member of the other political party, there will be a faction war which will involve murder of an important member of the latter political party which will lead to more violence. This wont end any problem because there is an average of 1200 - 1500 members (Estimation - Applicable to national parties) and the next senior member will take over and he will take revenge from outside (To show his loyalty) but from inside he will be happy about the murder because he will get a higher position and in fact he will speak a deal with the assassin which is commonly known as faction-maneuver.

So I would like to conclude that assassination not only creates problems but in fact it makes matters worse leading to a war between parties....   ]]> 2017-09-27 13:42:03 UTC https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191660306 https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191713245 As defined by the globally famous World Wide Web, the term "assassination" is the murder of a prominent leader/ruler, usaully for political reason or payment.

Personally, I think the term political assassination is just a posh/sophisticated way of framing the word "murder". Now, when one is murdred, the person who is guilty would have some sort of way to justify themselves, and try to convince the detective(s) on the case that it wasn't their fault and the only person responsible for the victim's death was him/herself. For example, Bhagat Singh (an Indian revolutionary), fatally shot a British officer, John Saunders, mistaking Saunders for the then superintendent, James Scott, whom he (along with an associate) intended to assassinate. They believed that Scott was responsible for the death of the popular Indian Nationalist leader Lala Lajput Rai (which is, in the current scenario, is completely irrelevant. Now, as seen in the above example, the patriots have a very reasonable excuse to why they murdred the officer.

I would like to conclude by disagreeing with the statement as teh only thing that political assassination causes is mayhem and by quoting Gerald Seymour;

"One man's terrorist is an other man's revolutionary."]]> 2017-09-27 15:11:44 UTC https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191713245 https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191763393 Assassination is the murder of a prominent personality which are often political figures. These are executed by a third party assassin who is either assigned and funded by some other entity
or commit it as an act of vengeance.

In some cases, many unorthodox leaders have been assassinated as their views and ideologies refuted the conventional customs and thoughts. Considering this as a threat, many fanatical organizations were perpetrators of assassinations of many eminent leaders. 

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto - former prime minister of Pakistan is an ideal example of this.

Benazir Bhutto regarded herself as an ardent supporter for women's rights. Knowing well the fact that Pakistan was a country where Islam was the official religion, she always favored for a secular government. She looked upon to Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi as political inspirations.She advocated for the creation of an expanded economically and politically stable middle-class in Pakistan, believing that this was needed in order to sustain a stable democratic state. 

Such doctrines of hers did not please the conservative individuals in the country. She was assassinated on 27 December 2007.  According to Heraldo Munoz, member of the UN designated special investigation team to probe Bhutto's murder later expressed the view that the Taliban in collaboration with a teenager in South Wazirstan district carried out the assassination.   In May 2013, the state's main prosecutor in the Bhutto case, Zulfikar Ali, was himself assassinated in Islamabad.  Many in Pakistan had reasons wanting her death as it was advantageous to the military establishment and Islamic fundamentalists who despised her. 

Bhutto supporters protested vehemently, burning shops police stations and public buses in the cities of Karachi, Rawalpindi and Lahore.  What followed was a civil unrest that shook Pakistan apart for a week. Hundreds were killed in this crisis. Only after the scheduling of elections the situation cooled down.

This civil unrest is similar to what followed Julius Caesar's assassination.

Analyzing several historical events other than the aforementioned ones,  it is clearly intelligible that political assassination is not a solution to all political disputes but an option to exacerbate them.

Any political dispute must be resolved either through arbitration or diplomacy. Resorting to radical measures such as assassination would increase the chances of a civil unrest that is dangerous for any competitive country. The welfare of the people is a responsibility of both the ruling and the opposition and hence, a peaceful settlement of issues is always apt.






]]> 2017-09-27 16:44:50 UTC https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191763393 https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191792892 Assassination is the sudden murder of a prominent public or political figure for the benefit of a third opposition party. In other words, it is the intentional killing–by a government or its agents–of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" who is not in the government's custody.

Assassination is one of the oldest tools of power politics. It dates back at least as far as recorded history. It includes murder of the great Chanakya(350-283 BC) to the murder of Henry lll and Henry lV( 1589-1610 ).
These were the infamous "tricks" used by emperors of that time.

In the modern world, the killing of important people began to become more than a tool in power struggles between rulers themselves and was also used for political symbolism, such as in the propaganda of the deed.
Such practices have become very common in today's society.

The murder of the American presidents - Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy are ideal examples for these merciless attempts to assassinate.

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America, was assassinated by the then well known actor/celebrity John Wilkes Booth. His desire was to avenge for the South.

He was a great influence to the people, showed the people the path to success and was always down to earth and heard/solved their problems. 

When the people realized that they had lost the most influential personailty in the country, revolts had begun, the killer was found soon, and was seriously punished. The people were outraged and the world had come to know that this situation will not cool down for the weeks yet to come.

Thus, i would like to conclude by telling that assassination does not put an end to all political disputes but make the situation even worse, making people to show their raged and angry side of themselves...]]> 2017-09-27 17:42:01 UTC https://padlet.com/resmus2010/assassn10d/wish/191792892