NationStates Jolt Archive

I never even saw the movie Wanted.

Anyway, I'm bored, and I'm in one of my more grim moods. So here's a question: if one person could be removed from the world, who would you pick?

If it was up to you to decide the location, means, and target of an assassination, how would you get it done? It could be someone who is a threat to the people around them, it could be someone you dislike, it could be someone who needs to be shut up, whatever. And maybe you would want it to be really quiet and discrete, or something big to make an example of your enemy.

I'm trying to think of which single death could save the most lives, and I'm drawing blanks right now. I may post later.
The rest of you... discuss.

I never even saw the movie Wanted.

Anyway, I'm bored, and I'm in one of my more grim moods. So here's a question: if one person could be removed from the world, who would you pick?

If it was up to you to decide the location, means, and target of an assassination, how would you get it done? It could be someone who is a threat to the people around them, it could be someone you dislike, it could be someone who needs to be shut up, whatever. And maybe you would want it to be really quiet and discrete, or something big to make an example of your enemy.

I'm trying to think of which single death could save the most lives, and I'm drawing blanks right now. I may post later.
The rest of you... discuss.

No one. Even if it was the worst person, say Hitler or Gengis Khan, or even G.W. Bush...

their deaths would only martyr them and make them more powerful to those who follow them.

No one. Even if it was the worst person, say Hitler or Gengis Khan, or even G.W. Bush...

their deaths would only martyr them and make them more powerful to those who follow them.

You can't seriously be putting Bush in the same category as Hitler! Whenever he seizes power of a country, tries to take over the world and murders 7 million people, get back to me.

You can't seriously be putting Bush in the same category as Hitler! Whenever he seizes power of a country, tries to take over the world and murders 7 million people, get back to me.We can argue about that.:tongue:

Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand.

Oh no wait..... That would be a bad idea if I didn't know the consequences, wouldn't it?

i guess this really stupid guy named Niko at school.the means would be one sniper shot to the head,place would be open street with a high building nearby.

International Olympic Committee President Jacque Rogge pied to death for being a dried up anal stick in the mud. :p

Kill Gorbachev. A toxic dart from the tip of an umbrella should do it. :P

Imagine a USSR in 2008..

Kill Gorbachev. A toxic dart from the tip of an umbrella should do it. :P

Imagine a USSR in 2008..

Probably in even worse shape than it was in 1989.

I'd bump off the moron who ever suggested to me that going to university would help me get a job. It hasn't.

Kill Gorbachev. A toxic dart from the tip of an umbrella should do it. :P

Imagine a USSR in 2008..

COnsidering the state of it in 1988, another 20 years and I imagine Afghanistan invading them. :p

:P

I blame it all on the media, forums where the intellectuals gather and discuss thi- osht

Kill Gorbachev. A toxic dart from the tip of an umbrella should do it. :P

Imagine a USSR in 2008..

*Imagines*

Mmmm...

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/2816/trs108091024yw4.jpg

*Imagines*

Mmmm...

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/2816/trs108091024yw4.jpg

Well that's...

*contemplates the awesomeness of a soviet military consisting of flying battleships and spears*

Well that's...

*contemplates the awesomeness of a soviet military consisting of flying battleships and spears*

The Red Star is a graphic novel series with loads of potential and awesomeness! :D

If the USSR still existed, the world would probably be more advances


Think about it, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union forced the development of new technologies, so by now we would probably have flying cars..

If the USSR still existed, the world would probably be more advances


Think about it, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union forced the development of new technologies, so by now we would probably have flying cars..

The only reason for the space race was because of the fear of nuclear war. By the 80's I don't think anyone took this fear seriously any more. I think the 60's and 70's were the worst because of the pattern of the World Wars; 1918 had soldiers and not a lot of planes, 1939 was more advanced, so if you follow the 'logic' the people of the 60's and 70's would have had a much worse war on their hands. USA and Russia used other countries as their battle grounds. I'm not quite sure why it was Russia v. US. Maybe someone could help out there.

If it was up to you to decide the location, means, and target of an assassination, how would you get it done? It could be someone who is a threat to the people around them, it could be someone you dislike, it could be someone who needs to be shut up, whatever. And maybe you would want it to be really quiet and discrete, or something big to make an example of your enemy.

I'm trying to think of which single death could save the most lives, and I'm drawing blanks right now. I may post later.

That's easy, President Mugabe. I'm not sure how it could be achieved but he would be my target. It must be a slow, painful but unassuming method. So, no swords (you'd never get close enough), bullets (too obvious and easily identified) or maces (too showy) and nothing that could belong in Kill Bill or any of those "assassin" movies. Some chemical in his food maybe like . There's no chance of him becoming a martyr, no matter which way he dies.

Nobody would be sad? Not even President Mugabe? Or perhaps his lover(s)?

If the USSR still existed, the world would probably be more advances


Think about it, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union forced the development of new technologies, so by now we would probably have flying cars..

The reason the USSR or well one of the major reasons USSR fell is because they fell behind in technology(In particular computers). Even today in Russia computers are a rare comodity... They were a major polluting heavy industry country(Just like china).

I would assasinate both presidents of Georgia and of Russia.

Georgia's president has been a fxing retard by siding with NATO. Why would Iran send missles to THEM?! That's a clear attack on Russian national security. Russia wouldn't be so angry at them if they just stayed neutral.

Russia's president for taking a matter that's none of their business WAY TOO FAR! They bitch and moan that maybe 1000 citizens die in the Georgian invasion. The Russians supplied money,weapons and general supplies to the break away province of Abkhazia. Do you know what this caused? 250,000 fucking ethnicly cleansed Georgians.

You're going to kill Medvedev for no reason? He's basically Putin's puppet, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Russia is extremely weak, and ever since the Soviet Union collapsed the USA was at the very top with China climbing the ladder. If the Soviet Union had not collapsed due to ineffective leadership, then the USA would have something to fear.

A guy I don't like. He would be killed in a Jigsaw puzzle. (Jigsaw is the killer from SAW)

USA and Russia used other countries as their battle grounds. I'm not quite sure why it was Russia v. US. Maybe someone could help out there.



Probably because the only army that could stand up to the Red Army was the U.S.A.'s. Europe would get steamrolled, but neither the U.S. or Russia could occupy each other.


Russia is too large to occupy, and America is far away from anyone that would occupy it, along with it being logistically impossible as well.

Take Mugabe out. Probably a sniper, a la Day of the Jackal. Primarily because it's so damn cool to make a sinper rifle fold away as a walking stick.

And it has the oddest metaphor in literary history, something along the lines of "and the melon hung like a weary scrotum".

If the USSR still existed, the world would probably be more advances


Think about it, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union forced the development of new technologies, so by now we would probably have flying cars..

Or Red Alert 3 for real.

Or Red Alert 3 for real.

yeah,Einstein would have gone back in time to kill Hitler

Chuck Norris. Make it look like he died from natural causes, from falling down the stairs, or slipping trying to enter/exit the bath. Totally worth it to kill those awful jokes off once for all.

Can I just kill off all the fat people in the world?
Slobbing around, using up oxygen and giving nothing back.

Get rid of the fatties and the world will be a better place.

No one. Even if it was the worst person, say Hitler or Gengis Khan, or even G.W. Bush...

their deaths would only martyr them and make them more powerful to those who follow them.

Yeah, Hitler, Genghis Khan, and Bush. Those names belong together :rolleyes:
Aside from not being genocidal or trying to take over the world, Bush is not nearly as clever as Hitler or Genghis.

And yes, some people may be immortalized after a violent death. But even if your assassination target becomes a martyr, could more lives be saved by that person's demise?

Chuck Norris. Make it look like he died from natural causes, from falling down the stairs, or slipping trying to enter/exit the bath. Totally worth it to kill those awful jokes off once for all.

Yea, but then you'll get Chuck Norris Ghost/Zombie jokes.

I'd gladly take a pistol to the back of Kim Jong-Il's head and pull the trigger.

Can I just kill off all the fat people in the world?
Slobbing around, using up oxygen and giving nothing back.

Get rid of the fatties and the world will be a better place.

As a fatty, I resent that. Certainly, if you did that, the world would not be a better place for me.

Why kill one to save a thousand? I'd kill thousands to save myself. Or for money. Or for the hell of it, killing must be really fun since there's war somewhere in the world all the time. War is good. Kill.

Just one person?

I don't know. Four years ago I would have said Bush. But he's nearly irrelevant these days.

Maybe Vladimir Putin. In a way so as to look natural, or maybe really embarrassing for him/his supporters.

I would say the leader of China, but he'd just get replaced easily. That's the problem with most, really.

Perhaps John York.

Why kill one to save a thousand? I'd kill thousands to save myself. Or for money. Or for the hell of it, killing must be really fun since there's war somewhere in the world all the time. War is good. Kill.

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war, but perfect sense at home

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last, we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

We're gonna kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor, tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone, we're free again
Life's a breeze with you, miss Lilly White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convince the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone, we're free again
Life's a breeze with you, miss Lilly White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convince the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight

You can't seriously be putting Bush in the same category as Hitler! Whenever he seizes power of a country, tries to take over the world and murders 7 million people, get back to me.

nope, just giving several different examples from the past and one unpopular contemporary person. I could've easily said OJ Simpson, Osama Bin Lauden or even Ralph Nader.

Adam, perhaps? ;)

I would say Bush, but given he only has five more months in office, I guess it isn't worth pissing off the Secret Service. He's done all the damage he's going to do.

I'd probably go after the ruler of Iran (not Ahmadinejad, he's just a puppet of the clerics) and open the way for someone more moderate. Sniper rifle from a tall building or a helo and get the hell out ASAP.

Robert Mugabe. I'd rig it so it looked like an accidental autoerotic death - he killed himself trying to get off.

Would not only end the Zanu-PF, but would obliterate what remained of his reputation.

I'm saying either Karl Marx, or Stalin. Karl would be killed by a little inconspicuous toxic dart. Stalin would be killed by an ex-soldier who was put in the Gulag for escaping from the Germans.

STOP LYING TO ME! I KNOW THEY STILL LIVE!:D

Celine Dion.

No Doubt in My heart.

Celine Dion.

No Doubt in My heart.

Once upon a time, sure. But Celine's star is fading. Time to focus on young blood.

I'd bump off Miley Cyrus. Let's just end her career before it gains any more momentum. You know it's going to end with sex, drugs, and car crashes eventually anyway.

I would like to say the Jonas Brothers, if only to shut up legions of screeching girls and soothe my jealousy. Unfortunately there are three Jonas Brothers, and I wanna limit myself to one target.

I'm saying either Karl Marx, or Stalin. Karl would be killed by a little inconspicuous toxic dart. Stalin would be killed by an ex-soldier who was put in the Gulag for escaping from the Germans.

STOP LYING TO ME! I KNOW THEY STILL LIVE!:D
Nowt wrong per se with Marx, although I disagree with a lot of his theories. Primarily, it's the people who put them into practice.

Stalin ought to be killed in some massively hideous way, which is hugely vindictive of me, but the guy was a fucking monster.

That, or a pistol shot to the head, 'cos it's classic.

Nowt wrong per se with Marx, although I disagree with a lot of his theories. Primarily, it's the people who put them into practice.

Stalin ought to be killed in some massively hideous way, which is hugely vindictive of me, but the guy was a fucking monster.

That, or a pistol shot to the head, 'cos it's classic.

A far more more fitting end for Stalin would be locking him ina room with Andaras and let him get leg-humped to death.

A far more more fitting end for Stalin would be locking him ina room with Andaras and let him get leg-humped to death.

An autopsy indicated that Comrade Stalin received critical levels of humping in the lower fibula.

"That was where the worst damage occurred," Dr. Romanov told the press today. "The humping in that region was most severe. Today, all Russia mourns the loss of a man whose leg was too damn sexy for his own good."

When approached for comment, Andaras had this to say: "Stalin's leg and I had been in love for a very long time. The humping was consensual. I'm prepared to leg-hump to death anyone who questions my story."

Andaras has told the press on several occasions that if he is declared guilty of treason, he will commit suicide by humping his own leg, rather than face firing squad.

I would like to say the Jonas Brothers, if only to shut up legions of screeching girls and soothe my jealousy. Unfortunately there are three Jonas Brothers, and I wanna limit myself to one target.

...

How bout this-you knock off one, and I'll take the other two.

deal?

...

How bout this-you knock off one, and I'll take the other two.

deal?

Tape it for me?

Of course. I want to watch those motherfuckers die whenever I feel bad. It will make me feel great about myself.

I'll burn you a copy.

Killing Miley Cyrus would make the smunklings cry. And I don't want to see that happen.

Why kill one to save a thousand? I'd kill thousands to save myself. Or for money. Or for the hell of it, killing must be really fun since there's war somewhere in the world all the time. War is good. Kill.

I'd kill thousandandones: thousands because the less human locust the better, and you to prevent you from killing me. :tongue:

Crucify Mel Gibson.

Crucify Mel Gibson.
Or make him sit through his own crappy films so much that his head explodes.

Or make him sit through his own crappy films so much that his head explodes.

You could slo-mo it, too!

there are certain freedoms which create their own tyranny and no amount of killing and dying is going to stop them from doing so. the 'freedom' to overpopulate creates a totally despotic dependence on social organization. the 'freedom' to raise hell and make a pain in the ass of one's self, robs everyone of the freedoms to think honestly, clearly, and even to a degree imaginatively and creatively.

the freedom, on the other hand, to live in whatever kind of shelter you are most comfortable with improvising yourself, with your own hands, knowledge and skill, from the sticks and stones and mud found in nature, along with bits and pieces other people throw away, would be a very very good one, as would that to travel freely without the hinderance of boundries between nations, or even the existence of modern and armed nations as we know them today.

one drainage basin, one nation. one nation, one planetary vote. and that nation's governing councils elected by plurality vote. that or every village free to fallow whatever structure suits its fancy without imposing it on any other, nor perventing anyone from leaving and seeking one more to their own taste in such things.

"save a thousand"? from what?

WE create tyranny by creating a market for it by putting trying to impress each other ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

sure there have been and continue to arrise 'leaders' we'd be less misled without, but killing one won't stop another from taking their place, unless and untill WE stop creating a market for tyranny. stop creating by the very method already mentioned, that we do.

We can argue about that.:tongue:Uh really???

*Takes out beating stick and gives a savage beating to HC.*

What say you now?

If the USSR still existed, the world would probably be more advances

Think about it, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union forced the development of new technologies, so by now we would probably have flying cars..

That delivered hydrogen bombs.

If I got to kill someone, just for shits and giggles, I think it'd be Charles Manson (fucker's still got a pulse, right?), and simply because I don't think anyone would give a damn by now. And hell, if they hadn't abolished the death penalty in California, he'd be long gone by now anyway.

I'd kill whichever executive at Fox is most responsible for screwing over Firefly. I'd feed him to a crew of Reavers.

oh,one more:Jack Thompson.

oh,one more:Jack Thompson.

He's not someone who needs to be killed. Beaten up by people dressed up as video game characters for ironic laughs, but not maimed or killed.

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Seltzer)...So I could save thousands of people from their terrible movies.

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Seltzer)...So I could save thousands of people from their terrible movies.

Why not go for Global Heroism and take out Uwe Boll while you're at it?

I don't have anyone I really want to kill. I'd like to choose a vacuous celeb but I don't think they deserve death, just ridicule. al Sadr I suppose.

Why not go for Global Heroism and take out Uwe Boll while you're at it?

Only if the world elevates me to "Saint" status.

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Seltzer)...So I could save thousands of people from their terrible movies.

Good choice...

I'd kill Roger Ebert by force feeding him every copy of every shitty wannabe-art-house drama, Tarantino ass-fest and unfunny comedy to which he's given a glowing review.

there are certain freedoms which create their own tyranny and no amount of killing and dying is going to stop them from doing so.

Certain problems cannot be aided by killing.
But I think some problems actually could.

the 'freedom' to overpopulate creates a totally despotic dependence on social organization. the 'freedom' to raise hell and make a pain in the ass of one's self, robs everyone of the freedoms to think honestly, clearly, and even to a degree imaginatively and creatively.

Yeah... I guess.

the freedom, on the other hand, to live in whatever kind of shelter you are most comfortable with improvising yourself, with your own hands, knowledge and skill, from the sticks and stones and mud found in nature, along with bits and pieces other people throw away, would be a very very good one, as would that to travel freely without the hinderance of boundries between nations, or even the existence of modern and armed nations as we know them today.

Uh huh. But I like my house with its electricity, running water, and cable, too.

one drainage basin, one nation. one nation, one planetary vote. and that nation's governing councils elected by plurality vote. that or every village free to fallow whatever structure suits its fancy without imposing it on any other, nor perventing anyone from leaving and seeking one more to their own taste in such things.

This is going in a strange direction...

"save a thousand"? from what?

From the consequences of one person's actions.
Hell, it doesn't even have to be an evil dictator. Haven't you ever seen that Star Trek episode where Edith Keeler had to die?

WE create tyranny by creating a market for it by putting trying to impress each other ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

Yes, evil comes from people.
Yes, the enemy is within.
But if you're encountered with someone who puts many lives in danger, and you weigh the pros and cons... sometimes the balance will tip in favor of "kill the S.O.B."

sure there have been and continue to arrise 'leaders' we'd be less misled without, but killing one won't stop another from taking their place, unless and untill WE stop creating a market for tyranny. stop creating by the very method already mentioned, that we do.

As V said, the management is terrible.
But some leaders are better than others. Therefore, I believe that there are scenarios in which a bad leader can be replaced by a good leader. You would have to think about who's going to be replacing this person after their death.
If you're looking at a sadistic, insane ruler, and his replacement is a much-less dangerous, sane man... then I think the responsible thing to do is to kill the current leader. You just have to consider how many people you're killing by letting this one person live.

Only if the world elevates me to "Saint" status.

You're assuming there isn't Sainthood in store for anyone who gets rid of Uwe Boll?

Why not go for Global Heroism and take out Uwe Boll while you're at it?
Seconded.

The man is believes totally in his own genius, even though every film he's made has made a loss.

I'd kill Roger Ebert by force feeding him every copy of every shitty wannabe-art-house drama, Tarantino ass-fest and unfunny comedy to which he's given a glowing review.

I'll do Tarantino, but not in the way that he would expect it.

Just put a high pressure air hose up his ass, and open up the valve, and watch him inflate to death.