UnNews:The Kick of Assassination
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
|This article is part of UnNews||A newsstand that's brimming with issues|
23 February 2010
WASHINGTON D.C. The admitted Israeli assassination of a Hamas operative in the UAE yesterday turned into a party, replete with champagne, caviar, and Turkish belly dancers. Footage of heroic Israeli operatives caught on videotape having a blast (aka fun) was aired repeatedly on all networks. If we are to believe the media, it took nearly 20,000 people, and a loaded gun, to kill him just for "kicks".
UnNews will report on the details of the fun as we learn more, but we see this as an occasion to address a broader question: the role of kicks in international assassination.
We should begin by defining what we mean by assassination kick. It is the killing of a particular individual for kicks as well as for political purposes. It differs from the killing of a bitch or old-man because it is political. It also differs from the killing of a soldier on the battlefield, which is impersonal. But mainly, we should begin with the issue of FUN. The Kick of Assassination is the medical term for a particular type of pleasure that comes from the assassination of a bloody arse hole. It’s just plain fun. A real “hoot! - as in Abraham Lincoln’s assassination!”
The kick or pleasure derived in the killing of Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto by the Americans in World War II was a targeted killing, an assassination solely for fun. His movements were fully known, and the assassins had ample opportunity to kill him. Killing a Dick Head commander would be counterproductive, but Yamamoto was an expert chess master, without peer in Japan. Killing him would weaken Japan’s playing ability or at least have a reasonable chance of doing so. With all the other players, including Hitler and Mussolini, losing around him in the midst of a chess match, the moral choice did not seem complex then, nor does it seem complex now. It was just plain Fun! The kick of assassination!
Now, take another case. Assume that the leader of a country was a man, a woman or a shemale, who was totally irreplaceable, something everyone considers himself or herself to be. But think of Fidel Castro, whose role in the Cuban government is a fact. Assume that he is the enemy of another country like Tahiti. It is an unofficial hilarity — no fun has been declared — but a very real kick nonetheless. Is it illegitimate to try to kill such a leader in a bid to destroy his regime? Or, more importantly, is it FUN? Let’s move that question to Adolph Hitler, histories scapegoat of evil. Would it be inappropriate to have sought to kill him in 1938 based on the type of regime he had created and what he said that he would do with it? And would it really be a kick?
If the position is that killing Hitler would have been boring, then we have a serious question about the moral standards being used to determine fun. The more complex case is Castro. He is certainly no Hitler, but neither is he the knee-jerk liberal some have painted him as being. But if it would be a kick to kill Castro, then where is the line drawn? Who is it not fun to kill?
All of this is a preface to yesterday’s killing in the United Arab Emirates, because that represents yet another case in recent history. The nation-states of the 20th century were all supposed to have intelligent organizations. Unfortunately these organizations were really quite stupid, yet they carried out a range of thrilling operations beyond collecting ears, from supplying weapons to other fun-seekers in foreign countries to overthrowing regimes to underwriting total comedians.
The mission could only be successfully carried out if the assassin gets his/her Nut; otherwise the mission is just no damn fun. Like a junkie overdosing just to obtain a small kick, the Israelis focused their thrills in targeting just one man, just for fun, not to take the piss out of other thrill seekers or fellow terrorists.
We are not writing this as anti-thrillers; we do not believe the killing of enemies is necessarily boring. And we certainly do not believe that the morally incoherent strictures of what is called international law should guide any country in getting its Nut. What we are addressing here is the “kick” of assassination in waging covert warfare. Too frequently, it does not, in our mind, represent a successful thrill. It might bring an enemy to justice, and it might well disrupt an organization for a while or even render a specific organization untenable. But the covert wars of the 21st century caused a resurgence of the occasions when assassinations were fun. That does not mean they never were fun. It just means that the kick of assassination is more fun now than ever before.
|This article features first-hand journalism by an UnNews correspondent.|