Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While I was searching the interwebs for a song I stumbled on a fellow named Yitzhak Rabin. I soon learned that he was well on the way to some kind of peaceful discorse with his arab enemies. Alas he was done in by a bullet from Yigal Amir, a former Hesder student and Orthodox far-right law student. I don't want to get into the politics of it all. I simply want to know why is it the leaders that want peace that get assassinated, but the Iron fisted leaders seem to live for ever. Is there something in humans that make us self destructive.What is it about peace that makes one a marked man, maybe a flaw in the human psyche. Your thoughts?

Because usually the "bad" leaders actually fight for a good cause. Just because the cause isnt agreeable to others, doesnt mean it doesnt benefit the locals / supporters.

"Good" leader could be assasinated because they are just puppets .

Basically, you need to rethink who is good and who is bad.
From the people's point of view, and not what the governments feeds us. Propaganda is a sad thing to have , it makes innocent soldiers kill innocent people.

Dictators like Hitler didn't fight for a good cause. Neither do most of the african warlords. I'm not talking about leaders who who sit on the line. I'm refering to monsters like Vlad the Impaler.

sexiest_hero wrote: Dictators like Hitler didn't fight for a good cause. Neither do most of the african warlords. I'm not talking about leaders who who sit on the line. I'm refering to monsters like Vlad the Impaler.

Whoa there Vlad is a bit of an extreme example really, different time, different culture. If your going down the route of that you could start arguing that rulers like Ceaser and Alexander the Great were also monsters.

Peaceful leaders are usually assassinated as they represent the one thing that many people within a certain system really dislike.....change.

To put it simply, the work of a lifetime can be destroyed in moments.



It's easier to do destructive, selfish things than to be selfless and attempt to understand others.

Well of course peace brokering leaders are not "always" assassinated. But there is a trend towards this.

This is because:

1. Brokering peace can lead to tensions with those in ones own faction who would continue to benefit from continued conflict. Such persons have a logical tendency to more likely settle differences through violence. e.g Rabbin.

2. Brokering peace between two waring factions can lead to enmity with both, and as a neutral third party a leader is likely to have less security or intelligence data than an involved local faction leader. e.g Count Bernadette.

3. Brokering peace is a populist cause and those who successfully do so must be accessible to the populace with resultant security issues. e.g Ghandi.

sexiest_hero wrote: Dictators like Hitler didn't fight for a good cause. Neither do most of the african warlords. I'm not talking about leaders who who sit on the line. I'm refering to monsters like Vlad the Impaler.

Vlad the Impaler may have been ruthless, but the descendants of the people he freed still consider him to be a hero. Don't be so quick to stick labels on people. War in many people's minds is the status quo, and boy, will people fight to resist change.

Tyrannical leaders never die of old age. I think you need to take a look at your history again. Vlad didn't exactly die old and happy.

Why do peaceful leaders get assassinated, while the dictators stay around forever?

Peaceful leaders do not have extensive measures in place to protect themselves, while Dictators are generally surrounded at all times by military personel.

That would probably be the easiest explaination.

Those that believe in peace tend to trust people too much, while those that reach power through violence tend to be exactly the opposite.

Though, a good point has already been brought up, it's a very rare violent leader that dies of old age. So I guess you could say that it just takes more effort to assassinate a dictator, but it usually ends up happening eventually.

Why do peaceful leaders get assassinated, while the dictators stay around forever?

But they don't... Seriously guys. There are hundreds of peaceful world leaders around right now, and they're all pretty safe and happy. The world isn't the middle east and africa. When was the last time europe had a coup? China? Even india and pakistan are fairly peaceful. The current world balance has been fairly stable ever since the breakup of the soviet union. Small things have happened but it's a far cry from the days of vlad the impaler and the supremacy of the warring city states.

Well, I guess when I think 'Peaceful Leaders', I guess I'm thinking of Social leaders that devote their life to enacting a radical social change for the good of mankind, or at least within their own Social structure.

There are plenty of peaceful leaders, but nearly all of the radically peaceful leaders get assassinated. The peaceful leaders I'd like to think you're citing, I would consider more to be moderate, disrupting peace when they feel it is necessary for their country or people (not that this is a bad thing, but in no way is this the epitome of 'peace').

sexiest_hero wrote:While I was searching the interwebs for a song I stumbled on a fellow named Yitzhak Rabin. I soon learned that he was well on the way to some kind of peaceful discorse with his arab enemies. Alas he was done in by a bullet from Yigal Amir, a former Hesder student and Orthodox far-right law student. I don't want to get into the politics of it all. I simply want to know why is it the leaders that want peace that get assassinated, but the Iron fisted leaders seem to live for ever. Is there something in humans that make us self destructive.What is it about peace that makes one a marked man, maybe a flaw in the human psyche. Your thoughts?

Honestly? What you're seeing is a tendency in the psyche of the United States to see anything that isn't a perfect carbon copy of its political structure as tyrannical. There are many governments in the world, and most of them are fairly stable. They are able to remain so by operating in rough accordance with the will of their people. The Saudis are often cited as an example of a state with a poor human rights record, yet they have seen no major challenge to their authority since 1932. Why? Because life there is nowhere near as bad as Human Rights Watch, or Amnesty International paints it to be. Great leaders do what they must to keep their people happy, while slowly nudging them in one direction or another. Rabin was not a great leader. He was a great peace-maker, but he ruled a nation that did not desire peace. Remember, even the impetus to end fighting can be a form of tyranny.

ShumaGorath wrote:Tyrannical leaders never die of old age. I think you need to take a look at your history again. Vlad didn't exactly die old and happy.

Only the unsuccessful ones
Castro's in his 80's now?
Joseph Stalin-75
Mao Zedong- 83

Just reinforces, if you want to live a long life, be an hole.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Tyrannical leaders never die of old age. I think you need to take a look at your history again. Vlad didn't exactly die old and happy.

Only the unsuccessful ones
Castro's in his 80's now?
Joseph Stalin-75
Mao Zedong- 83

Just reinforces, if you want to live a long life, be an hole.

I think the issue is people are just seeing what they want to see in this thread. Sure, all of the "successful" tyrants you mentioned lived relatively long lives, but you could mention other dictators who did not. Same thing with peaceniks, I believe Mother Theresa lived until she was what, 90 something? Also, it seems like several peace activist types were done in by obsessive followers for some reason. Furthermore, the concept of peace broker vs. tyrant vs. average guy is somewhat a matter of perspective. Vlad the Impaler is a good example, apparently he is widely regarded as a folk hero in that part of Eastern Europe. The stories of, say, taking his meals while watching his impaled victims or "practicing" impaling on rodents while he was imprisoned may or may not be apocryphal. The fact is he defended lands rightfuly his against his enemies. Those people hated each other, just like many ethnic groups today.

I'd be happy to reach Saddam Hussein's age. I know people live longer than that,
but I have a good life and anything up to that just extends it. Anything after that
is gravy.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Tyrannical leaders never die of old age. I think you need to take a look at your history again. Vlad didn't exactly die old and happy.

Only the unsuccessful ones
Castro's in his 80's now?
Joseph Stalin-75
Mao Zedong- 83

Just reinforces, if you want to live a long life, be an hole.

Damn! That means I'm gonna live forever!