Talk:Assassination/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
Reversed last edit to recovere text ready for archiving. This page was originally Talk:Targeted killing --Philip Baird Shearer 13:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

message: If you look at Assassins, you see that these are there described as the same group as the Hashishim; this is in accord with my own recollections of historical readings. Thus, I'd vote for changing the Hashishim link back to Assassins|Hashishim. -- April 
But if that's truly the case (that the two words represent exactly the same people), then simply using Hashishim is fine, and avoids the problems associated with having article names too close. For example, if someone writing some article happens to mention "assassins". he'll link to the wrong article if he includes the "s" in the brackets. --LDC 
I believe it is the case that the two represent the same thing. I agree with your point on naming, however, I've also read that the connections between the Assassins of Alamut and hashish may be apocryphal, so it wouldn't be strictly correct to re-file it under that name. (On a minor related matter, the "assassination" link currently is redirected back to "assassin", and so should probably be, well, terminated with extreme prejudice. :) -- April 
What about "Assassins of Almut"? I hadn't heard that term before--this isn't my subject. If that's a good title, I'd rather use that. No, I like the fact that "assassin" and "assassination" are the same page; that's certainly the lest surprising result for a casual editor. --LDC 
I'll want to re-read my books before I commit myself on this one. :) (My study of history is hobby-level and sadly eclectic.) But yeah, there ought to be a good, non-ambiguous term for the bunch from the Mountain that terrorized Muslim and Crusader alike... I'll see if I can find it, then make Assassins into a disambiguating page, and redirect Hashishim. Sound good? (On "assassination" :I agree the page should stay - but should it be linked from "assassin" if it's just going to lead back to "assassin"?) -- April 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly favor 'Hashishim', the historical name attributed to these guys, as the name for that group on the medieval Silk Road. Personally, I expect the term "assassins" to refer to roughly what's in assassin - material on the definition, motives, training, etc... 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't find any good books which have information on my own shelves. Several dictionary-type references, though, give the following derivation: 
assassin: Medieval Latin assassinus, from Arabic hashshAshIn, plural of hashshAsh one who smokes or chews hashish, from hashIsh hashish 
So if it's apocrypha, it's at least apocrypha of long and venerable history, beginning in Arabic culture. :) "Assassins of Alamut" works, as does "Hashshashin"; I gather Hashishim is an anglicization of the latter, and could also be used. Preferences, anyone? -- April 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like "Hashshashin" as 1. it will never mean anything else 2. it isn't tied too closely to one physical place, allowing it to be understood as describing more modern groups with analogous tactics like Al Qaeda and the Taliban... and 3. it isn't anglicization. 
Also, as terrorism has a pretty "official" slant, more or less laying out the mainstream corporate press and democratic government view of the world, I took a more critical slant here and stressed that the operation and role of the assassin is largely the same regardless of what motives are involved. 
As a result, the intense critique of the CIA is *here* rather than *there*... avoiding the question of whether the CIA, MI6, Mossad, etc., are "terrorists". They clearly *are* sometimes assassins or morally culpable in such acts... they admit that often one way or another. 
Also, an assassin is clearly different from a guerilla tactically, as the guerilla is trying to take and control territory, and the assassin just isn't. 
That should be mentioned in one or another of these definitions somewhere... 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cited paragraph doesn't seem to have anything to do with killing someone in custody at all. 
U.S. National Security archive PDD 39 of June 1995, secret at that time, states that "...if we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist 
whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government...", which seems to leave open the question of whether suspects in custody or about to escape custody could be killed, whether or not they present a clear immediate threat. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also have issues with the quote from Human Rights Watch. It needs to be clarified whether this is a view specific to HRW or if it's something that everyone in international law agrees with. HRW is not a neutral source for opinions on international law. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was after the Zengel quote. I removed it because its not clear whose opinion this is. I also have the same problem as with the HRW quote, it's not clearif this is just her talking or if this is a widely held view. 
The assassin, then, is just another soldier, and his sanction from a nation-state may well come 
before or after the fact, and may in fact come from some nation-state other than his own, in some cases. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is wildly NPOV and needs to be attributed. Who believes this? 
Table of contents [showhide]  
1 Age of amateurs?
1 Targeted assasination
2 More Examples, Color
3 Added brief mention of SAS operations in Northern Ireland
3.1 Regarding the intro sentence
4 sweeping changes
5 UK assassinations
 
Age of amateurs? 
Global trade and mass movement of people, modern seduction and "brainwashing" techniques, religious fanaticism, the political futility of opposing undemocratic leaders or occupying powers by non-violent means, and other factors combine to suggest that the most likely future assassin is not a high-priced pro, but rather an ordinary citizen who has no prior record and whose political motive is obscure or incomprehensible. 
Much like the late-19th-century anarchist assassins who killed six heads of state from 1880 to 1901, or the assassins of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy in the 1960s, they will likely appear from nowhere, kill their target, and be quickly caught. Their families or loved ones may well benefit, as in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers in the West Bank during the Intifada. They may believe in some afterlife of pleasure--as the original "Hashishim" did--or simply seek to sacrifice self for a loyalty group. 
The sheer numbers of such people in the developing world, plus the lack of education and opportunity, and an abundance of ruthless tactical leaders who will happily employ even children as tools, suggests that the age of highly trained professional assassins may well be over. The new assassin is every frustrated individual with nothing to live for, every true believer, and in some places every grieving man. This is, perhaps, the age of the amateurs 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources for "age of amateurs" include (off top of head) 
Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer", 1951 
various news reports on the way Palestinian suicide bombers are compensated 
Barbara Tuchman, "The Proud Tower, Europe 1880-1914" re: anarchist assassins 
Robert Kaplan, "The Coming Anarchy", The Atlantic Monthly, 1994? 
UN reports on use of child soldiers as assassins 
fact: of the 19 suicide bombers who entered the US to carry out the attack on the WTC and Pentagon, I believe 12 were legal, showing that they had no prior record of any note. 
Actually, I consider this to be the least controversial part of the whole essay. It's "wildly NPOV" all right, meaning it's so starkly and unpleasantly true that people will likely object to it to keep their pet delusions... sigh... 
So, what's the most outrageous line? Where shall I start? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: "just another soldier", it's Calder's view of Zengler that she removed all distinctions. The three cases (before the fact sanction via training or arming, after the fact sanction via recruiting as "asset" or amnesty/pardon, and use of foreign proxies to get around restrictions in domestic laws or liability under international laws) all seem well proven by the evidence... i.e. all three have happened. So this just says that Calder's view of Zengler's view is in fact validated by empirical evidence just in the USA, which has done all three, despite a policy against assassination itself... 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government" implies, as a tautology, willingess to kill them rather than let them escape. It is at best kidnapping, at worst strict assassination... but when a kidnapping goes wrong, what happens? If you have someone in your power "without the cooperation of the host government" and that host closes in on your agents, what do they do? historically, they make it look like a petty crime or accident... they whack the guy. There's no possible control against it... do you expect the agents trying to "return suspects by force" to instead give the guy up forever, go home, surrender in embarassment and create an international scandal? Unlikely... 
If you want I'll lay out the possibilities one by one... but is it necessary? 
If you're willing to kidnap someone, and you have any self-preservation skill or ability at all, you're also willing to kill them. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: HRW. Since this quotes official US sources all over the place, which is also not neutral point of view, it seems reasonable to balance that with another non-neutral point of view. And, in fact, to slant the article a bit against US official policy, since it's clear they have lied in the past... a lot... and since terrorism more or less takes a straightforward media party line on it... I believe "assassin" should balance that so this kind of subject has a balanced treatment overall. 
That said, I'm wide open to constructive suggestions, especially from those who live in nations where assassins were recently and commonly used in some conflict or other... 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It reads not bad as it is now. There are other places to get into the issues in "age of amateurs", and the interpretation of the morality of any given act doesn't make sense in the context of just the assassin. 
It seems reasonable to me to have HRW and US official opinions balanced as they are now, I'd like more on the mafia angle. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's an unreferenced pronoun here, and I can't sort out what it means. Anyone? This is from the last paragraph on the Hashashin: "However, it was not unique," Vicki Rosenzweig 
Targeted assasination 
(moved from article of that name) 
No Rather than attempt to create a page, I would like to ask a question: What is the meaning of the phrase "targeted assassination". And where does it originate? I assume all assassinations are targeted, otherwise they are random acts of murder. The WTC bombing that killed several people and the 9/11 attacks which killed 3000 were "targeted" but the people were not. doubt the Israeli government is pursuing and killing people. No doubt they have success at times, at other times they kill others inadvertantly or indifferently. Are these non=targeted assasinations. 
A further question. Why are killings in a political struggle where one side wears uniforms and the other does not, called assassinations. What is the difference between random suicide bombings and the murder of the Israeli tourism minister, Zeevi? One is random attack on whoever can be killed and the other a poltical murder. One is different from the other certainly, if both are murder. Similarly, if the Israelis kill someone in a bomb factory whixh is called a "targeted assassination" and a person sent from this factory is shot, he is killed in an "action". How is this different? 
The difference I expect will be explained when we know who created the phrase "T. A." and when it was first employed. These are my questions. (no name attached) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding anti-US material doesn`t balance an article which contains percieved pro-US material, it simply adds to the rhetoric and degrades thesignal-noise ratio of the piece. 
I think it is okay to discuss the morality and implications of assasination as a policy, but i would like to see some references beyond the US and Israel. I half expected to see some trollop about a zionist conspiracy or something next. 
Why not include references to when assasinations have actually influenced history (besides US presidents): Archduke of Ferdinand, South Vietnam, Ghandi, Anwar Sadat, etc? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some links that might help as sources to improve this article: 
http://www.weirdload.com/hasan.html 
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/weiner.htm 
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/spies/interviews/kalugin/ 
http://www.avhub.net/KGBreport.htm 
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/anthony.campbell1/assassins/ 
Sincerely, Kingturtle 19:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  old comments