Talk:Assassination/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Assassination. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Euphemism for Assassination

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

Please explain to me how "Targeted Killing" is anything more than an euphemism for Assassination. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Assassination is a loaded term. How do you describe a targeted killing between foes during war time? An assassination? "The U.N. Charter states that “in peacetime, the citizens of a nation, whether they are political officials or private individuals,” are supposed to be immune “from intentional acts of violence by citizens, agents or military forces of another nation.” But in wartime, international law allows the targeted killing of a member of the enemy’s chain of command..." Source: [1] ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean how does "one" describe a targeted killing between foes during war time assassination attempts.

Assasination covers both peace time and war time "targeted killings" for example:

Operation Foxley, a British SOE plan to assassinate Hitler
The German resistance tried to assassinate Hitler with a bomb.
Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated.
Louis Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA.

Once someone is dead are you suggesting that he was "targeted killed" is a sutible replacement for assasinated? To me it sounds very clumsy--Philip Baird Shearer

I believe the English term "targeted killing" originated with the official Hebrew euphemism of "targeted foiling" (since "assasination" would obviously be a non-starter for officials, and "execution" is illegal in Israel without a trial [and nearly impossible even then]). However, there isn't an Israeli or Palestinian alive who doesn't understand the real meaning. English-language media just de-euphemised it a bit, to make the meaning clear to foreigners. I think that "execution" might be a good unbiased description, since it conveys the meaning of a controling power killing an individual for past crimes. altmany 12:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the term is an euphemism and it also has different means as well, (which is presumably why some governments which use it like it). If a sniper shoots a soldier in a war that is a "targeted killing" as is shelling a crossroads to interdict troops moving up to a front, but neither are assassinations. During the troubles in Northern Ireland if a protestant paramilitary group when out and killed a catholic, that was also a "targeted killing" (they were targeting a catholic, any catholic). When protestant paramilitary groups targeted specific alleged prominent members of the IRA or prominent supporters of the IRA, those were assassination attempts. When the IRA killed Mountbatten that was an assassination but the killings of soldiers at Warrenpoint on the same day was a targeted killing (with the use of a second bomb at the likely Army RV point) was not an assassination.

Do a Google search on [assassination site:gov.uk] to see what I mean. Even more interesting is a search on ["Targeted killing site:gov.uk] only two papers one is on the trade in endangered species and contains the following:

"The Tibetan antelope...The dramatic population decline is attributed solely to the targeted killing of their wool..."

The other is about "The Use of New Technologies for Policing Purposes" which has these two phrases in it which shows that assassination is more widely understood in plain English term even among the likely audience of such a document than "targeted killing"

"Even if one leaves the most extreme consequences of arrest, detention or even assassination aside"

"the recent attack by US forces on a car in Yemen, in which five persons, believed (by the US) to be terrorists, were assassinated ("the subject of targeted killing").

I think you are misunderstanding what the word assasination means in plain English. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Without signatures, it is hard to follow a conversation. Please use 4 tildes (~~~~) to auto-sign your posts. Philip, by definition, euphemism is an inoffensive expression substituted for an offensive one. So, you insist on using a loaded term instead of a more neutral one because...? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 00:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Up to the time you posted this comment all the conversations had been signed. [2] The sections indented above which are not signed are quotes from articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is a non-"targeted killing"? Is it when you kill without a target? It seems to me that any killing that is not wholesale slaughter is "targeted killing". Can anyone point out what is the preferred term by the media, governments and the accademy? The article says that both the Clinton and Bush administrations have backed targeted killings, is that the term used by them?--Doron 08:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, according to Council on Foreign Relations. Disclaimer: this article came about when I saw a red link in the Current events, separated a section from IDF into an article and added more info. I don't feel assassination neutrally reflects the subject. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why you think assassination does not "neutrally reflect the subject" and why "targeted killing" is anything more than Euphemism often refered to as Euphemism#Doublespeak --Philip Baird Shearer

WP article assassination corrrectly states that it is a loaded term. The question is to you, why do you insist on using it instead of more neutral TK. I disagree that it is a doublespeak because it does not "attempts to confuse and conceal the truth". ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If that is true then why then why do the authorites who use the euphemism "targeted killing" never say "XYZ was assasinated after being trageded for killing" instead the use the words as a from of doublespeak where the term could be replaced with the word assasination or assasination with the term "targeted killing". --Philip Baird Shearer 14:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It was your idea that these terms are interchangeable, and now you are asking why one is not used instead of another? See their respective definitions: they have different meanings. Also, the word assassination has negative emotional/ideological/political overtones. Intentionally or not, your proposed merge would lead to losing that difference and imposing POV. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 01:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If the terms had different meanings then someone could be assasinated by targeted killing, have you ever seen such an expression? If not I put it to you that "targeted killing" is an euphemism for assassination.
In which way does "Operation Foxley was a British SOE plan to assassinate Hitler" carry "negative emotional/ideological/political overtones"? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Did I ask you no to spill the same exact talk across pages? Here is the main difference: TK is a stated policy, while assassination is a POV term. I have to admit that I am not the best judge to qualify "plan to assassinate Hitler", but that doesn't prove anything. I wouldn't apply "assassination" to that misiile strike on al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Would you? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article now includes Khaled Mashal, I've never seen his attempted assassination being referred to as an attempted "targeted killing". The meaning of the central term in this article is poorly defined and poorly referenced.--Doron 13:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen how messy the article assassination is? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 09:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It is not clear from the article what is the difference between "targeted killing" and assassination. Is one of them a euphamism? I've never seen Khaled Mashal's failed assassination being referred to as an attempted "targeted killing". As far as I know, Israel uses the term to indicate an assassination of terroris activists using Precision-guided munition, though I may be wrong.--Doron 12:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I modified the text to reflect the fact that Mashal & Ayyash were not "targeted killed", but "regular" assassination attempts by the Israeli security forces. The unofficial distinction is that the term "target killing" is normally reserved (at least for Israel) for actions that conform to all 3 of the following criteria:

Airborne attacks (carried out by the Israeli Air Force and not by Mossad or other Israeli security arms)
Within the context of the Al-Aqsa Intifada
Within the boundaries of the Palestinian territories

I suggest using this distinction to differentiate "targeted killing" from other forms of assassination, thereby answering User:Philip Baird Shearer. So, "targeted killing" would still deserve its own entry, as a specific form of assassination. Thoughts? altmany 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A source for these 3 criteria would help. Are there other competing criterias? What does Hebrew WP say? ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no source for these criteria - they are more informal distinctions between TK and regular assassinations. These should not be confused with the necessary legal criteria before TKs are attempted. Note that the term was later apparently picked up by other governments (USA, Russia) to describe similar actions, so the criteria and distinctions should not be presented as Israeli-specific.

He:WP says as follows [3]: "Targeted foiling is a term created by the Israeli government and IDF during the Al-aqsa intifada to describe an IDF military action intended to kill Palestinian activists involved in terror. The American press calls such action targeted killing. In the Arab press such actions are customarily described as assassinations". altmany 23:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

old comments

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)