Ambassadors Worried About Technology...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
“ Assassination “
11 Answers
In CB because I’m making a point about language and killing - rather than commenting about one specific instance.
I’m interested to see the killing of (the vile) Soleimani increasingly referred to as ‘assassination’ in the media - when I’m sure that exactly the same act resulting in the death of (say) an NCO or Junior Officer would not be so described?
Why the difference? It was the same legitimate act of war (or a terrorist act, depending on your world view) regardless of who was killed?
Expanding my thoughts a little - why is it so rare to see the very top people in a conflict (who after all are presumably the highest prize?) actually killed? I’m certain that, if it wanted, the US could take out the entire Irani Government at an hours notice and be back home for Martinis on the White House Lawn by sunset.
Is there some unwritten law that protects the top people from actual harm in conflicts they instigate? Is it a fear that the enemy will go for your own high command if you target theirs - is it always a case of both sides deliberately using ‘the poor bloody infantry’ to do their dirty work, so that they are not personally targeted by the enemy?
Philosophically Rambling Dave xx
I’m interested to see the killing of (the vile) Soleimani increasingly referred to as ‘assassination’ in the media - when I’m sure that exactly the same act resulting in the death of (say) an NCO or Junior Officer would not be so described?
Why the difference? It was the same legitimate act of war (or a terrorist act, depending on your world view) regardless of who was killed?
Expanding my thoughts a little - why is it so rare to see the very top people in a conflict (who after all are presumably the highest prize?) actually killed? I’m certain that, if it wanted, the US could take out the entire Irani Government at an hours notice and be back home for Martinis on the White House Lawn by sunset.
Is there some unwritten law that protects the top people from actual harm in conflicts they instigate? Is it a fear that the enemy will go for your own high command if you target theirs - is it always a case of both sides deliberately using ‘the poor bloody infantry’ to do their dirty work, so that they are not personally targeted by the enemy?
Philosophically Rambling Dave xx
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sunny-dave. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Assassination" means the murder/killing usually of a public/important figure.
So killings of "juniors" would not count as such.
I think the word has a pejorative feel to it, maybe because of the sound of it (all those "asses").
But the killing of Sumeimani was an assassination.
I don't know where you get the idea there might be "some unwritten law that protects the top people from actual harm in conflicts they instigate?" I'd have thought history proves there is not. There has always been perley and diplomatic immunity for envoys, or leaders in certain circumstances, but in the general run of things the top people are naturally the top targets. However they usually take steps to protect themselves. Suleimani got careless and made it easy for the Americans.
Killing the entire Iranian government may or may not be within the power of the US army (I'd be surprised if it was) but I cannot see what it would achive in the long run. Other leaders would simply take their place.
So killings of "juniors" would not count as such.
I think the word has a pejorative feel to it, maybe because of the sound of it (all those "asses").
But the killing of Sumeimani was an assassination.
I don't know where you get the idea there might be "some unwritten law that protects the top people from actual harm in conflicts they instigate?" I'd have thought history proves there is not. There has always been perley and diplomatic immunity for envoys, or leaders in certain circumstances, but in the general run of things the top people are naturally the top targets. However they usually take steps to protect themselves. Suleimani got careless and made it easy for the Americans.
Killing the entire Iranian government may or may not be within the power of the US army (I'd be surprised if it was) but I cannot see what it would achive in the long run. Other leaders would simply take their place.
I don't believe it was an assassination.
It just demonstrated that the US have longer ranging snipers than any one else. It was always the case in warfare that officers were 'taken out' by snipers. In the 1st WW the officers would take their pips off and carry a rifle 'over the top' in many cases instead of a 'Officers' service revolver.
The Germans, in the 2nd WW, organised their platoons with senior NCOs having more authority and greater roles in decision making and tactics than their allied counterparts.
It just demonstrated that the US have longer ranging snipers than any one else. It was always the case in warfare that officers were 'taken out' by snipers. In the 1st WW the officers would take their pips off and carry a rifle 'over the top' in many cases instead of a 'Officers' service revolver.
The Germans, in the 2nd WW, organised their platoons with senior NCOs having more authority and greater roles in decision making and tactics than their allied counterparts.
going for and shooting the officers was a big deal in the Pacific war 1941-45. but that is not assasssination even tho it were directed kiling
if Boris were felled by a burglar that also would not be assassination but if he were shot by a suffragette outside No 10 it might be.
so it has to be the victim ( selected) and purpose ( has political whatever) and I still think Qassem Soleimani fills the bill
As for Gerry and his pals not getting assassinated in Northern Ireland, yes the Gentlemen were left alive and the Players were shot as at the end of the game - the British Govt wanted someone to negotiate with
|Michael Collins' death in 1922 caused real problems as the question arose - will the gunmen follow the orders of their political masters?
if Boris were felled by a burglar that also would not be assassination but if he were shot by a suffragette outside No 10 it might be.
so it has to be the victim ( selected) and purpose ( has political whatever) and I still think Qassem Soleimani fills the bill
As for Gerry and his pals not getting assassinated in Northern Ireland, yes the Gentlemen were left alive and the Players were shot as at the end of the game - the British Govt wanted someone to negotiate with
|Michael Collins' death in 1922 caused real problems as the question arose - will the gunmen follow the orders of their political masters?
I think there's an interesting distinction between 'all out war' (eg where Churchill and Hitler were both at the top of the enemy's list for killing) and 'police actions' where the leaders are left well alone and the killing is restricted to the lower orders.
I think Soleimani just miscalculated his relative worth in the game and Pompeo and the 'men with wires in their ears' decided it was worth the risk to take him out.
I think Soleimani just miscalculated his relative worth in the game and Pompeo and the 'men with wires in their ears' decided it was worth the risk to take him out.
I recall ,vaguely, a film whereby a unit of Americans were sent to Bavaria ,clandestinely ,to assassinate Hitler. Just as the shot was set up they were told to abort the mission and leave the Fuhrer unharmed.
The Allied command reckoned the maniac Hitler was of more use to the Allied cause alive.
Reminds me of the Tories. Happy to be up against Corbyn as oppo leader. :-)
The Allied command reckoned the maniac Hitler was of more use to the Allied cause alive.
Reminds me of the Tories. Happy to be up against Corbyn as oppo leader. :-)
1 to 11 of 11
