Hanzo Hattori was the leader of the Iga Ninja Clan in 16th Century Japan and is considered by many to be the most badass ninja to ever live. His exploits have become the thing of legend in his native land, and all who study the arts of Ninjitsu and Kicking Ass look to Hanzo as the shining example of what it means to be totally fething awesome.
Hanzo Hattori began his training by climbing a mountain at the age of eight and seeking instruction from the most hardcore ninja masters in all of Japan. He busted his nuts every single day for four years, practicing insane ninja skills like jumping, flying, and stabbing, finally being declared a full-on ninja at age twelve. By the time he was sixteen, he had already proven himself as the ultimate badass, serving in battles for the Oda Clan, where he earned the nicknames, “Hanzo the Ghost”, and “Devil Hanzo”, probably because he would sneak around undetected and then nail melon-fethers in the face with a flying side kick when they least expected it. Then he’d drop a smoke bomb and vanish into the night, only to re-appear moments later, chopping off some jerk’s head and doing backflips for no reason at all.
Hanzo began to make a name for himself while in the service of a dude named Tokugawa Ieyasu, who was a General in the Oda Clan. Tokugawa would eventually go on to kick the asses of everyone in Feudal Japan, unify the country Qin Shi Huangdi-style and earn the esteemed title of Shogun, so Hanzo could tell everyone he knew Ieyasu “back in the day”, and everyone would know he was O.G. Hanzo fought valiantly at the Battle of Anagawa in 1570, where Tokugawa’s men slogged through some brutal hand-to-hand combat in the middle of a river, and later at the Battle of Mikatagahara in 1572, where Devil Hanzo and his ninja melon-fethers kicked asses despite being outnumbered four to one by an army of hardcore samurai. After the first day of fighting Tokugawa's had been overwhelmed, and the enemy was preparing to make their final assault on the Oda Clan positions when Hanzo and his ninjas launched a balls-out night raid against the enemy's main camp, lopping off heads, hitting people in the face with nunchucks, hurling ninja stars all over thep lace, causing disorder and chaos, and forcing the withdrawl of the invading armies.
Now you don’t become the most legendary ninja in history by not being fething awesome. Hanzo is reputed to have possessed otherworldly skills, and supposedly could teleport, turn invisible, and make gak explode just by swearing at it. He could reportedly hold his breath underwater for like two days straight, and his martial arts moves were so sweet that it made people barf all over their kimonos (in a good way). His Ninja Clan, the “Men of Iga”, were recruited to spy on the enemies of Tokugawa, as well as perform assassinations, reconnaissance, sabotage, demolitions, kidnappings, and other forms of espionage black ops gak, sort of like the Navy SEALS, only with more stabbing and climbing and fewer Southern accents. He had ninja operatives working undercover as ronin warriors in the castles of many of the Tokugawa’s enemies, and his spies were more omnipresent than the fething CIA and the KGB smashed together into one giant Voltron of Secrecy. Hanzo Hattori and his Iga Ninjas were so effective that many people credit much of Tokugawa’s rise to power on his successful deployment of crazy ninja badasses throughout the country and his utilization of their superhuman skills.
Hanzo the Ghost would pull off his most famous accomplishment in 1582, while he was out kicking asses with Tokugawa Ieyasu in the Osaka Prefecture. Hanzo had just gotten finished executing an unprecedented one hundred fifty-eight hit combo on some jackass rival ninja master, culminating with a Shoruken Dragon Punch that made his opponent's head explode into a geyser of blood, when all of a sudden word came down that the warlord Akechi Mitsuhide had just betrayed and assassinated his master, Oda Nobunaga. Since Nobunaga was the leader of Tokugawa’s Clan, it meant that gak was about to get really fething hairy for the future shogun in a hurry. They knew Akechi was going put up security checkpoints and send out roving bands of samurai looking to decapitate Tokugawa and bury his head in a drainage ditch somewhere, and now he appeared to be trapped, alone, and surrounded, with a few hundred miles separating him from his castle in Mikawa Prefecture.
Hanzo somersaulted into action like the melon-fething ball-busting ninja that he was, telling Tokugawa to stay back and let the Iga Clan handle gak. He snuck into the nearby Koga and Iga Prefectures, climbed the highest mountain he could find, and started wailing a bitchin’ guitar solo so loud, flaming, and technically challenging that it started setting off explosions and fireworks in the sky above him. When nearby ninjas saw how much ass Hanzo was kicking, they all met up with him and formed an insane entourage of 300 Master Ninjas all prepared to escort Tokugawa to safety or die trying. Using diplomacy, secrecy, advanced reconnaissance and the occasional jump-spinning 360-degree roundhouse kick, Hanzo and his ninja bodyguards were able to successfully escort Tokugawa to the safety of Mikawa. Tokugawa was so impressed by this display of bravery and badassitude that he kept two hundred of the ninjas on his payroll, officially forming the “Men of Iga”, under the command of Hanzo Hattori. They were assigned the critical duty of protecting the West Gate of Edo Castle – the gate most susceptible to a surprise attack by enemy forces. Tokugawa knew that if gak was going to go down, he wanted Hanzo Hattori and his Goddamned Ninja Army to be the ones on the front lines. The West entrance to Edo was renamed Hanzo-Mon, and to this day “Hanzo’s Gate” still stands proudly, just daring melon-fethers to mess with it.
Hanzo served bravely until 1590 when he died valiantly in battle at age fifty-five. He had been chasing down a rival ninja clan, kicking everyone’s ass, when he ran into a trap and was burned to death by flaming oil, going out in a blaze of glory (nyuk nyuk) and probably looking awesome even in death. To this day Hanzo is such a legendary, popular figure in Japan that characters bearing his name appear in all sorts of games, television shows, and other gak, and it’s a well-known fact that two-thirds of all Japanese Ninja Cartoons feature at least one character called Hanzo Hattori. Of course, there were like three different dudes from history known as Hanzo Hattori (I only covered the most well-known one here), but whatever. Most famously he was played by ultimate badass Sonny Chiba in the show “Shadow Warriors”, where Hanzo was depicted as the no-bs asskicker he was in real life, spending his free time slicing evil ninjas in half, kicking ronins in the teeth, and getting babes to take their shirts off. Chiba even reprised the role for the movie Kill Bill, when his badass skills and Hanzo Steel were needed to help The Bride exact brutal revenge on her mortal enemy, and dismember an entire gang of wannabe Yakuza dumbasses in the process.
Another thing to keep in mind when discussing the badassitude of Hanzo Hattori is that we probably don’t know half of the awesome gak he did in his lifetime, because most if it was behind-closed-doors cloak-and-dagger type insanity. Like the sort of Black Ops gak that never gets declassified because it's too hardcore. I mean, for all we know he could have single-handedly wiped out an entire clan of ninjas like Ryu Hayabasa or Shinobi, but there just isn’t any historical record of it because as far as Tokugawa was concerned it never happened. Mission Impossible type gak – “if you are caught or captured we will disavow any knowledge of your actions.” He’s like Wolf the Quarrelsome - we don’t know everything he was involved in, but what we do know about him is totally badassed.
Interested? Post your badass and let us discuss HISTORIES MOST BADASS ASSASSINS.
Now heres the ground rules...
You cannot include people who have killed people such as John Wilkes Booth.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Surely the best assassin would be one who is unknown?
But, for the change that he brought and his impact upon the world, Gavrilo Princep?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Surely the best assassin would be one who is unknown?
But, for the change that he brought and his impact upon the world, Gavrilo Princep?
Didn't he get caught?
Not really a good assassin just a lucky one.
Absolutely correct, but he did cause one World War, and indirectly caused a second.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Surely the best assassin would be one who is unknown?
But, for the change that he brought and his impact upon the world, Gavrilo Princep?
Didn't he get caught?
Not really a good assassin just a lucky one.
Absolutely correct, but he did cause one World War, and indirectly caused a second.
Hanzo is accreditted with killing some of japans greatest soldiers and turned an entire siege around with three other ninja.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Surely the best assassin would be one who is unknown?
But, for the change that he brought and his impact upon the world, Gavrilo Princep?
Didn't he get caught?
Not really a good assassin just a lucky one.
Absolutely correct, but he did cause one World War, and indirectly caused a second.
Hanzo is accreditted with killing some of japans greatest soldiers and turned an entire siege around with three other ninja.
Torga_DW wrote: I'm going to go with hanzo here, that was pure win.
Hanzo Hataroi is quite awesome he broke a siege and the castle he was defending only had five men defending it..... A thousand men thought it wasn't worth it to attack the castle because clearly it had a ton of men.
So the Clan backed off because of Hanzo's attack.
Its probably one of the coolest moments in feudal japan.
The Hanzo stories are hard to separate myth from reality.
In any event, the funny part about this is that we're debating about who is the best member of a profession which defines success by achieving their goals in secrecy. Therefore, it stands to reason that all the 'best' members of the profession are people we've never heard of.
Jimsolo wrote: The Hanzo stories are hard to separate myth from reality.
In any event, the funny part about this is that we're debating about who is the best member of a profession which defines success by achieving their goals in secrecy. Therefore, it stands to reason that all the 'best' members of the profession are people we've never heard of.
There is a certain team of Assassins that the united states employ. The Delta and Black Ops units being quite famous but having very little known about them.
Yeah Hanzo's stories are quite mythical, but there are quite a few that are true but the ways he went about it are very different than the way described.
Greatest in what way? Most important target taken out? Biggest amount of assassinations? Or stuff happening as a result, like Princip who in essence started a world war? As an anarchist he certainly got all he wanted and a bit more, with whole nations being despoiled and many kings getting dethroned.
Assassin with the greatest impact? Assassin with the most luck? Sure.
Greatest? Hardly.
There was no qualifier on what "greatest" was supposed to mean.
Princip's assassination of the Archduke and his wife with his tiny FN Model 1910 was one of the most prominent factors that shaped the course of history in the 20th century. So yeah, I would say that he was a great assassin based solely on what he managed accomplish and then set in to action with two .380 bullets.
Was he lucky that he succeeded? Of course, but all assassins are lucky.
Assassin with the greatest impact? Assassin with the most luck? Sure.
Greatest? Hardly.
There was no qualifier on what "greatest" was supposed to mean.
Princip's assassination of the Archduke and his wife with his tiny FN Model 1910 was one of the most prominent factors that shaped the course of history in the 20th century. So yeah, I would say that he was a great assassin based solely on what he managed accomplish and then set in to action with two .380 bullets.
Was he lucky that he succeeded? Of course, but all assassins are lucky.
He was not great. He was lucky, pure and simple. His actions had completely unintended consequences as well. He was nothing more then a dumb college kid with a bad plan, and a gun, who walked out the right door at the right time.
How has no one mentioned Hassan-i Sabbah?. I know Assassin's Creed is terrible but come on. This guy and his bunch were so good at what they did, we took their name to define what they did! They were so good at it that for centuries they had their own kingdom and no one fethed with them cause it was suicide to even bring up the topic.
djones520 wrote: He was not great. He was lucky, pure and simple. His actions had completely unintended consequences as well. He was nothing more then a dumb college kid with a bad plan, and a gun, who walked out the right door at the right time.
You're severely discounting the the scope of the plot to assassinate the Archduke while at the same discrediting his actions because they don't fit with the romantic notion of an assassin. The method of an assassination pales in comparison to the after effect caused by the assassination. The NKVD and later the KGB has some pretty fantastical methods of eliminating targets, but in the end there is nothing about the net result that was great; they killed dissidents and other political enemies, none of which posed any real threat to the government of the Soviet Union.
Princip got "lucky," as assassins tend to do. Look at all of major assassinations in history, both failed and successful, and you'll see that each one is the result of the tiniest thing going right or going wrong.
djones520 wrote: He was not great. He was lucky, pure and simple. His actions had completely unintended consequences as well. He was nothing more then a dumb college kid with a bad plan, and a gun, who walked out the right door at the right time.
You're severely discounting the the scope of the plot to assassinate the Archduke while at the same discrediting his actions because they don't fit with the romantic notion of an assassin. The method of an assassination pales in comparison to the after effect caused by the assassination. The NKVD and later the KGB has some pretty fantastical methods of eliminating targets, but in the end there is nothing about the net result that was great; they killed dissidents and other political enemies, none of which posed any real threat to the government of the Soviet Union.
Princip got "lucky," as assassins tend to do. Look at all of major assassinations in history, both failed and successful, and you'll see that each one is the result of the tiniest thing going right or going wrong.
He got lucky by literally the driver taking the wrong route by accident and then the arch duke being literally on the same street as the would be assassin, in fact he failed his first attempt. And then when he saw him he knew what to do and shot the arch duke and his wife.
Don't kid yourselves he is not a great assassin.
Most assassins rely on skill hence why we never hear about them.
djones520 wrote: He was not great. He was lucky, pure and simple. His actions had completely unintended consequences as well. He was nothing more then a dumb college kid with a bad plan, and a gun, who walked out the right door at the right time.
You're severely discounting the the scope of the plot to assassinate the Archduke while at the same discrediting his actions because they don't fit with the romantic notion of an assassin. The method of an assassination pales in comparison to the after effect caused by the assassination. The NKVD and later the KGB has some pretty fantastical methods of eliminating targets, but in the end there is nothing about the net result that was great; they killed dissidents and other political enemies, none of which posed any real threat to the government of the Soviet Union.
Princip got "lucky," as assassins tend to do. Look at all of major assassinations in history, both failed and successful, and you'll see that each one is the result of the tiniest thing going right or going wrong.
He got lucky by literally the driver taking the wrong route by accident and then the arch duke being literally on the same street as the would be assassin, in fact he failed his first attempt. And then when he saw him he knew what to do and shot the arch duke and his wife.
Don't kid yourselves he is not a great assassin.
Most assassins rely on skill hence why we never hear about them.
Exactly. The killing of the Archduke had nothing to do with the plot. The guy walked out of a bar, the Arch Dukes car drove by at that exact moment, it was pure luck. There was no plan involved when the guy was actually killed.
He got lucky by literally the driver taking the wrong route by accident and then the arch duke being literally on the same street as the would be assassin, in fact he failed his first attempt. And then when he saw him he knew what to do and shot the arch duke and his wife.
Don't kid yourselves he is not a great assassin.
Most assassins rely on skill hence why we never hear about them.
An assassins primary concern is the successful elimination of the target. Getting away with it is secondary and most often only the concern of the professional hitman, which do not account for the majority of high-profile assassinations.
The surest way of killing your target is to get up close, if possible.
Look at some of the most famous assassinations:
Lincoln: Handgun Franz Ferdinand: Handgun Trotsky: Ice axe Gandhi: Handgun Malcolm X: sawn off shotgun and handguns RFK: Handgun
Close range, little thought given to escape. Political assassinations are often about sending a message. The greatest political assassin is they who sends their message the clearest and captures the most attention. You don't do that by hiding your identity and cause.
Since there is going to be very little information on any professional hitman who hasn't been caught, and that those hitmen don't get caught by knowing which jobs to turn down (such as presidents of the USA) and which to pursue (random businessman who pissed off his rich wife or whatever) we should probably more narrowly define what kind of assassin we're rating here.
He got lucky by literally the driver taking the wrong route by accident and then the arch duke being literally on the same street as the would be assassin, in fact he failed his first attempt. And then when he saw him he knew what to do and shot the arch duke and his wife.
Don't kid yourselves he is not a great assassin.
Most assassins rely on skill hence why we never hear about them.
Sorry buddy, you really need to drop this romantic notion of super-spies and black-clad secret ninja assassins. Assassinations are often unsophisticated, brutal, and messy affairs with even the greatest assassination plots rely purely on being in the right place at the right time... or as we like to call it, luck. The overwhelming majority of assassinations in the modern era have been carried out with firearms, with handguns being the most common type of weapons used. The reason why is that they are effective. The real world is a lot different than video games, movies, and books.
djones520 wrote: Exactly. The killing of the Archduke had nothing to do with the plot. The guy walked out of a bar, the Arch Dukes car drove by at that exact moment, it was pure luck. There was no plan involved when the guy was actually killed.
You're right, the Archduke was more or less arbitrarily chosen as the target, but the end goal of destabilizing the Austro-Hungarian Empire is what is important, and in that end it was a success.
What you two can't get past is the character of the man who pulled the trigger. That isn't what makes him a "great" assassin; it was the ramifications of the act of killing the Archduke. You're right, he didn't scale the palace wall in the dead of night cloaked in black with a utility belt of speciaized weapons like some sort of early 1900s Serbian Sam Fisher.
Is Princip going to be the star of the next Assassins Creed video game? Hell no. But doesn't make him any less "great" in the history of assassinations.
Sorry buddy, you really need to drop this romantic notion of super-spies and black-clad secret ninja assassins. Assassinations are often unsophisticated, brutal, and messy affairs with even the greatest assassination plots rely purely on being in the right place at the right time... or as we like to call it, luck. The overwhelming majority of assassinations in the modern era have been carried out with firearms, with handguns being the most common type of weapons used. The reason why is that they are effective. The real world is a lot different than video games, movies, and books.
What romantic drivel about assassinations are never pretty mate XD
Okay let me tell you something.. Most successful assassinations are done with out anyone suspecting it is assassination. The best are so well planned that no one even suspects them.
most aren't well planned.
But Hanzo's assassinations were so well thought out that they didn't even know there was a breach in the security .
There have been a many great assassins. In terms of prolific killers and professional killers there are quite a few. Fred Burke for example being the one to commit the horrible st. valentines massacre. Or hell Abdullah Catli who was never caught by police and actually escaped most of his murders of many political diplomats.
What you two can't get past is the character of the man who pulled the trigger. That isn't what makes him a "great" assassin; it was the ramifications of the act of killing the Archduke. You're right, he didn't scale the palace wall in the dead of night cloaked in black with a utility belt of speciaized weapons like some sort of early 1900s Serbian Sam Fisher.
Ummm. Why would you travel at night clad in black? ninjas wore dark blue. Hollywood was stupid enough to make it black when it was really dark blue as that is the color of the night sky. Most ninja also wore different colors according to the setting they were in.
Infact the guy was just a kid for all terms and purposes and waasn't even that intelligent.
Hanzo killed several generals and political leaders and kept every contract he ever had.
Grey Templar wrote: The best assassin in the world is the guy who killed someone without anyone else every knowing that the victim was assassinated.
Indeed. The best assassins would be someone no one has heard of or would expect. They might be on this forum right now. You might be reading their posts and not know it.
Grey Templar wrote: The best assassin in the world is the guy who killed someone without anyone else every knowing that the victim was assassinated.
Indeed. The best assassins would be someone no one has heard of or would expect. They might be on this forum right now. You might be reading their posts and not know it.
It might be you.... It might be Frazzleds Wiener Dog' Legion.
Because assassinating people via mortar is the mark of a great assassin.
I am pretty sure there have been a great many assassinations that have had some interesting kills such as the 20s and how each week a bunch of cops just ended up dying randomly. By unknown causes....
Or hell during the time of the Great Untouchables (1930s) Where a bunch of members were killed and the hitman was never caught.
Ok, actual semi-serious answer here. There was a guy named Ehud described in the Old Testament of the Bible. Without getting into a debate over whether this really happened you have to at least agree it's a pretty awesome story. Plus as someone who is left handed I quite enjoyed it (from the Wikipedia entry):
(See Judges 3:12-30) - Ehud was sent to the Moabite King Eglon on the pretext of delivering the Israelites' annual tribute. He made a double-edged shortsword about eighteen inches long, useful for a stabbing thrust. Being left-handed, he could conceal the sword on his right thigh, where it was not expected. Once they met, Ehud told Eglon he had a secret message for him. Eglon dismissed his attendants and allowed Ehud to meet him in private. Ehud said, "I have a message from God for you", drew his sword, and stabbed the king in his abdomen.
Eglon was eviscerated by the blow, which caused him to leak excrement; he was so overweight that the sword disappeared into the wound and Ehud left it there. He locked the doors to the king's chamber and left. Eglon's assistants returned when too much time had elapsed and found the doors locked. Assuming that he was relieving himself, they waited "to the point of embarrassment" before unlocking the door and finding their king dead.
Ehud escaped to the town of Seraiah in Ephraim. He sounded the shofar and rallied the Israelite tribes, who killed the Moabites, cutting off the fords of the Jordan River, and invaded Moab itself, killing about 10,000 Moabite soldiers.
After the death of Eglon there was peace in the land for 80 years.
dementedwombat wrote: Ok, actual semi-serious answer here. There was a guy named Ehud described in the Old Testament of the Bible. Without getting into a debate over whether this really happened you have to at least agree it's a pretty awesome story. Plus as someone who is left handed I quite enjoyed it (from the Wikipedia entry):
(See Judges 3:12-30) - Ehud was sent to the Moabite King Eglon on the pretext of delivering the Israelites' annual tribute. He made a double-edged shortsword about eighteen inches long, useful for a stabbing thrust. Being left-handed, he could conceal the sword on his right thigh, where it was not expected. Once they met, Ehud told Eglon he had a secret message for him. Eglon dismissed his attendants and allowed Ehud to meet him in private. Ehud said, "I have a message from God for you", drew his sword, and stabbed the king in his abdomen.
Eglon was eviscerated by the blow, which caused him to leak excrement; he was so overweight that the sword disappeared into the wound and Ehud left it there. He locked the doors to the king's chamber and left. Eglon's assistants returned when too much time had elapsed and found the doors locked. Assuming that he was relieving himself, they waited "to the point of embarrassment" before unlocking the door and finding their king dead.
Ehud escaped to the town of Seraiah in Ephraim. He sounded the shofar and rallied the Israelite tribes, who killed the Moabites, cutting off the fords of the Jordan River, and invaded Moab itself, killing about 10,000 Moabite soldiers.
After the death of Eglon there was peace in the land for 80 years.
Okay let me tell you something.. Most successful assassinations are done with out anyone suspecting it is assassination. The best are so well planned that no one even suspects them.
most aren't well planned.
But Hanzo's assassinations were so well thought out that they didn't even know there was a breach in the security .
There have been a many great assassins. In terms of prolific killers and professional killers there are quite a few. Fred Burke for example being the one to commit the horrible st. valentines massacre. Or hell Abdullah Catli who was never caught by police and actually escaped most of his murders of many political diplomats.
Fred Burke wasn't an assassin, he was was a mobster that killed other mobsters. Abdullah Çatlı was a hitman, which is a lot different than an assassin in the strictest sense.
Like a couple of other people have already said, most of what is "known" about Hanzo is legend and should be taken with a grain of salt. What I am getting at with the romantic view of assassins is idea of an assassin being finely honed tool, shaped by years of training, with an almost supernatural ability to eliminate a target is a borderline myth.
Ummm. Why would you travel at night clad in black? ninjas wore dark blue. Hollywood was stupid enough to make it black when it was really dark blue as that is the color of the night sky. Most ninja also wore different colors according to the setting they were in.
Infact the guy was just a kid for all terms and purposes and waasn't even that intelligent.
Hanzo killed several generals and political leaders and kept every contract he ever had.
First of all, that comment about black-clad ninjas was sarcasm. Second of all, ninjas didn't wear dark blue or black or even have a "ninja suit." What we understand about ninjas today is that they often dressed as civilians in order to perform their most useful role: espionage.
And since you brought it up, the night sky can be various colors depending on the Moon. In a moonless sky, the colors most often detected are green and red, which is the product of airglow. Other sources of color for the night sky on a moonless night are gegenschein (at the anti-solor point) and zodiacal light (seen along the ecliptic), neither of which are blue. At a true dark-sky site, after your eyes have become dark-adapted, a moonless night sky will typically be grayish in appearance. With a full Moon, the sky can appear blue due to Rayleigh scattering (the same thing that makes the sky during the day blue). Keep in mind that in an area or time with no light pollution, the Moon is extremely bright, and any kind of convert action is usually hampered by it.
Bottom line is that on a moonless night, the sky will be in no way blue.
First of all, that comment about black-clad ninjas was sarcasm. Second of all, ninjas didn't wear dark blue or black or even have a "ninja suit." What we understand about ninjas today is that they often dressed as civilians in order to perform their most useful role: espionage.
True. But ninjas did perform terror tactics when instructed to by their contracts such as during sieges to stir up men and make them nervous for combat.
When they had to they did don their suits. The Iga ninja Clan was famous for running entire networks of spies through out japan.
And since you brought it up, the night sky can be various colors depending on the Moon.
Correct.
In a moonless sky, the colors most often detected are green and red, which is the product of airglow. Other sources of color for the night sky on a moonless night are gegenschein (at the anti-solor point) and zodiacal light (seen along the ecliptic), neither of which are blue. At a true dark-sky site, after your eyes have become dark-adapted, a moonless night sky will typically be grayish in appearance. With a full Moon, the sky can appear blue due to Rayleigh scattering (the same thing that makes the sky during the day blue). Keep in mind that in an area or time with no light pollution, the Moon is extremely bright, and any kind of convert action is usually hampered by it.
Now you're just showing off.
Bottom line is that on a moonless night, the sky will be in no way blue.
Nor will it be solid black. The traditional color for ninja is dark blue or midnight blue. (A special color)
In terms of assassinations ninjas often committed them. Though another would be the Assassination of the Oda Clan's Leader (Whats his name)
I think the reason for the dark blue color is because there is very little in nature that is truly black. Shadows are never pure pitch black, in true darkness it wouldn't matter what color you were wearing.
Dark blue blends better into the background.
Of course 99% of the time a Ninja would wear a real disguise and not a dark jumpsuit.
Grey Templar wrote: I think the reason for the dark blue color is because there is very little in nature that is truly black. Shadows are never pure pitch black, in true darkness it wouldn't matter what color you were wearing.
Dark blue blends better into the background.
Of course 99% of the time a Ninja would wear a real disguise and not a dark jumpsuit.
Except when they are actually at war and trying to cause terror through an entire army. They do.
Which they did quite often.
Ninjas also were more honorable than Samurai, who were famous for backstabbing their fellows quite often.
The Iga Clan was so loyal to their contract that even when he was facing certain defeat they carried out their contract and terrorized an entire army by his order.
Grey Templar wrote: I think the reason for the dark blue color is because there is very little in nature that is truly black.
I do a lot of photography at night, and when I first started out I remember being quite surprised at just how bright it actually is at night. I never realized that even at night you still cast a very visible shadow.
Grey Templar wrote: I think the reason for the dark blue color is because there is very little in nature that is truly black.
I do a lot of photography at night, and when I first started out I remember being quite surprised at just how bright it actually is at night. I never realized that even at night you still cast a very visible shadow.
Its probably diminished sensitivity to light due to living near or in an urban environment.
If you go somewhere way the heck away from any cities or towns, the stars themselves cast quite a lot of light.
Matters where you are. Like a city haha. You have light pollution that gives off light.
While I was patrolling In New Mexico as a Junior Ranger. It was so dark that I couldn't literally see anything on a cloudy day. But at night when the stars were out it was so bright that I could see a shadow. But man I still didn't want travel out at night. Mountain lions are quite dangerous so dangerous I rarely traveled without a Knife.
The nights got quite dark mattering on the weather, but without the stars it gets really dark. But if the moon wasn't around. Then guess what..... It was as dark as an overcast night.
Grey Templar wrote: Its probably diminished sensitivity to light due to living near or in an urban environment.
If you go somewhere way the heck away from any cities or towns, the stars themselves cast quite a lot of light.
Oh yeah. Living in even STL, I always forget how bright the night sky is. When I visit my parents house or go out camping on good nights, I always make it a point to go outside and just soak up the pinpoints in the sky.
In a moonless sky, the colors most often detected are green and red, which is the product of airglow. Other sources of color for the night sky on a moonless night are gegenschein (at the anti-solor point) and zodiacal light (seen along the ecliptic), neither of which are blue. At a true dark-sky site, after your eyes have become dark-adapted, a moonless night sky will typically be grayish in appearance. With a full Moon, the sky can appear blue due to Rayleigh scattering (the same thing that makes the sky during the day blue). Keep in mind that in an area or time with no light pollution, the Moon is extremely bright, and any kind of convert action is usually hampered by it.
Now you're just showing off.
I'm an amateur astronomer and I take the night sky pretty seriously.
Bottom line is that on a moonless night, the sky will be in no way blue.
Nor will it be solid black. The traditional color for ninja is dark blue or midnight blue. (A special color)
And there is no "traditional color" for ninja garb because there was no such thing as a ninja uniform. They most likely used any variety of dark color clothing for nighttime operations, including blue, red, and green. Still, a majority of the time a ninja wore whatever didn't attract attention.
dementedwombat wrote: I think the answer to this is obvious. It was obviously the person on the grassy knoll.
You beat me to it!
I've heard of that before, but what does that mean?
Whomever's in a guillie suit?
Can't tell if sarcasm...
Just in case it isn't, it comes from the conspiracy theory that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy but that it was in fact a second gunman shooting from "the grassy knoll". Then it varies as to whether it was an accomplice of Oswald or whether Oswald was just a distraction to pull attention away from the real masterminds, the Crab People.
Grey Templar wrote: Its probably diminished sensitivity to light due to living near or in an urban environment.
If you go somewhere way the heck away from any cities or towns, the stars themselves cast quite a lot of light.
Stars? Not so much. The planets and certain regions of Milky Way? Yes.
Other than the Moon, the Scorpius and Sagittarius regions of the Milky Way as well as the zodiacal light can cast a shadow at a true dark-sky site. Venus, especially at opposition when it is at magnitude -4.6, can cast shadows too. Mars and Jupiter can also cast faint shadows under optimal conditions.
dementedwombat wrote: I think the answer to this is obvious. It was obviously the person on the grassy knoll.
You beat me to it!
I've heard of that before, but what does that mean?
Whomever's in a guillie suit?
Can't tell if sarcasm...
Just in case it isn't, it comes from the conspiracy theory that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy but that it was in fact a second gunman shooting from "the grassy knoll". Then it varies as to whether it was an accomplice of Oswald or whether Oswald was just a distraction to pull attention away from the real masterminds, the Crab People.
Wasn't sarcastic.
Thanks... I knew it had to be something like that...
The do nothing desk jock who got turned into an uber-sniper and super hero by propaganda? Nope. Doesn't count.
Do you have any sources for that?
Off top of my head no.
Off top of my head; pretty much everything attributed to Zaytsev after 1943 is certainly fiction. After sustaining injuries to his eyes there no way medicine of that time could restore his sight to a level he could continue sniping. From that point on he was nothing more than a political hero/poster boy for the Red Army and the Communist Party. Much of the claims attributed to him prior to his injuries are highly questionable in themselves, most famously his duel with a sniper school instructor completely absent from all German records.
I don't think there's anyplace else for this thread to go. OP seems to have a pretty vague and moving definition of what constitutes "an assassin", and I don't see us generating a end result that isn't a A,) a high profile guy with a big impact (Gavrilo), or B.) professional sniper (Simo), or C.) some guy whose name no one knows.
The do nothing desk jock who got turned into an uber-sniper and super hero by propaganda? Nope. Doesn't count.
Do you have any sources for that?
Off top of my head no.
Off top of my head; pretty much everything attributed to Zaytsev after 1943 is certainly fiction. After sustaining injuries to his eyes there no way medicine of that time could restore his sight to a level he could continue sniping. From that point on he was nothing more than a political hero/poster boy for the Red Army and the Communist Party. Much of the claims attributed to him prior to his injuries are highly questionable in themselves, most famously his duel with a sniper school instructor completely absent from all German records.
Okay, I was just curious. I had heard about him losing his sight but don't really know much beyond that.
The most that can be given to Zaytsev is the 32 kills attributed to him prior to his injuries (which is a respectable tally by even modern standards). But the claim that he killed as many as 400 Germans from 1943-1945 is complete bull on its face. Even the famous Simo Hayha is unlikely to have killed anywhere near as many people as he's attributed to killing.
I'd agree that Simo Häyhä is the best in records for being a sniper. That's a lot of kills...
For those nay sayers out there, a sniper only gets credit for kills when observed by another soldier, and if possible an investigation as to the confirmations will be made, partially not just to credit him so much as to ensure the target is deceased if it is more of a individual military target vs targets of opportunity. Targets of opportunity still need to be confirmed by others.
Ouze wrote: I don't think there's anyplace else for this thread to go. OP seems to have a pretty vague and moving definition of what constitutes "an assassin", and I don't see us generating a end result that isn't a A,) a high profile guy with a big impact (Gavrilo), or B.) professional sniper (Simo), or C.) some guy whose name no one knows.
I agree.
While "assassin" can be a rather nebulous term, snipers in the armed forces are not assassins.
For those nay sayers out there, a sniper only gets credit for kills when observed by another soldier, and if possible an investigation as to the confirmations will be made, partially not just to credit him so much as to ensure the target is deceased if it is more of a individual military target vs targets of opportunity. Targets of opportunity still need to be confirmed by others.
Except this isn't true in the case of Hayha. Hayha himself has never claimed a specific number, nor did the Finnish military at the end of the Winter War (cause shockingly, in a bitter life and death struggle of the state, no one was keeping track). His kill count of 505 comes from Soviet records, not Finnish. The men who commanded the disastrous Winter War seemed ready and willing to blame their failures on anything from gremlins to the ghost of Hannibal, Hayha included. The Finns seemed happy to buy into the Red Army's talk after the war, propelling Hayha even higher than he had been during.
I don't doubt Hayha killed a lot of dudes. He was famous even before the war ended for doing it. But I do doubt the number often sighted for numerous reasons. We might have a fancy system now, but no one was this meticulous in WWII, certainly not when there was propaganda to be thinking about and certainly not when Hayha was famous for being alone in the Finnish Wilderness killing folks left and right.
In Zaytsev's case is a bit more clear cut. Zaytsev suffered a sever injury in Stalingrad in 1943 when a mortar literally blew up in his face. The story that he miraculously regained his sight a month later and went on to kill hundreds of more Germans isn't just questionable for it's innate facts but by documentation. Many of his kills were named by the political office and most of the names are fake (as in German records don't have people by the names existing). The most famous is Err Konig, though to Zaytsev's credit he never actually named the sniper he allegedly dueled in Stalingrad.
Ouze wrote: I don't think there's anyplace else for this thread to go. OP seems to have a pretty vague and moving definition of what constitutes "an assassin", and I don't see us generating a end result that isn't a A,) a high profile guy with a big impact (Gavrilo), or B.) professional sniper (Simo), or C.) some guy whose name no one knows.
LordofHats wrote: The most that can be given to Zaytsev is the 32 kills attributed to him prior to his injuries (which is a respectable tally by even modern standards). But the claim that he killed as many as 400 Germans from 1943-1945 is complete bull on its face. Even the famous Simo Hayha is unlikely to have killed anywhere near as many people as he's attributed to killing.
Agreed... here's the wiki page for one of the US's most prolific snipers:
I time traveled back to samurai japan where I drop kicked Hanzo in the face before feeding him his own balls and beheading him. I stole all his quickening powers then time traveled to Dallas and shot Kennedy in plain sight from the grassy knoll and pinned it on Oswald. Then to celebrate I went back to ancient Rome and befriended Caesar before I stabbed him in the face. Then I went to the future and bro fisted Jesus at judgement day, true story.
But because I'm so great you've never heard of me but that's the drawback of being the worlds best time travelling assassin.
Probably not -even if a military sniper is asked to take out a specific target he's not an assassin, is he? Just as soldiers aren't murderers for killing (active) enemy soldiers.
I'd say there's a lot of overlap in what Snipers do and what Assassins do, and depending on how you define assassin, a sniper could count as one. We often send Snipers off into the wilderness with the task of taking out specific targets (though that role is kind of being taken over by drone operators).
LordofHats wrote: I'd say there's a lot of overlap in what Snipers do and what Assassins do, and depending on how you define assassin, a sniper could count as one. We often send Snipers off into the wilderness with the task of taking out specific targets (though that role is kind of being taken over by drone operators).
Maaybe I should define it.
Assassin - an Individual who is successfully taken out a person of interest due to either political affiliations, or beliefs or military asset through stealth, or covert options, and has successfully escaped the initial assassination.
I would say that is a workable definition, though the last part seems unnecessary. Assassin's don't need to escape. In fact, by their nature their escape is irrelevant. All that matters is the successful elimination of the target.
LordofHats wrote: I would say that is a workable definition, though the last part seems unnecessary. Assassin's don't need to escape. In fact, by their nature their escape is irrelevant. All that matters is the successful elimination of the target.
its also good to be not taken alive when you have killed your target. You know actually avoid capture. meaning you can die. Maybe that should be the ending. Your goal should be to assassinate and avoid being captured for information.
The world is basically filled with information just your name could be connected to just about anything.
LordofHats wrote: I would say that is a workable definition, though the last part seems unnecessary. Assassin's don't need to escape. In fact, by their nature their escape is irrelevant. All that matters is the successful elimination of the target.
its also good to be not taken alive when you have killed your target. You know actually avoid capture. meaning you can die. Maybe that should be the ending. Your goal should be to assassinate and avoid being captured for information.
The world is basically filled with information just your name could be connected to just about anything.
But, again, avoiding capture is not necessarily important, especially in the context of political assassinations.
As I said earlier, the primary concern is the elimination of the target. Escape is secondary and, in many cases throughout history, not even really considered by some of the most famous political assassins.
A hitman who kills for a living will consider it but they will also only take those jobs where escape would be feasibly possible.
Assassination is defined as 'the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons', therefore an assassin is simply someone who carries out said murder. Nowhere is it mentioned that escape is at all criteria for success, and as mentioned earlier in this thread, many of the most prominent and impactful assassins have been caught, or even made little to no attempt at escape. The idea of assassins stealthily slipping in and silently killing before a flawless escape is a romanticised one, as assassinations are often short and violent, Leon Trotsky was killed with an ice axe, Caesar was stabbed to death, etc.
TheRobotLol wrote: Assassination is defined as 'the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons', therefore an assassin is simply someone who carries out said murder. Nowhere is it mentioned that escape is at all criteria for success, and as mentioned earlier in this thread, many of the most prominent and impactful assassins have been caught, or even made little to no attempt at escape. The idea of assassins stealthily slipping in and silently killing before a flawless escape is a romanticised one, as assassinations are often short and violent, Leon Trotsky was killed with an ice axe, Caesar was stabbed to death, etc.
There are many assassinations that go array and have the assassin die as well.
And how is an Assassin romanticized?
People keep saying romanticized and I keep thinking....
I know what romanticized means -deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion; make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is.
Your thinking of Fantasized. It is in no way made more appealing or 'better'.
An Assassin is a basically a tool a knife of a political leader. Which reminds me of the KGB and CIA who were techinically Assassins at one point.
Well Asherian, it is rather hard to see your views throughout this thread as anything other than romantisized when you say things such as 'Hanzo Hataroi is quite awesome' and that 'Its probably one of the coolest moments in feudal japan. ' Yes, the events are also fantasized, but your ideas of them are often veering in and out of being romantisized, to the point of admiration and seeing it as 'better' or 'more appealing' as evident though your earlier posts.
TheRobotLol wrote: Well Asherian, it is rather hard to see your views throughout this thread as anything other than romantisized when you say things such as 'Hanzo Hataroi is quite awesome' and that 'Its probably one of the coolest moments in feudal japan. ' Yes, the events are also fantasized, but your ideas of them are often veering in and out of being romantisized, to the point of admiration and seeing it as 'better' or 'more appealing' as evident though your earlier posts.
Well anything from Europe or Japan are bound to be Romanticized in terms of their history.
We are pretty sure that the Siege he participated in did actually happen, and the battle he participated in is very well known and recorded.
I don't think being assassin is appeal or better. Your killing someone. Knights are Romanticized to no end.
Committing acts of murder are in no way romanticized.
There are many acts in history that seem romanticized when they actually happened that way. Such as the Third Crusade and First Crusade.
Grey Templar wrote: The best assassin in the world is the guy who killed someone without anyone else every knowing that the victim was assassinated.
By this definition, none of the original order that the word assassin comes from even count. The entire point of their assassinations was to make them as public as possible so as to scare other potential enemies away from messing with them.
American drone operators remotely assassinate/murder targets on a day to day basis. One of those people has probably racked up a pretty impressive kill tally by now, so I'd vote for them.
Asherian Command wrote: Well anything from Europe or Japan are bound to be Romanticized in terms of their history.
We are pretty sure that the Siege he participated in did actually happen, and the battle he participated in is very well known and recorded.
I don't think being assassin is appeal or better. Your killing someone. Knights are Romanticized to no end.
Committing acts of murder are in no way romanticized.
There are many acts in history that seem romanticized when they actually happened that way. Such as the Third Crusade and First Crusade.
No, acts of murder can easily be romanticized as evidenced by your continuing to do so.
Assassin - an Individual who is successfully taken out a person of interest due to either political affiliations, or beliefs or military asset through stealth, or covert options, and has successfully escaped the initial assassination.
Though you seem to have trouble understanding what you are saying, that is a romantic definition of what an assassin is and does. The only thing that is accurate is the first part of your definition... the covert and escape have little to do with actual assassination.
Grey Templar wrote: The best assassin in the world is the guy who killed someone without anyone else every knowing that the victim was assassinated.
By this definition, none of the original order that the word assassin comes from even count. The entire point of their assassinations was to make them as public as possible so as to scare other potential enemies away from messing with them.
Exactly, which is the point I've been trying to argue since the beginning of this thread.
And again, snipers serving in a military role during armed conflict are not assassins. Assassins can use sniping as a tool, but not all snipers are assassins... you know, like a how a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares.
mekugi wrote: American drone operators remotely assassinate/murder targets on a day to day basis. One of those people has probably racked up a pretty impressive kill tally by now, so I'd vote for them.
Woah woah woah. I think you mean our "Heroes" remotely "bestow freedom" upon them...
mekugi wrote: American drone operators remotely assassinate/murder targets on a day to day basis. One of those people has probably racked up a pretty impressive kill tally by now, so I'd vote for them.
Woah woah woah. I think you mean our "Heroes" remotely "bestow freedom" upon them...
Though you seem to have trouble understanding what you are saying, that is a romantic definition of what an assassin is and does. The only thing that is accurate is the first part of your definition... the covert and escape have little to do with actual assassination.
Seal Team 6 are covert and are techincally Military Assassins.
They are meant to kill and cut off the head of an operation.
Though you seem to have trouble understanding what you are saying, that is a romantic definition of what an assassin is and does. The only thing that is accurate is the first part of your definition... the covert and escape have little to do with actual assassination.
Seal Team 6 are covert and are techincally Military Assassins.
They are meant to kill and cut off the head of an operation.
And this shows that...? Obviously assassins CAN be covert in nature, and of course they CAN escape from their operations, but that in no way provides an overarching criteria for assassins in general, and certainly does not define their being assassins. In addition, seal team six is not exactly the best example, and opens up the whole can of worms of military actions being murder or legal action, as it could be argued that their actions were indeed legal, and thus not assassinations.
Though you seem to have trouble understanding what you are saying, that is a romantic definition of what an assassin is and does. The only thing that is accurate is the first part of your definition... the covert and escape have little to do with actual assassination.
Seal Team 6 are covert and are techincally Military Assassins.
They are meant to kill and cut off the head of an operation.
And this shows that...? Obviously assassins CAN be covert in nature, and of course they CAN escape from their operations, but that in no way provides an overarching criteria for assassins in general, and certainly does not define their being assassins.
Then tell me how can an assassin Be great if HE/SHE GETS CAUGHT
Doesn't that show how unskilled they are?
If they are caught then what does it matter, that doesn't make them a great assassin. IT just makes them an Assassin. And this is about great Assassins. Not random Joe who managed to kill an Archduke who just happened to be on the road he was eating a sandwich on.
In terms of skill an Assassin is an ASSET. Losing an Assassin is a lot of money gone. Infact most Assassins work in teams it is rarely this romanticized BS that they send one guy to complete a task. Hattori Hanzo completed his assassinations with fellow clan members, and only died after someone set him up and fell into a trap and burned to death.
In addition, seal team six is not exactly the best example, and opens up the whole can of worms of military actions being murder or legal action, as it could be argued that their actions were indeed legal, and thus not assassinations.
Not exactly. That is still an assassination when they killed Osama techinically that was an Assassination they killed a political leader, in a strategic way and completed their task. You can dress up all you like but that is still an Assassination.
Though you seem to have trouble understanding what you are saying, that is a romantic definition of what an assassin is and does. The only thing that is accurate is the first part of your definition... the covert and escape have little to do with actual assassination.
Seal Team 6 are covert and are techincally Military Assassins.
They are meant to kill and cut off the head of an operation.
And this shows that...?
Obviously assassins CAN be covert in nature, and of course they CAN escape from their operations, but that in no way provides an overarching criteria for assassins in general, and certainly does not define their being assassins.
Then tell me how can an assassin Be great if HE/SHE GETS CAUGHT
Doesn't that show how unskilled they are?
If they are caught then what does it matter, that doesn't make them a great assassin. IT just makes them an Assassin. And this is about great Assassins. Not random Joe who managed to kill an Archduke who just happened to be on the road he was eating a sandwich on.
In terms of skill an Assassin is an ASSET. Losing an Assassin is a lot of money gone. Infact most Assassins work in teams it is rarely this romanticized BS that they send one guy to complete a task. Hattori Hanzo completed his assassinations with fellow clan members, and only died after someone set him up and fell into a trap and burned to death.
Getting caught shows exactly nothing, especially when publicity is involved, which when it comes to assassinations, it often is. Would you say a suicide bomber is unsuccessful because they die their own attack? Obviously not. Also, who exactly gave you the ability to define what makes a great assassin great, and a poor assassin bad? What does capture or luck matter when you have carried out every last detail of your plan, such as the shooting of the Archduke? Did Gavrilo Princip kill the Archduke successfully? Yes he did. Did Gavrilo Princip cause one, or arguably two, world wars through the successful application of two well-placed bullets? Yes, again, he did.
Who are you to lay out the guidelines of what makes an assassin great, as thus far your definitions have been heavily skewed with romanticized notions, with only very minimal at best backings.
That 'Average Joe' got the job done, and as for your claim that we have ourselves been romantisizing with ideas of lone assassins, I believe you are only creating strawmen opponents, in an discussion who's direction you seemingly change every post.
Not exactly. That is still an assassination when they killed Osama techinically that was an Assassination they killed a political leader, in a strategic way and completed their task. You can dress up all you like but that is still an Assassination.
Is it a murder though? Or was it just the completely legal and sanctioned job of a few soldier to eliminate a threat to innocents? Again, who are you to decide? Or did you forget the definition?
'Assassination is the MURDER of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons.
The skill is in getting TO the target. The original assassins took tons of time learning the skills to integrate into a society for the chance to eliminate their target and if they got away it was because of the work it took to assimilate to get close to their target.
Then tell me how can an assassin Be great if HE/SHE GETS CAUGHT
Doesn't that show how unskilled they are?
If they are caught then what does it matter, that doesn't make them a great assassin. IT just makes them an Assassin. And this is about great Assassins. Not random Joe who managed to kill an Archduke who just happened to be on the road he was eating a sandwich on.
The only criteria on which to judge whether an assassin is great or not is whether their target was successfully eliminated and in a way that satisfied the objective of the person who ordered the assassination.
There's no point being super stealthy if you don't succeed in killing the target in a way that is appropriate. Killing the president of the USA by making it look like he died peacefully in his sleep would not be a very successful assassination if you were hired by Bin Laden, as it hasn't created spectacle with which to create fear.
As I have repeatedly said, in many assassinations it doesn't matter if the assassin is caught because the objective is to send a message.
Litvinenko is a case in point. If he had been poisoned in a less elaborate way (and more effective, such as cyanide) then it would not have sent such a strong message. Russia wanted people to know that they had killed that person, they wanted everyone to see what happened when you messed with Putin and his pals. By your criteria that wouldn't be a very successful assassination as it didn't appear to be an accident and the assassin was easily traced and identified.
Getting caught shows exactly nothing, especially when publicity is involved, which when it comes to assassinations, it often is. Would you say a suicide bomber is unsuccessful because they die their own attack? Obviously not. Also, who exactly gave you the ability to define what makes a great assassin great, and a poor assassin bad? What does capture or luck matter when you have carried out every last detail of your plan, such as the shooting of the Archduke? Did Gavrilo Princip kill the Archduke successfully? Yes he did. Did Gavrilo Princip cause one, or arguably two, world wars through the successful application of two well-placed bullets? Yes, again, he did.
But how does that make him a great Assassin. How does that equate to his skill? Is he skillful no. He just shot a gun at the guy in the car.
Who are you to lay out the guidelines of what makes an assassin great, as thus far your definitions have been heavily skewed with romanticized notions, with only very minimal at best backings.
What romanticized notions? Tell me how is equating skill to escaping and being able to get away from a target not equal to skill? The Assassin is a knife, if that knife is stopped and doesn't do anything it is a crappy knife.
If you have this knife and it is found and you are linked to something. Then it is a crappy knife.
A knife is undetected, a knife is meant to kill your opponent, not give them ammo to use on you.
See this is called playing politically. If an asset is taken or captured while on assassination and is successful. You run the risk of your operation being thrown into absolute chaos. Meaning the assassin screwed up and does not make them a GREAT assassin. it makes them a crappy one.
Plus who am I? I am the OP and the thread Author I can make any talking point I want. If you don't agree with me. You don't agree with me.
The point of this discussion was for me to find other historical assassins that had great skill. Not the guy who screwed up and killed a famous person and is now labeled and Assassin even though his entire faction was blamed for it and started a war.
What makes him great over someone like Hanzo or the Muslim Assassin Order? OR hell what makes him better than Seal Team 6?
What makes him great?
Popularity does not define greatness.
Just because you did something that started a series events, does not make you great.. It just makes you the source of problems.
Infact blaming him for world war 1 is extremely short sighted and extremely romanticized view the west poprouts and spouts out all the time. There are many factors as to why WW1 started. No matter what we tried to do WW1 would of always happened it was just the when. It was hitting the boiling point. It was just strike that started the forest fire. Yet the forest was already ready to be turned into ashes.
That 'Average Joe' got the job done, and as for your claim that we have ourselves been romantisizing with ideas of lone assassins, I believe you are only creating strawmen opponents, in an discussion who's direction you seemingly change every post.
Usually they do. But a good assassin doesn't go in for the kill with a knife. He goes in kill the target from either afar or posions them. Then he or she leaves so they are not captured and brought into answer for their crime. (RECORRECTED CHECK OThER POSTS)
Very few assassinations are done from afar but up close. Not with a gun.
You know very little about assassinations in general. Something I have taken quite a custom into learning. AS the most successful assassins were public displays they killed someone and someone blamed someone elses organization. Sometimes they intentionally get themselves caught and wear a friendly factions colors to make that faction go into a berserk and blame that friendly faction.
It is about manipulating your opponent.
The manner you get captured is very important. If you are captured after an assassination and you tell who you work for. Guess what. No matter what you started does not make you great. Because you as the assassin Screwed Up. (Not talking to anyone or putting anyone down here, just used the word 'you' as a descriptive discussion point)
When you are an assassin, almost all the time, it only matters what kind of message you send.
If your message works, then you are a successful assassin. That is all that matters.
So if you want the message out there that someone can be murdered and the killer get away with it, then getting away Scott free without a trace would make you successful.
Its all about sending the message.
In my opinion the guy who killed the Japanese communist party leader in the 50s with a katana on stage was a pretty big show of sending a message at his own expense.
Swastakowey wrote: When you are an assassin, almost all the time, it only matters what kind of message you send.
If your message works, then you are a successful assassin. That is all that matters.
So if you want the message out there that someone can be murdered and the killer get away with it, then getting away Scott free without a trace would make you successful.
Its all about sending the message.
In my opinion the guy who killed the Japanese communist party leader in the 50s with a katana on stage was a pretty big show of sending a message at his own expense.
Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but I would say history's greatest assassin was Brutus. In a historical sense, you can't get much more high-profile than Julius Caesar.
I can't speak much for his ninja skills, but I imagine most Roman's were fairly badass by our standards. He was obviously a senator, a diplomat, a soldier and a patriot.
The skill is in getting TO the target. The original assassins took tons of time learning the skills to integrate into a society for the chance to eliminate their target and if they got away it was because of the work it took to assimilate to get close to their target.
IE what happened during the 30s to get cops into the Mafia or nowadays with undercover cops getting into gangs or military personal getting close to a drug cartel member.
True. But that takes more skill than just shooting a guy who has been called the greatest assassin by many people here.
When you are an assassin, almost all the time, it only matters what kind of message you send.
If your message works, then you are a successful assassin. That is all that matters.
So if you want the message out there that someone can be murdered and the killer get away with it, then getting away Scott free without a trace would make you successful.
Its all about sending the message.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is just assassinating the target so another person can take their place. The message sent is Secondary. Its not about sending a message. That is extremely romanticized view of assassinations.
Assassinations are practical and dare say extremely useful for political leaders back in the older days to think about. If someone is giving you trouble you send a message, but for an enemy, a political enemy. You don't send a message. You kill them, outright. And then you use this time to build a bridge to help that poor mans family and you grasp with coils and strangle that power away and devour it.
That is how politics used to work. Someone you didn't like, send a message. Usually with a thug or a brute. But an enemy. Someone who rallies against you. It is not about sending a message, it is getting them dead and you to become successful.
Its an Egoist IDEAL.
Meaning that they want to take care of themselves but that doesn't mean they will act without reason, they will kill those who they precieve to be a threat. And manipulate the circumstances to seem scared or weaker than they truly are.
Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but I would say history's greatest assassin was Brutus. In a historical sense, you can't get much more high-profile than Julius Caesar.
I can't speak much for his ninja skills, but I imagine most Roman's were fairly badass by our standards. He was obviously a senator, a diplomat, a soldier and a patriot.
Not really because Brutus and Senate was then dissolved, making their faction weaker. He maybe a famous Assassin but that does not make him a Great Assassin. As he did get caught and his dues paid with a swift beheading.
In my opinion the guy who killed the Japanese communist party leader in the 50s with a katana on stage was a pretty big show of sending a message at his own expense.
Interesting. Any source?
I would like to read that story.
In general an assassination is for personal/political gain. A successful Assassination and Assassin is one that gets his contractor's job done and that contractor benefits it in the end.
A bad Assassin is one that fails to get the contractor other task (Success and Grandeur) out, Even if they kill the target it is not always about killing the target. It is sometimes more and one that can decide the fate of a nation. Maybe it throws it into chaos and that leader's friend who sent out the hit takes over. (Which Famous John Of England Did to Richard the Lionheart or To his nephew Arthur, because no one suspected that John would of killed his own kin.)
Swastakowey wrote: When you are an assassin, almost all the time, it only matters what kind of message you send.
If your message works, then you are a successful assassin. That is all that matters.
So if you want the message out there that someone can be murdered and the killer get away with it, then getting away Scott free without a trace would make you successful.
Its all about sending the message.
In my opinion the guy who killed the Japanese communist party leader in the 50s with a katana on stage was a pretty big show of sending a message at his own expense.
This guy gets it.
To be fair, there are quite a few of us who also get it.
Swastakowey wrote: When you are an assassin, almost all the time, it only matters what kind of message you send.
If your message works, then you are a successful assassin. That is all that matters.
So if you want the message out there that someone can be murdered and the killer get away with it, then getting away Scott free without a trace would make you successful.
Its all about sending the message.
In my opinion the guy who killed the Japanese communist party leader in the 50s with a katana on stage was a pretty big show of sending a message at his own expense.
This guy gets it.
To be fair, there are quite a few of us who also get it.
Swastakowey wrote: When you are an assassin, almost all the time, it only matters what kind of message you send.
If your message works, then you are a successful assassin. That is all that matters.
So if you want the message out there that someone can be murdered and the killer get away with it, then getting away Scott free without a trace would make you successful.
Its all about sending the message.
In my opinion the guy who killed the Japanese communist party leader in the 50s with a katana on stage was a pretty big show of sending a message at his own expense.
This guy gets it.
To be fair, there are quite a few of us who also get it.
Indeed there are.
And only a certain overly vocal individual who does not
Usually they do. But a good assassin doesn't go in for the kill with a knife. He goes in kill the target from either afar or posions them. Then he or she leaves so they are not captured and brought into answer for their crime.
Actually, that isn't true. The surest way of killing your target is to get up close. This is obvious when you look at high profile assassinations throughout history:
President Lincoln: shot at close range
President Garfield: shot at close range
President McKinley: shot at close range
Franz Ferdinand: Shot at close range
Mahatma Gandhi: shot at close range
Indira Gandhi: shot at close range
Trotsky: Ice pick
Patrice Lumumba: shot by firing squad (close range)
Lee Harvey Oswald: shot at close range
Malcolm X: shot at close range
RFK: Shot at close range
Harvey Milk: Shot at close range
You could also add in the Russian Imperial family following the Revolution, if you wanted.
Usually they do. But a good assassin doesn't go in for the kill with a knife. He goes in kill the target from either afar or posions them. Then he or she leaves so they are not captured and brought into answer for their crime.
Actually, that isn't true. The surest way of killing your target is to get up close. This is obvious when you look at high profile assassinations throughout history:
President Lincoln: shot at close range (Killed) (Faction Destroyed) President Garfield: shot at close range (Killed) (Faction Destroyed) President McKinley: shot at close range Franz Ferdinand: Shot at close range Mahatma Gandhi: shot at close range Indira Gandhi: shot at close range Trotsky: Ice pick Patrice Lumumba: shot by firing squad (close range) Lee Harvey Oswald: shot at close range Malcolm X: shot at close range RFK: Shot at close range Harvey Milk: Shot at close range
You could also add in the Russian Imperial family following the Revolution, if you wanted.
Its funny how you mention all those every single one of those were unsuccessful assassinations as they did not have the desired effect that the members had planned.
Look up the assassination of King Ahab.
Plus you already posted this.
I noticed how you are using modern examples too. Lee Harvey Oswald also was assassinated he was murdered before going to trial.
Considering the United States History With Assassinations you would of thought you would learn that by now.
Ah, the classic strawman. I thought people had learned not to do that?
Again, you fall short at applying a definition to the item in question. Obviously an assassin can pose as a messenger, but anyone with the basest access to the english language would realize that they are not by definition, messengers. All assassins are of course tools, but apart from that, they can be whatever the situation requires. Not all are meant to sent a message, but claiming that they cannot is a basic failure to understand a subject that you claim to be an expert in, though this would be far from the first time that your 'expert opinion' has left you fallen short in matters out of your league.
Would you oppose a man with power if he was known to have people who stood in his way assassinated?
If you were offered a job as CEO of a company where the last 6 CEOs had been assassinated?
Would remain in a political party if your members where being assassinated one by one?
Of course not. Killing someone never gets rid of them or eliminates the problem. But a well done assassination can crumble your enemies or send a powerful message about your cause etc.
Killing a guy and sending a message is far more useful and at least has a chance of working when done right than simply killing someone.
If I killed the president but didnt think it through well, then he will simply be replaced and people will more likely mourn for him or treat him as more of a hero as he is remembered in death. Failure, I have strengthened my enemies and their cause and even gained them some more sympathizers. My message was not successful.
If I killed him but set it up so he had died of overdose surrounded by underage sex slaves in a car or something, then his reputation is forever tarnished, I would have hurt whatever cause he stood for and more importantly sent a message to his friends which would all have reputations to uphold. If it works then the assassination would be a success.
Killing people doesnt get rid of them, it usually makes them stronger. Killing people and sending a message that hurts both the now dead target and his followers sends a message that actually helps solve your problem.
I dont know if I am explaining it right, but its always to send a message. If you simply kill them then the assassin has failed at achieving anything and normally has hurt his cause and helped the enemy.
I have a nomination for the most cowardly assassin in history...Marcus Junius Brutus. Because hey, what could be more cowardly than delivering the coup de grace to an unarmed, unprotected man after he'd already been stabbed two dozen times?
Considering the United States History With Assassinations you would of thought you would learn that by now.
Ah, the classic strawman. I thought people had learned not to do that? Again, you fall short at applying a definition to the item in question. Obviously an assassin can pose as a messenger, but anyone with the basest access to the english language would realize that they are not by definition, messengers. All assassins are of course tools, but apart from that, they can be whatever the situation requires. Not all are meant to sent a message, but claiming that they cannot is a basic failure to understand a subject that you claim to be an expert in, though this would be far from the first time that your 'expert opinion' has left you fallen short in matters out of your league.
I did not say they can't. But it is not their Primary Function. Their function is to kill.
They are but a tool. What they kill sends a message is not their intent that is their masters plan. Sending a message can be useful. But what sends a message clearer killing political enemy 1 (Strong) or political enemy 2 (Weak). You kill political enemy 1. That way you can turn the table on the weaker opponent.
Historically successful assassinations are ones that accomplish their task and the ramifications are nullified.
I didn't say I was an expert. Just that I knew a bit about assassinations as it is fun to read through the information.
(By the way you Capitalize the word English, because it is a pronoun).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I have a nomination for the most cowardly assassin in history...Marcus Junius Brutus. Because hey, what could be more cowardly than delivering the coup de grace to an unarmed, unprotected man after he'd already been stabbed two dozen times?
I could think of a few.
An unarmed and confused person who is trying to help the Serbian people. ANd is only killed because he is connected to Austria.
Would you oppose a man with power if he was known to have people who stood in his way assassinated?
If you were offered a job as CEO of a company where the last 6 CEOs had been assassinated?
If I was paid to go into those CEO positions because I was the one who arranged them. Then yes.
if I was the one who was paid to turn a blind eye to the assassins. Then yes Again.
The point of most assassinations is not to cripple but to accumlate power. Notice how in most back in the dark ages, in wars they don't burn fields. After they take over the kingdom they assumilate those fields so that way they can accumlate more food and thus more power.
WHy would you cripple an organization. When all you have to do is assassinate those that stand in your way. You want to nullify and ensure you are top dog and people know their place.
And that they respect you. Fear is the first step to respect.
Assassinations are only used to send messages at the beginning to gain power, but overtime it slowly starts to become less about sending a message and more establishing said person in a superior position.
Would remain in a political party if your members where being assassinated one by one?
Of course not. Killing someone never gets rid of them or eliminates the problem. But a well done assassination can crumble your enemies or send a powerful message about your cause etc.
Killing a guy and sending a message is far more useful and at least has a chance of working when done right than simply killing someone.
If I killed the president but didnt think it through well, then he will simply be replaced and people will more likely mourn for him or treat him as more of a hero as he is remembered in death. Failure, I have strengthened my enemies and their cause and even gained them some more sympathizers. My message was not successful.
If I killed him but set it up so he had died of overdose surrounded by underage sex slaves in a car or something, then his reputation is forever tarnished, I would have hurt whatever cause he stood for and more importantly sent a message to his friends which would all have reputations to uphold. If it works then the assassination would be a success.
Killing people doesnt get rid of them, it usually makes them stronger. Killing people and sending a message that hurts both the now dead target and his followers sends a message that actually helps solve your problem.
I dont know if I am explaining it right, but its always to send a message. If you simply kill them then the assassin has failed at achieving anything and normally has hurt his cause and helped the enemy.
But again how does that make the Assassin Great? The message is sent, but how does that say the assassin is great. You may of had the best impact on events, but what does that say about the assassination.
I am very particular with my words in this debate.
Considering the United States History With Assassinations you would of thought you would learn that by now.
Ah, the classic strawman. I thought people had learned not to do that? Again, you fall short at applying a definition to the item in question. Obviously an assassin can pose as a messenger, but anyone with the basest access to the english language would realize that they are not by definition, messengers. All assassins are of course tools, but apart from that, they can be whatever the situation requires. Not all are meant to sent a message, but claiming that they cannot is a basic failure to understand a subject that you claim to be an expert in, though this would be far from the first time that your 'expert opinion' has left you fallen short in matters out of your league.
I did not say they can't. But it is not their Primary Function. Their function is to kill.
They are but a tool. What they kill sends a message is not their intent that is their masters plan. Sending a message can be useful. But what sends a message clearer killing political enemy 1 (Strong) or political enemy 2 (Weak). You kill political enemy 1. That way you can turn the table on the weaker opponent.
Historically successful assassinations are ones that accomplish their task and the ramifications are nullified.
I didn't say I was an expert. Just that I knew a bit about assassinations as it is fun to read through the information.
(By the way you Capitalize the word English, because it is a pronoun).
Oh Asherian, please do not feed me misdirection when there is digital proof right here. You said 'An Assassin is a tool. Not a Messenger'. Boom. Right there is proof that you indeed said they cannot send messages. That was easy. Also, next time perhaps it would be prudent to not critise another's knowledge on a subject when you yourself evidently lack knowledge adequate to present a strong argument, you own 'fun reading' through information gives you zero knowledge in this area over any others here, and claims that it does are found of a sheer misguided sense of elitism that you have shown oh-so-frequently throughout these forums and this thread especially.
Also, in the future it would be very intelligent for you not to try and pick at a lone slight in my English, when you yourself have made numerous errors throughout this thread that until this point, I have avoided mentioning, thinking you were above such petty things, but if you would like some examples of your errors, I would happily provide.
I am very particular with my words in this debate.
I see in addition to your supposed parkour mastery, political knowedge, philosophical adeptness, social expertise, and now assassination knowledge, you are also an expert comedian. Now that's rich.
Platuan4th wrote: Never mind. I was going to give you a history lesson on the original assassins and how their purpose was to kill to warn others "don't f*** with us or you'll be next" and how the vast majority of assassinations throughout history were about doing essentially the same, but then I remembered that myself and others have stated the same information multiple times in this thread and you'll just ignore it again.
So, I'm out.
The majority of assassinations are for personal gain and the secondary is to send a message.
If all you want to do is stamp your foot and proclaim I am wrong with only providing modern examples of assassinations then go ahead. And I will keep refering to not only political assassinations but corporation assassinations, sons killing their fathers to gain their wealth, A step son wanting to become king.
You can see it all through history it is a very narrow mind set to think that Assassins are meant to be brutes or thugs instead of the knife in the dark and episonage to force a power drop or cause your opponent to lose their strength.
An Assassin is deployed by the weaker to upset the strong.
The biggest ones that come to mind is Feudal Japan where the ninja often killed high valued generals to a kings army. It wasn't to send a message like many of you claim it was to cripple an opponent. That is personal gain.
Ninja often posing as Soldiers or bodyguards before beheading their target. They maybe captured but who cares their task is done and their leader is now at an advantage.
I see in addition to your supposed parkour mastery, political knowedge, philosophical adeptness, social expertise, and now assassination knowledge, you are also an expert comedian. Now that's rich.
Parkour master? Hardly. Political Knowledge: Yes. An Expert? No. Social Expertise? Ha! Assassination Knowledge: More General History Nerd. I've read multiple cultures histories and assassinations were rarely meant to send a message. Now they are used to send a message.
See a good debater doesn't need to point out how comedic their opponents are, a good debater is one that makes his opponent do all the work for him. (Meaning making the opponent do or say really questionable things)
Also once you insult or insinuate something in a debate you lose credibility. I won't take jabs at anyone here, because there is no reason to. It isn't logical.
The point is to establish yourself and not move. If you move you lose credibility, you lose respect and what makes it an honorable craft.
Speech Working and debating are my shtick in general.
I don't claim to be an expert. Just Knowledgable I will stay away from many subjects, that I have no knowledge of.
If you ask me dating advice I will stare blankly at you and wonder if you are talking to a mirror.
Oh Asherian, please do not feed me misdirection when there is digital proof right here. You said 'An Assassin is a tool. Not a Messenger'. Boom. Right there is proof that you indeed said they cannot send messages. That was easy.
Then why not hire a thug? An Assassin is meant to kill. His or her's personal message does not matter. Its all about personal gain. Either it be position or fame.
Also, next time perhaps it would be prudent to not critise another's knowledge on a subject when you yourself evidently lack knowledge adequate to present a strong argument, your own 'fun reading' through information gives you zero knowledge in this area over any others here, and claims that it does are found of a sheer misguided sense of elitism that you have shown oh-so-frequently throughout these forums and this thread especially.
Also, in the future it would be very intelligent for you not to try and pick at a lone slight in my English, when you yourself have made numerous errors throughout this thread that until this point, I have avoided mentioning, thinking you were above such petty things, but if you would like some examples of your errors, I would happily provide.
How am I saying you are not knowledgable if you don't know about the subject .
Immediately when you said I am quite misguided is where I stopped reading.
If you wish to assassinate my character and my knowledge and anything I post on here I suggest you think. "Am I Insulting someone here?"
Instead you could Ask me and learn from me or you could ignore this thread.
Immediately when you start insulting someone is when you lose your credibility as a speaker or debater.
Ninja often posing as Soldiers or bodyguards before beheading their target. They maybe captured but who cares their task is done and their leader is now at an advantage.
Wait wait wait.
How can they be good assassins if they are caught? Pretty much your own words.
So is an assassin a tool, in which case it doesn't matter if they're caught as long as they fulfilled their mission, or are they some super amazing ghost thing that leaves without a trace upon their target keeling over from apparently natural causes, which is what your definition of "great" appears to rely on?
Ninja often posing as Soldiers or bodyguards before beheading their target. They maybe captured but who cares their task is done and their leader is now at an advantage.
Wait wait wait.
How can they be good assassins if they are caught? Pretty much your own words.
So is an assassin a tool, in which case it doesn't matter if they're caught as long as they fulfilled their mission, or are they some super amazing ghost thing that leaves without a trace upon their target keeling over from apparently natural causes, which is what your definition of "great" appears to rely on?
My Words where this:
If their faction is put at risk because the actions of the Assassin then the assassin failed.
My assessment of Great is who ever does it best. Not who has the greatest impact otherwise it would of been Brutus. Who we can blame for modern world.
If we are going to say who had the greatest impact we are going to be here all day.
But if you are at war. And you are facing your opponent one on one. Who else are they going to look at?
That is an obstacle down it is all about not sending a message but hitting your opponent in the right places.
Different times call for different Assassinations.
Right now it is not sending a message. But Sowing Terror into the minds of the civilains. That is not a message. IT is building distrust and breaking communication down. To cause havoc within the populace to make individuals no longer trust each other. To make yourself feel like you could be next.
That is not a message it is terror. An Assassination is meant to have something happen for personal gain, as long as the source is not put at disadvantage. Otherwise it is an unsuccessful assassination as it lead to both the capture of the Assassin and the Master.
Asherian Command wrote: Its funny how you mention all those every single one of those were unsuccessful assassinations as they did not have the desired effect that the members had planned.
What? Do you even know what you are saying at this point?
Look up the assassination of King Ahab.
Are you talking about the Hebrew king Ahab mentioned in the Book of Kings? Because if you are, he wasn't assassinated. He was killed while in disguise by a random, unaimed arrow (1 Kings 22:34).
Plus you already posted this.
Well, you clearly missed it the first time. Besides, you can also add Anwar Sadat of Egypt (shot at close range), Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan (shot at close range), former Pakistani Primer Minister Benazir Bhutto (shot at close range), and João Bernardo Vieira (shot at close range).
I noticed how you are using modern examples too. Lee Harvey Oswald also was assassinated he was murdered before going to trial.
What's wrong with modern examples? Trying to move goalposts?
(By the way you Capitalize the word English, because it is a pronoun).
Wow, that's rich. If you're going to criticize someone over not capitalizing a word, you should at least know what you are talking about. "English" is a proper noun, not a pronoun.
Wow, that's rich. If you're going to criticize someone over not capitalizing a word, you should at least know what you are talking about. "English" is a proper noun, not a pronoun.
Whoops. Thanks for telling me in such a respectful manner.
What's wrong with modern examples? Trying to move goalposts?
Trying to Prove point mostly. As people keep using modern Examples and keep forgetting 1800 Years of History which says the OPPOSITE.
It is highly fantasized idea to think that people have mostly been killed by guns or from afar. Most Assassinations are incredibly brutal.
What? Do you even know what you are saying at this point?
Tell me how many of those actually lead to the personal gain of the leaders of those groups, how many of those lead to the actual goals those leaders wanted?
None. Infact it accomplished the opposite.
I am saying what I need to say. Those famous historical things that was listed were all unsuccessful as they lead to the defeat of the original point of those assassinations.
Trying to Prove point mostly. As people keep using modern Examples and keep forgetting 1800 Years of History which says the OPPOSITE.
It is highly fantasized idea to think that people have mostly been killed by guns or from afar. Most Assassinations are incredibly brutal.
Ahem:
Asherian Command wrote: Usually they do. But a good assassin doesn't go in for the kill with a knife. He goes in kill the target from either afar or posions them.
By this point I wouldn't even bother attempting to argue, he seems resolute in ignoring any and all ideas that seems in the least bit well thought out or at all cogent, in favour of overused, petty tactics, such as his constant changing of goalposts and even word definitions, and poorly-thought out attempts to criticise English ability while himself being more inept in the area that those he argues against. Not to mention the myriad number of conflicting points and lack of internal consistensy that typically befalls those trying to seem knowledgeable in an area they are unfamiliar and uncertain with.
Trying to Prove point mostly. As people keep using modern Examples and keep forgetting 1800 Years of History which says the OPPOSITE.
It is highly fantasized idea to think that people have mostly been killed by guns or from afar. Most Assassinations are incredibly brutal.
Ahem:
Asherian Command wrote: Usually they do. But a good assassin doesn't go in for the kill with a knife. He goes in kill the target from either afar or posions them.
^Whoops. I think I will mend that post actually to correct it.
Trying to Prove point mostly. As people keep using modern Examples and keep forgetting 1800 Years of History which says the OPPOSITE.
It is highly fantasized idea to think that people have mostly been killed by guns or from afar. Most Assassinations are incredibly brutal.
Ahem:
Asherian Command wrote: Usually they do. But a good assassin doesn't go in for the kill with a knife. He goes in kill the target from either afar or posions them.
TheRobotLol wrote: By this point I wouldn't even bother attempting to argue, he seems resolute in ignoring any and all ideas that seems in the least bit well thought out or at all cogent, in favour of overused, petty tactics, such as his constant changing of goalposts and even word definitions, and poorly-thought out attempts to criticize English ability while himself being more inept in the area that those he argues against. Not to mention the myriad number of conflicting points and lack of internal consistency that typically befalls those trying to seem knowledgeable in an area they are unfamiliar and uncertain with.
This is going nowhere fast. Thread locked. In future, when you are taking part in a thread, whether you are coming late to it or starting it, if you try and take up a position and refuse to admit when you are changing it, and instead still claim that everyone else is wrong, it fosters an environment in which good discussion is not possible.
