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

 Asherian Command wrote:


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?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


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.

 Asherian Command wrote:


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.

This is oh-so rich.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


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.

Thanks for pointing it out ^.^

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


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 oh-so rich.

Yep.

I'm done here.

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.