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.

 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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 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...

 daedalus wrote:

 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...

It's the American way

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

 TheRobotLol wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 TheRobotLol wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:


Doesn't that show how unskilled they are?

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:


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.

Marcus Junius Brutus

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.

This guy gets it.

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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


Doesn't that show how unskilled they are?

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.)

 Platuan4th wrote:

 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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 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

An Assassin is a tool. Not a Messenger.

Sorry guys.

Considering the United States History With Assassinations you would of thought you would learn that by now.

 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. 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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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. 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.

 Asherian Command wrote:
An Assassin is a tool. Not a Messenger.

Sorry guys.

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.

Its to send a message.

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?

 TheRobotLol wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
An Assassin is a tool. Not a Messenger.

Sorry guys.

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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Its to send a message.

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.

Never mind, I'm out.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 TheRobotLol wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
An Assassin is a tool. Not a Messenger.

Sorry guys.

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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.