History Channel

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:29:19 -0400, HiFlyer wrote
(in article ):

Only heads of state are protected by Convention rules. He was a
leading military leader of the war and was fair game.

HF

Which in no way alters the simple fact that the entire purpose of the
operation was to assassinate him.

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:14:04 -0400, David B. wrote
(in article ) :

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:


It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
example of an assassination.



And your problem with that is?????

Absolutely none.


Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?

The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
I think you should try another textbook or two.
Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.

'Casualty of war' would be if a few P-38s happened by and whacked some
Bettys and later on found out that they'd got Yamamoto; that's what
happened to the #1 Japanese fighter ace, Nishizawa Hiroyoshi. He was
KIA while a passenger aboard a bomber while en route to pick up
replacement fighters, in a chance encounter with some Hellcats.
Totally unplanned, and the American fighters had no idea that they'd
just killed the #1 ace in the Pacific, with over 100 victories, mostly
against American aircraft.

'Assassination' is when the mission is planned with the specific
objective of killing one particular person. There's a difference.


Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
tend to agree with your "textbook example."

Had he been shot down the way Nishizawa was, it would not have been an
assassination. He wasn't, and it was.




My apologies to the group to belabor the issue, but I *cannot* let this
pass!

Mr. laddie, using your logic, D-Day was an assassination as well, because
it was planned!

Further, that *plan* called Overlord's ultimate objective was to
eventually kill a particular German in Berlin. Take your argument to its
logical conclusion and you'll find Yamamoto was a "KIA" or "Casualty of
War." 180,000 Allied soldiers on June 6th of 1944 would take serious
exception to your statement.

Plans + execution = assassination? Please. That is WARFARE.

Maybe you should study the etymology of the word "assassin" and the
history of the "Assassins."

You can have the last word now, since that's it for me. Apologies again
to the group... Back to lurking.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:09:25 -0400, David B. wrote
(in article ) :

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:14:04 -0400, David B. wrote
(in article ) :

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:


It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
example of an assassination.



And your problem with that is?????

Absolutely none.


Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?

The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
I think you should try another textbook or two.
Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.

'Casualty of war' would be if a few P-38s happened by and whacked some
Bettys and later on found out that they'd got Yamamoto; that's what
happened to the #1 Japanese fighter ace, Nishizawa Hiroyoshi. He was
KIA while a passenger aboard a bomber while en route to pick up
replacement fighters, in a chance encounter with some Hellcats.
Totally unplanned, and the American fighters had no idea that they'd
just killed the #1 ace in the Pacific, with over 100 victories, mostly
against American aircraft.

'Assassination' is when the mission is planned with the specific
objective of killing one particular person. There's a difference.


Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
tend to agree with your "textbook example."

Had he been shot down the way Nishizawa was, it would not have been an
assassination. He wasn't, and it was.




My apologies to the group to belabor the issue, but I *cannot* let this
pass!

Mr. laddie, using your logic, D-Day was an assassination as well, because
it was planned!

It wasn't aimed at a single, specific, person. Operation Overlord was a plan
to get a lodgment on the French coast. It was not intended to kill any one
specific person. Not even 'Dolf.


Further, that *plan* called Overlord's ultimate objective was to
eventually kill a particular German in Berlin.

That wasn't the plan. The plan was for victory. If 'Dolf got dead in the
process, that was good. Otherwise, he'd have been up for trial with the rest
of the big nazis.

Take your argument to its
logical conclusion and you'll find Yamamoto was a "KIA" or "Casualty of
War." 180,000 Allied soldiers on June 6th of 1944 would take serious
exception to your statement.

Now you're just being silly.


Plans + execution = assassination? Please. That is WARFARE.

A specific plan to kill one particular person. That's assassination.


Maybe you should study the etymology of the word "assassin" and the
history of the "Assassins."

I know... they were Muslim terrorists, high on hashish. That's where
'assassin' comes from.


You can have the last word now, since that's it for me. Apologies again
to the group... Back to lurking.

Bye.

"Assassination" carries a very negative connotation and is not used in
connection with modern warfare. To purposely bomb the command bunker
of an opposing force is certainly not "assassination", nor was the
practice of singling out the officers in the civil war or in naval
warfare to be picked off by snipers.

The ambush was unique, not unprecedented, and certainly not an
assassination.
HF.




On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:09:25 GMT, "David B."
wrote:

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:14:04 -0400, David B. wrote
(in article ) :

hielan' laddie ignorantly stated
:


It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
example of an assassination.



And your problem with that is?????

Absolutely none.


Actually think logically... Was there a declared war?
Was this action within the boundaries of the conflict?
Were either of the individuals (shooter/shootee) out of uniform?
Were either of the combatants in non-military aircraft?

The facts point to "casualty of war" rather than "assassination."
I think you should try another textbook or two.
Your's is stretching an "example" to the point of breaking, or
maybe it's just your comphrehension of it.

'Casualty of war' would be if a few P-38s happened by and whacked some
Bettys and later on found out that they'd got Yamamoto; that's what
happened to the #1 Japanese fighter ace, Nishizawa Hiroyoshi. He was
KIA while a passenger aboard a bomber while en route to pick up
replacement fighters, in a chance encounter with some Hellcats.
Totally unplanned, and the American fighters had no idea that they'd
just killed the #1 ace in the Pacific, with over 100 victories, mostly
against American aircraft.

'Assassination' is when the mission is planned with the specific
objective of killing one particular person. There's a difference.


Had Yamamoto been visiting Switzerland or Peru or anywhere war
had NOT been declared and some yank killed him then I might
tend to agree with your "textbook example."

Had he been shot down the way Nishizawa was, it would not have been an
assassination. He wasn't, and it was.




My apologies to the group to belabor the issue, but I *cannot* let this
pass!

Mr. laddie, using your logic, D-Day was an assassination as well, because
it was planned!

Further, that *plan* called Overlord's ultimate objective was to
eventually kill a particular German in Berlin. Take your argument to its
logical conclusion and you'll find Yamamoto was a "KIA" or "Casualty of
War." 180,000 Allied soldiers on June 6th of 1944 would take serious
exception to your statement.

Plans + execution = assassination? Please. That is WARFARE.

Maybe you should study the etymology of the word "assassin" and the
history of the "Assassins."

You can have the last word now, since that's it for me. Apologies again
to the group... Back to lurking.

Casey Tompkins wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 20:12:15 -0400, hielan' laddie
wrote:

The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
example of an assassination.

...So killling a soldier in a war zone is assassination?

Does that mean that every japanese pilot shot down was assassinated?
You might reply "Well, at least the pilot could fight back," but that
would imply that shooting down any multi-place craft was also
assassination, since only a fighter pilot (or gunner) could shoot
back. Cargo planes didn't have guns, so I suppose by this logic that
they were war crime victims.

When Thomas Lanphier shot down a Zero over Guadalcanal, was he an
assassin? If not, then how can you logically call him one for shooting
down Yamamoto? Both targets were members of the Imperial Japanese
Navy, and were in Navy combat aircraft.

Recall that Admiral Yamamoto was in charge of the war against the
United States at the time. The war was legally declared, and
everything. The Admiral was in a military bomber, in a war zone: in
this case flying from Rabaul to the Solomons.

By this logic, an American or British infantryman who had a chance to
shoot a German general in occupied France would also be an assassin.

The fact that the Admiral was specifically targeted is irrelevant. Do
you claim that (in my example above) Corporal O'Reilly -after randomly
meeting Field Marshal Rommel in Normandy- is not an assassin if he
shoots his opponent? Or is it acceptable to shoot an opponent during a
random encounter, but not go looking for them? Does that mean the
pilot who strafed Rommel (and very nearly killed him) was a war
criminal? Or not?

I recall Bill Mauldin remaking in his book "Up Front" that at least
some NCOs/officers preferred not to wear obvious badges of rank while
in the line, as enemy snipers tended to concentrate on them. Were the
snipers assassins? Or were they military opponents trying to kill or
defeat their enemy?

The bottom line: Admiral Yamamoto was a member of the Imperial armed
forces, was in charge of the war effort against the Allies, was flying
in an armed military aircraft (bomber), from one Japanese military
base to another Japanese military base, both of which were in a war
zone.

This was not an assassination.


It was by definition an assassination. Now move on.

Steven wants the last word, even if it is the wrong word. LOL

HF



On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:14:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Casey Tompkins wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 20:12:15 -0400, hielan' laddie
wrote:

The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
example of an assassination.

...So killling a soldier in a war zone is assassination?

Does that mean that every japanese pilot shot down was assassinated?
You might reply "Well, at least the pilot could fight back," but that
would imply that shooting down any multi-place craft was also
assassination, since only a fighter pilot (or gunner) could shoot
back. Cargo planes didn't have guns, so I suppose by this logic that
they were war crime victims.

When Thomas Lanphier shot down a Zero over Guadalcanal, was he an
assassin? If not, then how can you logically call him one for shooting
down Yamamoto? Both targets were members of the Imperial Japanese
Navy, and were in Navy combat aircraft.

Recall that Admiral Yamamoto was in charge of the war against the
United States at the time. The war was legally declared, and
everything. The Admiral was in a military bomber, in a war zone: in
this case flying from Rabaul to the Solomons.

By this logic, an American or British infantryman who had a chance to
shoot a German general in occupied France would also be an assassin.

The fact that the Admiral was specifically targeted is irrelevant. Do
you claim that (in my example above) Corporal O'Reilly -after randomly
meeting Field Marshal Rommel in Normandy- is not an assassin if he
shoots his opponent? Or is it acceptable to shoot an opponent during a
random encounter, but not go looking for them? Does that mean the
pilot who strafed Rommel (and very nearly killed him) was a war
criminal? Or not?

I recall Bill Mauldin remaking in his book "Up Front" that at least
some NCOs/officers preferred not to wear obvious badges of rank while
in the line, as enemy snipers tended to concentrate on them. Were the
snipers assassins? Or were they military opponents trying to kill or
defeat their enemy?

The bottom line: Admiral Yamamoto was a member of the Imperial armed
forces, was in charge of the war effort against the Allies, was flying
in an armed military aircraft (bomber), from one Japanese military
base to another Japanese military base, both of which were in a war
zone.

This was not an assassination.


It was by definition an assassination. Now move on.

HiFlyer wrote:

Steven wants the last word, even if it is the wrong word. LOL


Actually, it appears that's what you want. Steven is correct, you will have
the last word when you respond to this message, incorrectly stating that he
is wrong. LOL!

Casey Tompkins, aka Goober, wrote:

"by definition?" Whose definition?


Word definitions are found in a book we call a "dictionary".


One you made up? I do so love the
goobers who use ipse dixit for an argument.

Let's see, here.

From merriam-webster.com:
2: a person who commits murder; especially : one who murders a
politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives

From dictionary.die.net:
One who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault; one
who treacherously murders any one unprepared for defense.

From yourdictionary.com:
a murderer who strikes suddenly and by surprise: now generally used of
the killer of a politically important or prominent person

From my desktop Webster's New World Dictionary:
a murderer who strikes suddenly; often, a hired killer.

Generally the accepted definition of assassin involves targeting a
*political* leader, and/or murder.


But not always, as your definition from dictionary.die.net illustrates; "One
who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault."

Here's a tip for you: Reading what you post before posting it may help
avoid appearing stupid.

Here's another truism: Swimming against the tide of public opinion is
rarely successful!!

Please don't expect love and kisses when you degrade our service men
and women!! They are not and never have been assassins!!

HF
Never agrue with an idiot, he'll drag youdown to his level and beat
you with experience.


On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:45:55 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Casey Tompkins, aka Goober, wrote:

"by definition?" Whose definition?


Word definitions are found in a book we call a "dictionary".


One you made up? I do so love the
goobers who use ipse dixit for an argument.

Let's see, here.

From merriam-webster.com:
2: a person who commits murder; especially : one who murders a
politically important person either for hire or from fanatical motives

From dictionary.die.net:
One who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault; one
who treacherously murders any one unprepared for defense.

From yourdictionary.com:
a murderer who strikes suddenly and by surprise: now generally used of
the killer of a politically important or prominent person

From my desktop Webster's New World Dictionary:
a murderer who strikes suddenly; often, a hired killer.

Generally the accepted definition of assassin involves targeting a
*political* leader, and/or murder.


But not always, as your definition from dictionary.die.net illustrates; "One
who kills, or attempts to kill, by surprise or secret assault."

Here's a tip for you: Reading what you post before posting it may help
avoid appearing stupid.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Casey Tompkins wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 20:12:15 -0400, hielan' laddie
wrote:

The shooting down of Yamamoto's aircraft was an assassination..

It was an assassination. They got intel giving the time and route
and mounted an op specifically to kill Yamamoto. That's a textbook
example of an assassination.

...So killling a soldier in a war zone is assassination?

Does that mean that every japanese pilot shot down was assassinated?
You might reply "Well, at least the pilot could fight back," but that
would imply that shooting down any multi-place craft was also
assassination, since only a fighter pilot (or gunner) could shoot
back. Cargo planes didn't have guns, so I suppose by this logic that
they were war crime victims.

When Thomas Lanphier shot down a Zero over Guadalcanal, was he an
assassin? If not, then how can you logically call him one for shooting
down Yamamoto? Both targets were members of the Imperial Japanese
Navy, and were in Navy combat aircraft.

Recall that Admiral Yamamoto was in charge of the war against the
United States at the time. The war was legally declared, and
everything. The Admiral was in a military bomber, in a war zone: in
this case flying from Rabaul to the Solomons.

By this logic, an American or British infantryman who had a chance to
shoot a German general in occupied France would also be an assassin.

The fact that the Admiral was specifically targeted is irrelevant. Do
you claim that (in my example above) Corporal O'Reilly -after randomly
meeting Field Marshal Rommel in Normandy- is not an assassin if he
shoots his opponent? Or is it acceptable to shoot an opponent during a
random encounter, but not go looking for them? Does that mean the
pilot who strafed Rommel (and very nearly killed him) was a war
criminal? Or not?

I recall Bill Mauldin remaking in his book "Up Front" that at least
some NCOs/officers preferred not to wear obvious badges of rank while
in the line, as enemy snipers tended to concentrate on them. Were the
snipers assassins? Or were they military opponents trying to kill or
defeat their enemy?

The bottom line: Admiral Yamamoto was a member of the Imperial armed
forces, was in charge of the war effort against the Allies, was flying
in an armed military aircraft (bomber), from one Japanese military
base to another Japanese military base, both of which were in a war
zone.

This was not an assassination.


It was by definition an assassination. Now move on.

interesting dictionary you have there.

military combat operations are *not* assassinations, no matter how many times
you might claim they are.

redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide