History Channel

"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.