|
October 08, 2007
Making an "ass" out of "as" and "sin"
Sorry, but sometimes I get confused by language. And this time, I'm even more confused than the last time. The Philadelphia Inquirer seems to have joined Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson in using the word "assassinations" to describe the murder of two Loomis guards by ex-convict Mustafa Ali in last week's ATM robbery: Before killing two armored truck guards at a Wachovia Bank ATM in the Northeast on Thursday, Mustafa Ali stalked them as they made their morning rounds, police said.(Emphasis added.) Perhaps it's nitpicky of me, but I have always thought assassination involved more than killing, even premeditated killing by lying in wait. The Wiki entry would seem to reflect the common usage of the term: Assassination is the murder of an individual; usually a political or famous figure.[1] An added distinction between assassination and other forms of killing is that an assassin usually has an ideological or political motivation, though many assassins (especially those who are not part of an organised movement) also show elements of insanity. Other motivations may be money (as in the case of a contract killing), revenge, or as a military operation.I suspect that the Inquirer is using the term imprecisely, but for rhetorical effect, because these murders were especially cold-blooded, involved lying in wait, and the guards happened to be retired police officers. But how can I be sure? After all, the Wiki entry goes on to note the origin and history of the word "assassin" ("generally assumed to be derived from its connections to the Hashshashin, a militant religious sect of Ismaili Muslims"). But even if we assume that Mustafa Ali was a genuine Muslim (and didn't just adopt the name in prison for other reasons), without any evidence that he committed the crimes for political purposes, wouldn't it be reckless (and maybe even a tad inflammatory) to use the word "assassin" to describe him? There doesn't appear to have been any political motive that I can determine. By all accounts, this man was a career criminal who planned to kill the guards, grab the ATM money, and flee. He did just that. Unless he planned to give the money to a political organization of some sort, his crime appears to be robbery murder. If robbery killings are to be considered assassinations in the absence of any political motive, then it should be expected to follow logically that robbery killings with accompanying political motives would have to be assassinations, right? So, the Weather Underground, the Black Liberation Army, and Symbionese Liberation Army members who killed numerous security guards and police officers during various robberies are assassins? That's odd, because despite the fact that these groups committed many murders, the only incident referred to as an "assassination" was the murder of Oakland School Superintendent Marcus Foster (killed by the SLA for trying to "create a student identification card system"). Or take the case of convicted cop murderer Assata Shakur, now believed living in Cuba. No one refers to her as an "assassin," nor are the many murders of police and security guards by the BLA and other organizations called assassinations. And in Assata's case, a taxpayer funded community center was named after her. But people complained, so the college was forced to change the center's name. Noted Ace at the time, Murder is okay, depending on your politics. If you're left, or at least anti-American/anti-government, it's okay to kill people. You might even get your own shrine at a government-supported university.Yes, but why aren't politically motivated murders being called "assassinations," while ordinary robbery murders are? Were Bonnie and Clyde assassins too? I don't think so. In light of the community center, it seems that the concept of honor is involved. Can it be that some assassinations are more honorable than others? Or is the word now considered meaningless? If common criminals like Mustafa Ali are assassins when the same crime can be considered honorable if committed with a political motivation (even though the latter are supposed to be assassinations), then it seems all Ali needs to do to have the label of "assassin" removed is declare war on America and write a book. Then he might get a community center named after him or something, and people would clamor for his release. Instead, he's just a plain old assassin. Except once again, that makes no sense, as it's the added political element that makes an assassin, and not the other way around! I know it's only a word, but what gives here? I keep looking at the word "assassin," and the more I look, the less sense it makes. Perhaps that's the whole idea. posted by Eric on 10.08.07 at 10:26 AM
Comments
Taking the posting seriously--I have always thought "assassination" was a political process where somebody died. There has been mention of a new investigation of Diana Spencer's death as an assassination. I don't understand that either. Larry Sheldon · October 8, 2007 01:18 PM I'd agree that assassination genrally has a political connotation. Unfortunately, it seems that the dumbing-down of appropriate word usage continues. It's one thing for the police commissioner to use that term, being that the guards were honorably retired police officers, he'd take it a bit more personally, and use an emotionally charged word in lieu of the word "murder". SFC SKI · October 8, 2007 02:56 PM How is an assassination different from any other nation? triticale · October 8, 2007 03:00 PM Chief Johnson of the Philadelphia Police is not the brightest bulb. Like all of the Philadelphia city administration, he is black and only marginally educated. They do not hold their offices based on competence but rather on political clout since the city of Philadelphia has a black majority and the city is 100% corrupt. With this background, perhaps it is asking too much to expect the Chief to correctly use the English language. Dr. D · October 8, 2007 07:00 PM To my understanding, the common meaning of assassination is applied to situations where the murder itself is the objective. The ends, not just the means as it were. Scott · October 8, 2007 09:50 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2007
September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
new blog exposes hideous double standards
A Little Incidental Music "along the tails of the big dragonflies....." callow, immature and fruitless arguments cheerfully enabled here! When losing is winning Will You Arrest Me? The New Imperialism Medical Totolitarianism From The Wiki Damn It hero is to heroine as knitting is to pork!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Sometimes I get confused by language as well.
I mean 'male-chauvanist pig' NOW means it to be 'a hot hunk of an American idol'
Ah well, what are words for if they don't mean anything anymore.