Read a CIA manual on assassination


[Read the post]


“The essential point of assassination is the death of the subject.”

No shit Sherlock! Who wrote this mess?


Given that this is a CIA publication; it’s entirely possible that the ‘those who can’ if the ‘those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.’ cliche were way too busy with questionably sensible clandestine activity to write about it.



Quothe the manual:

The obviously lethal machine gun failed to kill Trotsky where an item of sporting goods succeeded

Quothe Wikipedia re Trotsky’s death:

On 20 August 1940, in his study Trotsky was attacked by Ramón Mercader who used a mountaineers’ ice-axe as a weapon. The blow to his head was bungled and failed to kill Trotsky instantly, as Mercader had intended. Witnesses stated that Trotsky spat on Mercader and began struggling fiercely with him. Hearing the commotion, Trotsky’s bodyguards burst into the room and nearly killed Mercader, but Trotsky stopped them, laboriously stating that the assassin should be made to answer questions. Trotsky was taken to a hospital, operated on, and survived for more than a day, dying at the age of 60 on 21 August 1940 as a result of loss of blood and shock.

Sounds like the “sporting goods item” barely eked out a victory over the machine gun.



Wow!!! That is beautiful!


Shhhh! Don’t let the NRA year you.


Why? They’d be the first to tell you that guns don’t kill people. And apparently, neither do ice-axes.


Do they?

I have boxes of cords and cables, lots of screwdrivers, a tactical shovel and a number of other gear, many of which is explicitly listed in the example. Neither of those decided to go out and kill anybody, nor shows any sign of intention of contemplating so.


Am I missing something here about Judo, or were the CIA? Jigoro Kano’s martial art was intended as a non-lethal sporting martial art from the very beginning - it literally translates to “Gentle Way”.

So even if a Judo expert wanted to assassinate somebody, they’d probably have to use an ice pick, too. :stuck_out_tongue:


Someone who follows the maxim that paragraphs should lead the reader from the general to the specific. I think it’s a fair point-- if someone is to be assassinated, mere wounding is counterproductive, and unfortunately, capture tends to greatly complicate the extraction phase.


You’ve a bright future ahead, I really mean it.


I’m going to invent a time machine and assassinate young Adolf Hitler!


Well, it depends on the situation.

When you are assassinating, you have to kill.

When you are in another kind of combat, you often aim to wound - a dead soldier is just dead but a wounded one will tie down at least one, often two, frequently more of his comrades.


Can’t we try dropping off a fleshlight first and see if that works?


Try and locate Jimmy Hoffa while you are in the “way back”, I have some questions for him!


The question is, have you used them to kill anybody?


Murder is not morally justifiable. Self-defense may be argued if the victim has knowledge which may destroy the resistance organization if divulged. Assassinations of persons responsible for atrocities or reprisals may be regarded as just punishment. Killing a political leader whose burgeoning career is a [clear and present danger]( to the cause of freedom may be held necessary.

But assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it.

According to the above quote this man would probably be unfit to work as an assassin.


Didn’t have to do that yet.