Forum Home | Login

EmperorofIceCream

Join Date 09/2004

The Good Terrorist

Or, some thoughts after viewing V for Vendetta

I've just watched the movie V for Vendetta. Before I say anything concerning the movie I'm going to give you a link to what is perhaps the most sanctimonious, patronising, self-satisfied review in the history of movie reviews. As I read it I doubted I and the reviewer had seen the same movie (Link). However, there's nothing unusual in that for me. When I still lived in the UK I used to base my choice of what movies to watch on the depth of loathing on the part of professional reviewers for any given film. 99% of the time, what they hated I loved. The same is true of V for Vendetta.

First, a little backstory that Americans may be unaware of. In the UK the 'V' sign has a long and distinguished history dating back centuries to our nearly incessant wars with the hated French. Even today, in these times of European Union and polical correctness, every true Englishman loathes the French on the basis of a natural instinct. As I have often said, France would be a wonderful country if it wasn't occupied by the French.

Th 'V' is formed by holding the index and middle fingers erect. With the back of the hand facing outwards and away from the body it's an insult, derived from the fact that the French hated and were terrified by English longbow men who used those two fingers to draw back their arrows and release them. In effect it means 'F*ck you, I can still kill you'. It's other usage is far more recent, dating back to Churchill and the second world war. In this form the same two fingers are used but the palm faces outwards. It can be used to mean 'peace' or 'victory'. Personally, I prefer the former version to the latter.

The central character of the movie, 'V', is a terrorist/freedom fighter/hero whose true name and face is never revealed. Instead he wears a mask meant to be a stylised reproduction of the features of Guido 'Guy' Fawkes who in 1605, along with a group of fellow Catholic conspirators plotted to kill the Protestant king James the First, along with his Parliament, by destroying Westminster Palace (known to Americans and others as the 'Houses of Parliament') by detonating 36 barrels of gunpowder placed in the Palace's cellars. Guido Fawkes was discovered in the cellars shortly before he was to have detonated the gunpowder, arrested, tortured, convicted and then hung, drawn and quartered, the remains of his body being dumped on a local midden.

He was the most sensible man ever to have entered Parliament - and look what happened to him, poor bastard.

He was discovered on the night of 4th/5th November 1605, and ever since his death the night of the 5th of November has seen the celebration of 'Bonfire Night', in which effigies of the poor sonofabitch are burnt on top of large fires. These are usually accompanied by firework displays, often organised by municipal authorities, though private Bonfire Night parties are held up and down the country also. I've never been certain whether the point of the ritual was to celebrate the discovery of the plot and subsequent saving of James I and his Parliament; or to commemorate and lament its failure. According to the national mood in Britain at the moment (where Blair and his party are almost universally loathed and are headed toward utter defeat at the next General Election) the next Bonfire Night will serve the latter and not the former purpose.

So much for the history of the actual Guy Fawkes.

'V' the character is unashamedly a terrorist - or a freedom fighter - in a Britain that's depicted as a cross between the 'Airstrip One' of George Orwell's classic '1984' and a commercial dystopia reminiscent of Wal-Mart on acid. Everyone is well fed, well clothed, well housed. No one wants for anything. At the opening of the movie, it's revealed that America, as a consequence of involvement in some catastrophic war, has lost its hegemonic position and sunk so low as to be forced to beg England (the word 'Britain' never appears in the movie) for food aid. It's implicit in the text of the movie that England has returned to its former position (in the days of the British Empire) as a major player in world events, if not actually occupying the position once belonging to America.

England is a Dictatorship, ruled by a High Chancellor (an entirely fictious political role), his Secret Police (known as 'fingermen') and the Armed Forces. While everyone has sufficient to satisfy their material needs, everyone is known, everyone is watched, everyone is subject to detention without trial, torture, incarceration, execution, at the whim of the government. This may seem far-fetched to those Americans that believe the UK to be a democracy very much like their own - but that's a fond illusion born of ignorance, than which nothing could be further from the truth.

The UK has no written constitution. When Blair was first elected back in the late 90s he and his party caused the European Convention on Human Rights to be incorporated within British law; they also created a Freedom of Information Act (though very much more limited in scope than the American Freedom of Information Act). Anyone who follows the British press will know that, in these latter years of Blair's tenure, both have been routinely abrogated at every opportunity.

Furthermore, Blair is attempting to force through Parliament an Identity Card scheme that will include biometric data and which will be part of a national 'security database' that will take cognizance of every kind of personal economic activity (that will for example have mandatory access to the personal banking details of every 'citizen'), that will have mandatory access to the health records of every citizen; that is in fact the most far-reaching and invasive scheme of its type anywhere in the world. To this draconian and totalitarian attempt ought to be added the omnipresence in British towns of Closed Circuit Television Cameras (all of which are linked directly to the central police stations responsible for each locality) as well as Blair's recent attempt to force through Parliament a Bill which would have allowed Ministers of the Government to re-write laws without consulting Parliament first (in other words, by Ministerial fiat and without democratic oversight) and you can see that the movie will have a particular resonance with British audiences that it will not have for Americans.

To all of this ought to be added the London subway attacks of July 7th, the rising animosity towards and fear of Muslims generally, and the campaign against, and vilification of, migrants of all types which Blair's government has conducted (in the name of a genuine popular concern) ever since it came to power.

Britain is ripe for the reception of this movie, and while I've no doubt that here in America it will cause questions to be asked as to the nature of 'terrorism', the proper limits of private action against the state, and others beside - those questions will be asked in Britain with a particular vehemence and sense of urgency that Americans are not likely to share. I predict that V for Vendetta will be a runaway success in Britain, because it resonates on any number of levels with immediate and deeply felt concerns.

Despite the failure of the reviewer in the linked article to appreciate it, 'V' is a deeply ambiguous moral figure. He resorts to a comprehensive violence that includes many innocent bystanders as its victims because, for him, there is no legitimate way to secure the demise of an oppresive and dictatorial regime. A regime that came to power (so the movie reveals as it progresses) through the most hateful means imaginable (which I won't reveal here). A regime which gave birth to 'V' through subjection to a program of experimental torture designed to create the means which led to the regime's institution in the first place.

Through the deliberate manipulation of public terror the 'High Chancellor' created the circumstances necessary for the English to believe that dictatorship was the only possible alternative to chaos. Here in America the manipulation of public terror has been used to legitimate the creation of political instruments such as the Patriot Act, as well as to gain acceptance for and toleration of institutions such as the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and for acts such as the interception of private telephone calls made by American citizens.

As in the movie, fear is the prime motivator of politics and the prime justification for acts that would not otherwise be tolerated.

'V' recognises that, if his vendetta against the British State is to succeed, if it's to have any chance of succeeding, the lives of innocents will have to be sacrificed along the way. He bombs public buildings. He takes hostages and brings about their deaths (where he doesn't kill them by his own hands in order to leave no evidence). He tortures. He murders. He is the exact representation of everything we are being taught to hate, fear, and condemn. And yet his dilemma is made clear - in order to bring an end to evil he must do evil - and nothing justifies what he does except the end to which his acts are directed. Acts which receive increasing popular approval as the movie progresses toward its apocalyptic climax.

When the movie 'Independence Day' was released in America I heard reports that the scene in which the White House was destroyed by the aliens was received with cheering by cinema audiences around the country. If you've seen the TV trailers for V for Vendetta you already know that the Houses of Parliament are destroyed - I predict that that scene will elicit a similar reaction among the British - and with greater justification since the current regime there is regarded by large swathes of the population as the enemy of democracy and of the people, notwithstanding Blair's constant claim that he and his party are all good guys and therefore to be trusted. The devastation that man and his lickspittle lackeys have wreaked on British politics is utterly unknown here. Blair is not a good man.

The main question the movie forces us to ask is not 'Who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter?', because very often the two are exactly the same. The question it forces us to consider is 'Who is the good terrorist?' And that can only be decided by a consideration of the ends to which terrorist acts are directed. The criminal or 'evil' terrorist is one whose acts of violence are directed toward personal gain. The perfect example of the criminal terrorist is the offshoot groupings which are the descendants of the IRA in Northern Ireland. Though this is a fact virtually unknown in America, both Republican and 'Loyalist' groups in Northern Ireland remain actively engaged in punishment beatings, cross-border smuggling of drugs, cigarettes and gasoline, prostitution, money-laundering and any number of other conventionally criminal acts. Their 'long war' is over and they have transformed themselves, on both sides of the religious divide, into gangs of common-or-garden criminals. They have lost their political motivation, their political vision, and have no interest but personal gain.

'V' on the other hand is a good terrorist. He has no interest in personal gain. He sacrifices everything he values to free himself and others from tyrrany, his violence is directed at the overthrow of those who possess an otherwise overwhelming monopoly upon the means of violence. He fights fire with a fire of his own and his rectitude is confirmed, in the movie, by the degree to which his actions attain popular approval. Does anyone else see parallels with a contemporary terrorist group? Both Hamas and Hezbollah fit neatly within this category - they are both groups of good terrorists in this sense.

Whatever the movie's merits as an artistic event (and I think it has much merit as a work of art) its chief value lies in pointing out this hopelessly grey area - the terrorist/freedom fighter as an amoral moralist, a practitioner of vicious virtue. 'V' inspires love in the woman he tortures and deceives. He inspires respect and admiration in the populace that he ruthlessly sacrifices to his political vision. He inspires hatred and fear in tyrants and their agents, and does so by dispensing the simplest and most straightforward form of justice.

And the movie makes patently obvious a fact that politicians of every sort wish to hide from the populations they govern - that the definition of a terrorist or a freedom fighter is no simple matter but one of perception and preference. It elucidates, in the clearest way, just why it is that groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah command such a degree of popular support - despite the fact that the populations who support them suffer drastically as a consequence of their acts.

The good terrorist is one who makes war against the instruments of oppression in the name of a political vision of the greater good. The bad terrorist is one who serves nothing but his own interests, and is prepared to sacrifice others in the name of nothing but his greed.

Of course, most of those reading this will deny that a 'good terrorist' is anything but a contradiction in terms. Let them remember that, before the creation of the State of Israel, Ben Gurion and other Zionists were actively involved in attacks against the British Mandate forces in Palestine, attacks that included the killing of British servicemen. Were they terrorists or freedom fighters? Since they fought against what they perceived as an illegitimate political form, and in the interests of the future people of Israel, they were good terrorists, or, if you prefer, freedom fighters. I don't doubt, however, that the widows and orphans left behind as a consequence of these killings would call them, simply, murderers and terrorists.

Remember these complexities next time you watch O'Reilly or some other talking-head inveighing against the evils of terrorism, and extolling the virtues of those who carry out the same kind of acts in the name of self-defence. Remember that Israel, that darling of America's political elite, was born out of the struggle of good terrorists to free themselves from the tyrrany of the British - just as Hamas and Hezbollah struggle to free themselves from the tyrrany of Israel.

It's only by being aware of these contradictions, of the depth of the agon between conceptions of justice and freedom, justice and tyrrany, that the human condition has any hope of redemption. The fact that the movie illuminates this struggle, that it illuminates the tragic nature of human existence in a way comprehensible to the simplest mentality, is its true value as a work of art.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

. appearance dot

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

I really enjoyed the movie when I saw it at the cinema early in the year. It amuses me that the American press really thought it was about Bush and Cheney when most of its issues and characters are derived from a 1980s comic book (as discussed in the movie's Wikipedia entry). You've really got to wonder about some critics and their right to actually claim that title.

The fact that the movie illuminates this struggle, that it illuminates the tragic nature of human existence in a way comprehensible to the simplest mentality, is its true value as a work of art.

I don't think it achieves this. The 'simplest mentality' isn't likely to appreciate the movie - Shakespeare is hard enough, but characters who speak in alliterative rhyming couplets don't exactly make for a Fast and the Furious sequel. I think it'll resonate with anyone who's ever put tried to understand terrorism by putting themselves in the shoes of the terrorist but its audience outside that group is probably quite limited.

The greatest insight the film/comic offers is in its symbology. V knows that the people wish to rebel but they are afraid of the consequences. So he becomes something for them to follow and provides them with actions to imitate. The original comic has a twist on this in the end but I won't reveal it in case anyone intends to actually read the book; suffice to say it matches up well with the faceless nature of Islamic terrorism.

Modern terrorism relies on the same symbology. The bombers are masked, they make frequent recourses to long-lasting and binding belief structures as justifications and, as you say, they use cynical manipulation to achieve their long-term and allegedly noble aims.

In my view it's just a shame the movie didn't make the government of the day more ambiguous. The High Chancellor was too obviously a monster; it would have made the movie far more powerful were he to be a benevolent dictator whose crimes were entirely hidden. It would raise the question, "How much liberty should be sacrificed for security?" rather than asking, "What has to happen before the people can be expected to act?'

Successfully updated karma reason!

To: cactoblasta

these are good points, I appreciate them. I think you're entirely wrong though.

The 'simplest mentality' isn't likely to appreciate the movie - Shakespeare is hard enough, but characters who speak in alliterative rhyming couplets don't exactly make for a Fast and the Furious sequel. I think it'll resonate with anyone who's ever put tried to understand terrorism by putting themselves in the shoes of the terrorist but its audience outside that group is probably quite limited.

You miss the point. As with every other political act, it's not what is said, nor how the person saying it is (whether their language is simple or ornate, for example) but what is done that counts. And what V does is simple, direct and very easy to understand. Like all terrorists, good or bad, his actions cut directly to the only question that matters: how much must be paid to achieve what I want done? And the answer he comes up with is 'everything'.

V is a testament to the determination which horrifies a vacillating world used to the lies and half-truths, the shifting deceits, of politics and politicians. In what it costs him, and in what he makes others pay (even the cypher 'Evey') he illustrates the horrible tragic truth of the terrorist. In order to defeat monsters we must become monsters. The simplest mentalities may not be able to put that truth into words, but they can see it when its placed on a screen in front of them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

The simplest mentalities may not be able to put that truth into words, but they can see it when its placed on a screen in front of them.

Sure, but will they stick around to see it? When I watched it in April a group of guys actually walked out after the first 15 minutes. I guess it wasn't their kind of film. It doesn't matter how visceral or simple the message is if people won't pay attention long enough to hear it.

Until they come for YOU, that is.

That's exactly it. It's when we begin to feel the oppression ourselves and are forced into action. Not any arbitrary point before. I think it's been turned into a famous cliche but the exact phrasing's slipped my mind at the moment. Something like, "They came for someone on the other side of the city, and we said nothing. It wasn't our problem. They came for our neighbours, and we said nothing. It wasn't our problem. And then they came for us and we realised we were all alone."

Modman, with his rather simplistic 'Never again' makes frequent reference to this theory when attacking critics of Israel, as if Hezbollah would ever have the opportunity to put Jews in gas chambers.

But I do wonder what it's going to take to stir the American people up enough, and in sufficient numbers, to act as a catalyst for REAL change...even if that change has to be brought about violently.

It's hard to say, isn't it? Australia's seen a whole host of new security laws recently that I felt sure would create a stir, but there's been nothing. Rights based in common law that Australians and our ancestors have held for centuries have been signed away and there's been no response except from the far left and the far right, both of whom get ignored because they attribute the cause to something sinister rather than something probable. It's more than slightly worrying how apathetic people are.

i have hopes for Giuliani, though, and while I might be totally fooled, i truly believe in the man's inherent goodness.

This is off-topic, but have you heard about his effect on the alternative scenes in New York? He sent in the sniffer dogs and the armed police and basically beat the hell out of the recreational drug-using dance scene. I know your reasons for usage are very different, but aren't his positions of concern to you?

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

But who is 'ourselves?' The 'average' American? Is there such a thing? If there is, "we" have taken more of a beating than any fringe group, especially in regards to excessive taxation, taxation that's grotesquely squandered on utter crap, and "we" are the ones currently having our phone calls and banking practices monitored...every single one of 'us.'

I mean us in the most generic sense of the word - people in general. If history has shown anything it's that if you use bureacracy you can push a person right to the very brink of death or slavery before they will take action against you. Until that point the diffuse nature of the threat will make it seem less apparent and less dangerous and they will barely budge an inch while you take almost everything they own. This willingness to give in to authority can be pushed even further with the use of religious or ideological symbolism.

I didn't mean it in the specific 'average American' sense. It just seems to be a general human trait, found in everyone from Cambodians to South Africans to Afghans to Nicaraguans to Americans.

remember my article on Secret Buttons?

I think we all know one of mine is making generalisations about foreigners and another is 'defenceless' civilians in warzones, so it's unsuprising I guess that we've clashed over Lebanon.

Overdoses were common, deaths occurred, and these raves were often held on trespassed property, without consent of the owner. I dunno about you, but I'd be awfully pissed to visit my warehouse to discover a huge party had been held there without my consent, with the mess and damage left for me to pay to have cleaned up.

I was talking about his sponsored raids on licensed nightclubs rather than illegal raves. I don't have any links for you but a friend of mine from the US used to speak fairly harshly about police brutality under Rudy. Of course I have to take out the obvious exaggeration, but it's still something to keep in mind - Guiliani's a firm believer in zero tolerance and he ain't a hypocrite like Bush. His capacity for bringing back the iron fist is probably going to be higher.

I admit I don't fully understand US drugs policy but I'm generally a little leery of zero-tolerance campaigners in Australia; they're nearly always people who've never had contact with users. Their edicts can cost lives that could easily have been saved with the existence of even a little carrot.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This may be away from the original topic, but it goes to some of the questions that LW expounded on. A general comment on where I draw lines...

Freedom Fighter/Terrorist
When innocents get hurt or killed? Could be Freedom Fighter. When innocents are intentionally targeted such as when someone walks into a pizza parlor full of kids with a bomb straped on and blows himself up? Terrorist. It's the intent. Freedom fighters are fighting for the good of people. Terrorists are fighting for the good of the cause.

Security/Oppresive
When a foreign national captured fighting in Afganistan is thrown in Gitmo? Could be a legitimate security issue. Not something to be blindly accepted, not unworthy of note or concern, but within the realm of possibilities. When a US Citizen is picked up off the streets of Chigago and thrown into the brig at Norfolk without a lawyer, due process, or even an acknowlegement that he exists? Oppressive and over the line. The Constitution does not have an "off" button. Not even for "terrorists".

Successfully updated karma reason!

At what point does a Patriot become a Terrorist, and vice versa?

When the winner writes the history book.

But I do wonder what it's going to take to stir the American people up enough, and in sufficient numbers, to act as a catalyst for REAL change...even if that change has to be brought about violently.

What is the REAL change that needs to be seen? What is the motivation behind the changes that need REAL change?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Modman, with his rather simplistic 'Never again' makes frequent reference to this theory when attacking critics of Israel, as if Hezbollah would ever have the opportunity to put Jews in gas chambers.

how right, they just lob rockets and missles filled with ball bearings on totally civilian populations.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To: little-whip

I knew this was going to be a minority interest post... but never mind, good comments so far.

No one is a terrorist until someone with the power to do so decides he or she is a terrorist - and passes on that definition to the bleating sheep who constitute 'the public'. The liberties of the English (they have no Rights) have been progressively abused by that grinning ape Blair since he came to power. If you follow the comments sections in the British press you'll see all kinds of consternation
and concern - but little in the way of real protest. When it comes to banning blood sports the great British public will turn out on the streets by the hundred thousand; when it comes to secret courts without juries for the trial of terrorists barely a whimper is heard from them (the so-called 'Diplock Courts' have been in existence in Northern Ireland for decades). I think they're relying on the next General Election to be rid of Monkey Blair and his cronies - but if that's the case they're truly fools. The British electoral system ('first past the post') is skewed in favor of the party in power - Labour retained power in the last election with less than 30% of the popular vote.

You become a terrorist when you are defined as a terrorist - and the only indication as to where the line is drawn is the interests of those with power to so define you. The question to ask is'When are you willing to commit the kind of offence commited by Timothy McVeigh as a political response to a political situation. And the answer is always going to be different for each individual asked because the point at which our general political apathy is breached is going to be different for each individual.

The case of the Minutemen is pertinent. The situation at the border has become so extreme that individuals living there have combined to take action on their own in the face of the ongoing reluctance of government to do anything but tinker half-heartedly with the cause of the problem. The interests of the Minutemen are so immediately and apparently threatened that their apathy has been breached.

It's only when an individual feels so immediately threatened that they get over their reluctance to risk what they have in the hope of gaining something better - or, in McVeigh's case, that they set out to punish those responsible for the threat directly and physically by destroying something which symbolises their power to create that threat.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To: cactoblasta

When I watched it in April a group of guys actually walked out after the first 15 minutes. I guess it wasn't their kind of film. It doesn't matter how visceral or simple the message is if people won't pay attention long enough to hear it.

This is true, but the same can be said of any 'performance'. If they won't listen, they won't - but that's a different issue to whether or not the 'performance' can be comprehended - there's nothing particularly incomprehensible in the movie's statement of V's moral ambiguity. As I said, I thought it to be stated with a particular clarity.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To: Genghis Hank

Freedom fighters are fighting for the good of people. Terrorists are fighting for the good of the cause.

I think that most of the people in Gaza would tell you that the good of the people is the cause. I think McVeigh was a terrorist because his intent was to punish, destroy, and cause terror. Beyond expressing his solidarity with the victims of Wako, and his violent hatred of the Federal Government, he had no cause. That would make him an 'evil' terrorist by my definition since his interest was purely personal; he had no intent to liberate, no intent to pursue a course of action that had the future good of the majority as its object. He intended to kill as a pure expression of his rage and his hatred.

The paradoxical thing about Hamas, Hezbollah, even the IRA in their earlier incarnations is that at the heart of their violence is a concern for a future community whose good they seek to establish, a concern for future others living in a world that, of necessity, is built on the ruins of the world they intend to destroy. The good terrorist has no personal agenda, either of profit or retribution.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To: Moderateman

how right, they just lob rockets and missles filled with ball bearings on totally civilian populations.

While Israel bombs refugee camps (when not sending Christian militias to murder the inhabitants), and shells UN observers and civilians on beaches. Your prejudice is showing. Again.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Interesting points.

I've often thought about the 'weak' form of warfare practiced by the US. Weak in terms of not only the tactics that were once used but also in the unwillingness to .. well to put it bluntly, kill people, wipe out the enemy and get the job done as quickly as possible.

Imagine if the US, and Britain for that matter, took an approach of 'hit them as hard and fast as possible with no concern for so called collateral damage'. First off, the 'War against Terror' would probably have a completely different timeline. Secondly, how much worse could the criticism get?

I think about the old westerns I watched as a young boy and man. The town has a 'situation'; basically a bunch of roughnecks terrorizing everyone. Some 'cowboy' rides in, kills the bad guys with extreme prejudice and either rides out or gets run out of town.

The last is the important bit, I think. Everyone really desires the cowboy to come in and clean house; do the things no one else either has the guts to do or can't bring themselves to do, but they damn sure don't want someone like that living among them afterward. After all they are 'decent' people and don't want to be associated with that type of thing.

Interesting also is what seems to be the main purpose of terrorism. In the past, one of the main techniques in waging war was to kill as many of the other side as possible. This was primarily to reduce their army. Today's version, as fought by terrorists, seems to be as much about PR as about killing the enemy. 'If I frighten them enough and appear barbaric enough, they will give up or lose the will to fight.'
That would only seem effective against a 'civilized' or anti-war society. I suspect it would have no effect on a society that waged all out war with no reservations as I earlier imagined regarding the US and Britain.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think we have to call a spade a spade. Not everything that Hezbollah does is terrorism, and not everything that 'V' does in the movie is terrorist. I don't think you can really call either "good", though.

Hezbollah and Hamas are not "good" terrorists as defined in the article above. They function as organized crime and work AGAINST the wellbeing of the people they claim to represent in order to perpetuate their suffering. Without that suffering, the untold millions in donations would dry up and their civilian population would wonder what it is they were fighting about.

So every time there is a chance that the lives of the Lebanese or Palestinian people can improve, they commit a terrorist act to torpedo it. Terrorism in their cases, as in most, is just a vehicle to become or remain the new oppressor of the oppressed. Granted, 'V' didn't seek personal power, but he DID seek HIS idea of change regardless of the will of the people he pretended to represent.

That's why he didn't mind breaking a few eggies, because he discounted the public along with their complacency. It's still a selfish means to a selfish end. I doubt seriously you could find many terrorists, and villains in general that didn't delude themselves into thinking what they were doing was selfless.

The same could be said for organized crime, white collar crime, political crime, gang crime, anything. I don't think we can allow ourselves to be wooed by the intentions of "good" terrorists than we can for the banal social excuses of Tookie Williams, or Mafiosos who worked in the interest of their darling old grandmothers' neighborhoods.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To: pictoratus

In the past, one of the main techniques in waging war was to kill as many of the other side as possible. This was primarily to reduce their army. Today's version, as fought by terrorists, seems to be as much about PR as about killing the enemy. 'If I frighten them enough and appear barbaric enough, they will give up or lose the will to fight.'

I could not agree more with this statement. The primary target in ww2 was the civilian population. Hence the 'terror raids' carried out by both sides in that conflict; hence the nuclear strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki (neither city having any appreciable 'war assets'); hence the deliberate creation of firestorms in Dresden, Coventry and Tokyo. Since ww2 there has rarely been a conflict in which the main theatres of combat were face-to-face battles between the regular armed forces of each warring party; civilians have to an ever increasing degree been the focus of military strikes. Lebanon is a prime example; by far the greatest toll of death has been among the unarmed populace - compared to the number of deaths of soldiers in both world wars, the numbers of dead military personnel on either side in Lebanon are insignificant.

'If I frighten them enough and appear barbaric enough, they will give up or lose the will to fight.'

This is as much a policy of Israel as it is of Hezbollah. By deliberately seeking to terrorize the civilian population of Lebanon (notwithstanding the air drops of warning leaflets, which have been sporadic and inconsistent) Israel hopes that the people of Lebanon will turn upon Hezbollah as the source of their current misery - just as Hezbollah seeks to turn the people of Israel against their warmongering leaders. In each case, the strategy appears to be a failure.

It is this congruence between the strategies of Hezbollah and Israel that leads me to say that Israel is a terrorist state. The acts of the IDF are no different to those of Hezbollah - the difference lies in the technological advantage of the IDF. The strategies of the Israeli government in this conflict are no different to those of Hezbollah. As I have said repeatedly - it is not what the mouthpieces of either side say that is important; it is the acts that are carried out by either side which reveal their nature. If I condemn Israel and not Hezbollah, it's because Israel claims to be moral in the Western sense of that word, and reveals its hypocrisy thereby, whereas Hezbollah makes no such claim and is therefore honest.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To: BakerStreet

Hezbollah and Hamas are not "good" terrorists as defined in the article above. They function as organized crime and work AGAINST the wellbeing of the people they claim to represent in order to perpetuate their suffering.

You conveniently forget the social and charitable works of both parties. I'm not aware of any hospitals or medical centers established by the Capos of the Mafia.

They function as organized crime and work AGAINST the wellbeing of the people they claim to represent in order to perpetuate their suffering.

I'm not sure that the unfortunates living in Gaza would agree with you - primarily because the origin of their suffering lies in the intransigent prejudice, racial hatred, and greed for land of the Israeli government.

Granted, 'V' didn't seek personal power, but he DID seek HIS idea of change regardless of the will of the people he pretended to represent.

If deliberately going against accepted definitions of what is right, of what constitutes the immediate good of a people, constitutes your definition of terrorism then you must include Roosevelt - who deceived the American people at every turn in order to prepare for entry into a war they didn't want any part of. All politicians, of every hue and caste, are liars - it comes with the territory. But V, being a good terrorist was not a liar and therefore not a politician.

I doubt seriously you could find many terrorists, and villains in general that didn't delude themselves into thinking what they were doing was selfless.

Then you must, again, include Roosevelt - who believed that the selfless sacrifice of American lives was necessary to defeat an evil that those same Americans had no interest in.

I don't think we can allow ourselves to be wooed by the intentions of "good" terrorists than we can for the banal social excuses of Tookie Williams, or Mafiosos who worked in the interest of their darling old grandmothers' neighborhoods.

You seem to think that the good, particularly the political good, is something clear, straightforward, and easily determined. It isn't. Fortunately for Roosevelt his vision prevailed - and America and her allies wrote the history of the conflict they had engaged in. If his vision had not prevailed, Roosevelt would now be regarded as a greater traitor than Benedict Arnold - and Europe would now be populated with German-speakers.

At night, all cats are grey - and all motives are less than obvious.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: