What is Your Political Opinion of "V for Vendetta"?

[Gawd]

Not all terrorism is the same.

Sometimes it can be called asymmetric warfare, sometimes insurgency, and sometimes it's just plain murder. Sometimes it arises from freedom fighting, and sometimes it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

One should not define terrorism based on how powerful are the terrorist's targets, but based on 1) what the goals of the terrorists are and 2) what are their means for achieving them. Sometimes "terrorism" (as Gawd calls it) really is terrorism, not freedom fighting.

If I recall correctly, in V for Vendetta, V didn't plant bombs on crowded buses or otherwise indiscriminantly kill civilians.

And of course it only works in England, where the sheeple have been disarmed and therefore have no choice but to submit to tyranny.

Note that in the movie, in the United States, there's a lovely civil war going on where people are actually fighting for freedom, and will obtain it because they have more arms and individuals than the standing army.

And the notion that merely blowing up the houses of Parliament, at midnight, when Parliament is not in session, would cause anything but MORE violent repression by the government is just silly. That dumb motherfucker V should have done it when all the corrupt politicians were in the building.

So Seth, can I take it that you do support terrorism as a legitimate means for political change?

[Robert_S]

Do you think the movie might have inspired the Arab Spring to any extent Gawd?

No. I would have expected to see more Guy Fawkes masks.

If you want to ship a ton of them into Saudi Arabia, I'll gladly make a contribution.

[Jason]

Physical violence in small doses only makes the police stronger. It has to rise to a mass movement before it can effect change. Cyber-violence at the smaller scale might actually work. Something, something about the first shots of a revolution being pointed at the hearts of the writers...

What comes first, I wonder, the propaganda or violence?

The steady undercurrents of civil unrest seem to be increasing globally. Will they reach critical mass?

What is driving them?

Follow the currents to the point of critical mass. Strike it in such a way that the echo reverberates in the way you desire and you will have your revolution. It is inevitable.

Increase the police strength and you increase oppression. Increase oppression to the point where civil unrest reaches critical mass. Then all it takes is the right blow and you will see how small acts of physical violence work to bring about revolution.

[Jason]

Not all terrorism is the same.

Sometimes it can be called asymmetric warfare, sometimes insurgency, and sometimes it's just plain murder. Sometimes it arises from freedom fighting, and sometimes it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

One should not define terrorism based on how powerful are the terrorist's targets, but based on 1) what the goals of the terrorists are and 2) what are their means for achieving them. Sometimes "terrorism" (as Gawd calls it) really is terrorism, not freedom fighting.

If I recall correctly, in V for Vendetta, V didn't plant bombs on crowded buses or otherwise indiscriminantly kill civilians.

And of course it only works in England, where the sheeple have been disarmed and therefore have no choice but to submit to tyranny.

Note that in the movie, in the United States, there's a lovely civil war going on where people are actually fighting for freedom, and will obtain it because they have more arms and individuals than the standing army.

And the notion that merely blowing up the houses of Parliament, at midnight, when Parliament is not in session, would cause anything but MORE violent repression by the government is just silly. That dumb motherfucker V should have done it when all the corrupt politicians were in the building.

So Seth, can I take it that you do support terrorism as a legitimate means for political change?

We use the best tools we have at our disposal. Terrorism is a tool, sometimes the only tool available.

[Jason]

Not all terrorism is the same.

Sometimes it can be called asymmetric warfare, sometimes insurgency, and sometimes it's just plain murder. Sometimes it arises from freedom fighting, and sometimes it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

One should not define terrorism based on how powerful are the terrorist's targets, but based on 1) what the goals of the terrorists are and 2) what are their methods for achieving them. Sometimes "terrorism" (as Gawd calls it) really is terrorism, not freedom fighting.

If I recall correctly, in V for Vendetta, V didn't plant bombs on crowded buses or otherwise indiscriminantly kill civilians.

Terrorism is all the same. It is only a tool.

What is a hammer? Is it defined by its purpose in use? I may hammer a nail or I may hammer a head, yet it still remains a hammer.

Propaganda is also a tool. Both may be used to the same effect.

[Jason]

double post

[Ian]

Not all terrorism is the same.

Sometimes it can be called asymmetric warfare, sometimes insurgency, and sometimes it's just plain murder. Sometimes it arises from freedom fighting, and sometimes it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

One should not define terrorism based on how powerful are the terrorist's targets, but based on 1) what the goals of the terrorists are and 2) what are their methods for achieving them. Sometimes "terrorism" (as Gawd calls it) really is terrorism, not freedom fighting.

If I recall correctly, in V for Vendetta, V didn't plant bombs on crowded buses or otherwise indiscriminantly kill civilians.

Somehow, I just knew you would post something like this where you try re-defining what "terrorism" is so that whatever your side does is never terrorism. Oh, yeah, V did tie up all those civilians in the TV studio and plant that explosive vest near them by the controls. And you know my stance on civilians as legitimate targets.

You're stance on civilians as legitimate targets is nothing more than a defense mechanism. You're just making excuses for opinions which, deep down I would hope, you know to be sick.

You also know perfectly well that "terrorism" is a very broad term, hence my use of broad terms. I didn't refer to "my side" at all. You're just reading things into what I say, as usual. If you've got some brilliant, all-encompassing definition for what constitutes terrorism, have at it.

[Jason]

[Seth]

Not all terrorism is the same.

Sometimes it can be called asymmetric warfare, sometimes insurgency, and sometimes it's just plain murder. Sometimes it arises from freedom fighting, and sometimes it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

One should not define terrorism based on how powerful are the terrorist's targets, but based on 1) what the goals of the terrorists are and 2) what are their means for achieving them. Sometimes "terrorism" (as Gawd calls it) really is terrorism, not freedom fighting.

If I recall correctly, in V for Vendetta, V didn't plant bombs on crowded buses or otherwise indiscriminantly kill civilians.

And of course it only works in England, where the sheeple have been disarmed and therefore have no choice but to submit to tyranny.

Note that in the movie, in the United States, there's a lovely civil war going on where people are actually fighting for freedom, and will obtain it because they have more arms and individuals than the standing army.

And the notion that merely blowing up the houses of Parliament, at midnight, when Parliament is not in session, would cause anything but MORE violent repression by the government is just silly. That dumb motherfucker V should have done it when all the corrupt politicians were in the building.

So Seth, can I take it that you do support terrorism as a legitimate means for political change?

Nope. Directing violence at political leaders to effect political change is called "revolution." Political leaders are legitimate military targets. Civilians, women, children etc. are not. The purpose of military action against political leaders is to effect regime chance by eliminating the corrupt and evil politicians and despots.

The purpose of terrorism against civilians is to instill terror and kill civilians, which is not a legitimate (nor effective) means of effecting political change.

Assassinating a President is a legitimate act of revolution. Murdering his wife and children to induce him to do something is terrorism.

[Jason]

The purpose of military action against political leaders is to effect regime chance by eliminating the corrupt and evil politicians and despots.

"Military action"?

Do you think that a slight portion of the population constitutes a state in itself in order to take "military action" against political leaders?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

V for Vendetta is a film based on a comic book. As such, it is a pared down, simplified, version of reality that focuses on a few events and individuals and ignores everything else, painting one side in its fictitious conflict as unspeakably vile and the other as motivated by high ideals and, thus, justified in using any means to achieve its ends.

Hence, holding that it accurately mirrors any real-world conflict and the acts of terrorism therein is a bit silly. In fact, it is as silly as thinking that ANY side in ANY conflict has the monopoly on "right". You might as well base your world view on Harry Potter!

[Seth]

Not all terrorism is the same.

Sometimes it can be called asymmetric warfare, sometimes insurgency, and sometimes it's just plain murder. Sometimes it arises from freedom fighting, and sometimes it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

One should not define terrorism based on how powerful are the terrorist's targets, but based on 1) what the goals of the terrorists are and 2) what are their means for achieving them. Sometimes "terrorism" (as Gawd calls it) really is terrorism, not freedom fighting.

If I recall correctly, in V for Vendetta, V didn't plant bombs on crowded buses or otherwise indiscriminantly kill civilians.

And of course it only works in England, where the sheeple have been disarmed and therefore have no choice but to submit to tyranny.

Note that in the movie, in the United States, there's a lovely civil war going on where people are actually fighting for freedom, and will obtain it because they have more arms and individuals than the standing army.

And the notion that merely blowing up the houses of Parliament, at midnight, when Parliament is not in session, would cause anything but MORE violent repression by the government is just silly. That dumb motherfucker V should have done it when all the corrupt politicians were in the building.

So Seth, can I take it that you do support terrorism as a legitimate means for political change?

We use the best tools we have at our disposal. Terrorism is a tool, sometimes the only tool available.

Terrorism is NEVER a legitimate tool to use. The whole purpose of terrorism is to harm civilians and instill fear and terror in them and thereby FORCE your desired political agenda on them. It is utterly non-democratic and utterly totalitarian and evil. The Taliban forced their theocratic model of government on the people of Afghanistan through terror tactics. That's why they were never a legitimate government, they were always terroristic despots who were subjugating the populace.

The same was true with the "bad guys" in V for Vendetta The Chancellor held power through terror tactics and despotism, while V DID NOT aim his violence at civilians. Yes, he planted bombs in a TV station, but it was a TV station that was the propaganda organ of the despotic government, and innocent civilians were given plenty of time to evacuate.

A propaganda media site is a legitimate military target for revolutionaries, as are those who manage and work in such organizations.

Whipping young girls till they die because they went to school to learn to read is never justifiable, it's just terrorism.

[Seth]

The purpose of military action against political leaders is to effect regime chance by eliminating the corrupt and evil politicians and despots.

"Military action"?

Do you think that a slight portion of the population constitutes a state in itself in order to take "military action" against political leaders?

Nothing requires that a group of rebels be a "state" in order to rebel against a tyrannical government, and yes, their actions, when directed properly at military targets are legitimate military actions.

[Jason]

Not all terrorism is the same.

Sometimes it can be called asymmetric warfare, sometimes insurgency, and sometimes it's just plain murder. Sometimes it arises from freedom fighting, and sometimes it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom.

One should not define terrorism based on how powerful are the terrorist's targets, but based on 1) what the goals of the terrorists are and 2) what are their means for achieving them. Sometimes "terrorism" (as Gawd calls it) really is terrorism, not freedom fighting.

If I recall correctly, in V for Vendetta, V didn't plant bombs on crowded buses or otherwise indiscriminantly kill civilians.

And of course it only works in England, where the sheeple have been disarmed and therefore have no choice but to submit to tyranny.

Note that in the movie, in the United States, there's a lovely civil war going on where people are actually fighting for freedom, and will obtain it because they have more arms and individuals than the standing army.

And the notion that merely blowing up the houses of Parliament, at midnight, when Parliament is not in session, would cause anything but MORE violent repression by the government is just silly. That dumb motherfucker V should have done it when all the corrupt politicians were in the building.

So Seth, can I take it that you do support terrorism as a legitimate means for political change?

We use the best tools we have at our disposal. Terrorism is a tool, sometimes the only tool available.

Terrorism is NEVER a legitimate tool to use. The whole purpose of terrorism is to harm civilians and instill fear and terror in them and thereby FORCE your desired political agenda on them.

What of the acts of home grown terrorists? What majority of the population must they constitute to be considered the "civilians themselves"? When does it cease to be terrorism and becomes "military action" against political leaders?

[Gawd]

And to add to that, 9/11 was targeted at military targets and financial centers of America that enabled Americans to wage war. Thus, 9/11 was a legitimate attack.