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

[Gawd]

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!

It's a literary work. You never took English class?

[Ian]

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!

It's a literary work. You never took English class?

They teach comic books graphic novels as literary works where you went to school?

[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 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.

Sure, Ian. Your civilians support and enable the means for America waging war.

American definition of terrorism: Anyone who is non-white or a non-white country not under the command of Americans that don't like Americans.

[Gawd]

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!

It's a literary work. You never took English class?

They teach comic books graphic novels as literary works where you went to school?

Did you know X-Men is a comic book and it has many themes of racial discrimination in it that is conveyed through the mutant vs. human conflicts? Though, I'm sure you like to stay in your own little America is Fuck Yeah! world and haven't even thought about that.

[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!

It's a literary work. You never took English class?

Err... yes. That was my fucking point!

Who was it, that in the OP of this very thread, sought to derive universal truths about the validity of terrorist acts from this "literary work"?

My case rests.

[Gawd]

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!

It's a literary work. You never took English class?

Err... yes. That was my fucking point!

Who was it, that in the OP of this very thread, sought to derive universal truths about the validity of terrorist acts from this "literary work"?

My case rests.

I think you are making a logical fallacy of "one book must explain everything" or else it is invalid. Seems too Christiany for me......

[Ian]

Sure, Ian. Your civilians support and enable the means for America waging war.

American definition of terrorism: Anyone who is non-white or a non-white country not under the command of Americans that don't like Americans.

Uh-huh. Go tell that to President Barack Hussein Obama.

Fair warning though: I'm highly sympathetic to the cause of Inuit Separatism. An you should know that we've concluded that diplomacy alone is not going to advance our noble cause. So we're going to start planting bombs on school buses and commuter trains in Calgary. Once in a while we'll also capture people, saw their heads off, and put video of it on the internet. No doubt, all this will get some widespread attention, which will be good for our cause. If you or people in your family get killed, just remember: as a civilian living up there, you and your family deserve to be targeted and killed because you're paying the taxes which oppress my people. And what I'm doing is perfectly reasonable; I'm a freedom fighter after all. Nobody better consider me a terrorist.

[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.

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.

Sure, Ian. Your civilians support and enable the means for America waging war.

So then the ends justify the targeting of the means.

I see Sensai.

[Ian]

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!

It's a literary work. You never took English class?

They teach comic books graphic novels as literary works where you went to school?

Did you know X-Men is a comic book and it has many themes of racial discrimination in it that is conveyed through the mutant vs. human conflicts? Though, I'm sure you like to stay in your own little America is Fuck Yeah! world and haven't even thought about that.

Uh-huh. Care to discuss the social relevance of Spider-Man next? How about Superman?

[Gawd]

Fair warning though: I'm highly sympathetic to the cause of Inuit Separatism. An you should know that we've concluded that diplomacy alone is not going to advance our noble cause. So we're going to start planting bombs on school buses and commuter trains in Calgary. Once in a while we'll also capture people, saw their heads off, and put video of it on the internet. No doubt, all this will get some widespread attention, which will be good for our cause. If you or people in your family get killed, just remember: as a civilian living up there, you and your family deserve to be targeted and killed because you're paying the taxes which oppress my people. And what I'm doing is perfectly reasonable; I'm a freedom fighter after all. Nobody better consider me a terrorist.

If that's what the Inuit want to do, let them. Though, you do know the Inuit have signed treaties and they have the same rights as other Canadians, eh?

[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!

It's a literary work. You never took English class?

Err... yes. That was my fucking point!

Who was it, that in the OP of this very thread, sought to derive universal truths about the validity of terrorist acts from this "literary work"?

My case rests.

I think you are making a logical fallacy of "one book must explain everything" or else it is invalid. Seems too Christiany for me......

No. I am making the point that ANY book doesn't, necessarily, explain ANYTHING!

I repeat, YOU are the one claiming that...

the Guy Fawkes character shows that "terrorism" is a legitimate means for political change

I am arguing the exact OPPOSITE! It is a work of FICTION. A thinly-fleshed analogy of events that has no realistic bearing on the real world.

Your deliberate density does you no credit.

[Jason]

I'm highly sympathetic to the cause of Inuit Separatism.

Are you Canadian Ian?

Either way..

You view this as a legitimate political struggle, or else being sympathetic to a cause means something different to you than it does to I. What was the dividing line, as it were, that made it not terrorism? The tools used or the severity to which they are used?

[Gawd]

So then the ends justify the targeting of the means.

I see Sensai.

Exactly. Without the means, you do not have the ends of waging war.

[Ian]

Fair warning though: I'm highly sympathetic to the cause of Inuit Separatism. An you should know that we've concluded that diplomacy alone is not going to advance our noble cause. So we're going to start planting bombs on school buses and commuter trains in Calgary. Once in a while we'll also capture people, saw their heads off, and put video of it on the internet. No doubt, all this will get some widespread attention, which will be good for our cause. If you or people in your family get killed, just remember: as a civilian living up there, you and your family deserve to be targeted and killed because you're paying the taxes which oppress my people. And what I'm doing is perfectly reasonable; I'm a freedom fighter after all. Nobody better consider me a terrorist.

If that's what the Inuit want to do, let them. Though, you do know the Inuit have signed treaties and they have the same rights as other Canadians, eh?

We reject that biased, revisionist history of your Canadian imperialism. Our ancestors were forced to sign these humiliating treaties. We're going for full independence, no matter how thousands of civilians we have to kill to get there.

[Gawd]

I think you are making a logical fallacy of "one book must explain everything" or else it is invalid. Seems too Christiany for me......

No. I am making the point that ANY book doesn't, necessarily, explain ANYTHING!

I repeat, YOU are the one claiming that...

the Guy Fawkes character shows that "terrorism" is a legitimate means for political change

I am arguing the exact OPPOSITE! It is a work of FICTION. A thinly-fleshed analogy of events that has no realistic bearing on the real world.

Your deliberate density does you no credit.

If "ANY book doesn't, necessarily, explain ANYTHING" why do you even talk about ANYTHING?