Can a terrorist be good and bad at the same time?

[JonasDahlin]

I saw one of my favorite films last night V for Vendetta (for the fifth time) and it got me thinking. Why do people see V as a hero? I mean he's a terrorist blowing up buildings and killing innocent people. But then when it comes to the real world people suddenly dispieses terrorists. How does this make any sense?

[343Guiltyspark]

terrorist and revolutionary are 2 different things

Terrorist belives he must produce terror ( kill people ) to keep a county scared and paranoid.

A revolutionary Tries to change a country for the good of his people by attacking the "evil" power in charge trying to encouraging others to follow in his footsteps

[JonasDahlin]

"terrorist and revolutionary are 2 different things"

Yes but the are but the goverment clearly says he's a terrorist. Shouldn't you belive goverment more than the terrorist?

And btw how do you know V is revolutionary? If you hadn't seen any of that bad things that the goverment did then you would have also thought that V was nothing but a terrorist... or am i wrong?

[343Guiltyspark]

"terrorist and revolutionary are 2 different things"

Yes but the are but the goverment clearly says he's a terrorist. Shouldn't you belive goverment more than the terrorist?

And btw how do you know V is revolutionary? If you hadn't seen any of that bad things that the goverment did then you would have also thought that V was nothing but a terrorist... or am i wrong?i know v was a revolutionary because he did not attack civilians , just government things

[lazlazlaz1]

i know v was a revolutionary because he did not attack civilians , just government things

That is the key difference indeed.
Terrorists aim to kill and injure civilians, or do not worry who they catch in the blast.
Revolutionaries target the government.

[DavidUpton]

I see two very distinct types of terrorist; the good and the bad. The good are the freedom fighters, say the French in WWII. They are fighting the people who have invaded and occupied their country and to that extent there is nothing wrong with it. The bad, however, as in the case with Al Queida for example, are people who directly head out to cause death and destruction in a foreign country.

The best way to define it is with my own simple rule: On his own soil a terrorist is good, on foreign soil he is bad. Why is this? It all comes down to the 'rules' of war. In general it is widely accepted that if you kill an enemy soldier in war it is alright, however the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians (even if they belong to your enemy) is not. This can be used to create a divide between good and bad terrorists, and this is why I am prepared to accept the terrorism that is happening in Iraq but not the terrorism that is happening in western countries.

[Corporate Ignorance]

So, let us again mention Iraq, for regarding Iraq we often hear very general term "terrorist". Official American propoganda calls everyone who fights U.S Coalition forces to be "terrorists"- But-
Between 45% and 88% of Iraqi Sunni Arabs consider armed attacks on U.S. forces legitimate and justified resistance.

Polls suggest the majority of Iraqis disapprove of the presence of coalition forces
Research indicates that majority of both Sunnis and Shi'as want an end to the occupation as soon as possible, although Sunnis are opposed to the occupation by somewhat greater margins. Why? Because they've been invaded and bombed. Have you seen pictures of the dead civillians lying in looooooong rows on the streets?

So imagine, if California invaded Oregon, so the people of Oregon who defend their home against invading californinans are terrorists?

Heh, The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerrilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups.
All are labled terrorists in official media. ARE THEY ALL TERRORISTS?
These 40 groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. Because most of these insurgents are civilians fighting against an organized domestic army and a foreign occupying army, many consider them to be guerrillas. :

Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein's former nomenclature, e.g. army or intelligence officers;
Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims, who fight for Iraqi self-determination;
anti-Shi'a Sunni Muslims who fight to regain the prestige they held under the previous regime (these three categories are often indistinguishable in practice);
Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement, as well as any remnants of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam;
Foreign Islamist volunteers, including those often linked to al Qaeda and largely driven by the Sunni Wahabi doctrine (the two preceding categories are often lumped as "Jihadists");
Patriotic Communists (who have split from the official Iraqi Communist Party and other leftists;
Criminal insurgents who are fighting simply for money; and
Nonviolent resistance groups and political parties (not technically part of the insurgency).

[JonasDahlin]

Didn't attack civilians? He killed 4 securety guard, a priest, a spokesman, a doctor, Mr creedy and all his men (these people have familys to) He tried to blow up a news station and he blew up the house of parlament. Right so if this had been live event in the real world you would have thoguht "oh he's a revolutionary" Don't be naiv

[JonasDahlin]

"The best way to define it is with my own simple rule: On his own soil a terrorist is good, on foreign soil he is bad"

So that means that the oklahoma bomber is a good guy?

[lazlazlaz1]

Simply put, you define them as a terrorist if you are on the opposing side and they attack civilians on purpose. If they are on the opposing side and attack government/military then they are freedom fighters. If they are on your side they are revolutionaries (some of which are good and attack only gov/mil, others are more dubious and attack civies).

[Schrem [506th PIR]]

A good movie about this theme is *Catch a fire*.



I see two very distinct types of terrorist; the good and the bad. The good are the freedom fighters, say the French in WWII. They are fighting the people who have invaded and occupied their country and to that extent there is nothing wrong with it.

How do you name german *freedom* fighters who fought against the *evil* invaders of america and russia?

All i want to say is that you cant say good or not good.....a terrorists always thinks his actions are good for his country and the victim of him always thinks hes a bad guy. It all depends on the point of view. Same with the cold war, most russians thought *We are the good ones...we have to protect our country with massive weaponry* and America: *We are the good ones...we have to protect our country with massive weaponry*


By the way....we are in a grey zone now........

[enigma]

V for Vendetta

Imo on watching the film V had two agendas (and basing this opinion on the film and not the comic which i have not read but have been told the character is completely different).

1 - his own personal revenge against those who were apart of the killing of the woman in the cell next to him and probably for what they also did to him.

2 - on viewing the film it is spurned out of the above and what happened to him to exact revenge upon the fascist government which did it and to further him to his above goal ... there easier to get at by causing some uproar.
If he can bring them down, he is achieving his personnel revenge against them for what there polices did.


4 security guard
The police near the beginning?
In that case, oneswho were attempting to rape one of the main characters who had done nothing wrong other then brake curfew.


a priest
Is character was a child molester.


a spokesman
Dr Goebbels so to speak


a doctor
The head doctor iirc and the one doing the treatments on the people imprisoned in V's camp.


Mr creedy and all his men
The head of the secret police and his cronies

They were all related to his own personal vendetta, hence why he killed them.

So what is he? "Terrorist" or "Freedom fighter".

He wasn’t killing innocent civilians and was targeting people within the fascist government or related to there past activities (i.e. the camp) and a government which was abducting its own people and having them live under a harsh and unforgiving law.
The targets he attacked where also symbolic and not occupied.

Now for example had he killed the teenage girl (the one who gets shot by the police) or blown up the TV station one would have a different opinion of his character, but since on viewing the films government, its a corrupt and evil one, his actions if somewhat morally wrong are imo just (if this was the real world) and i would slap the title of "freedom fighter" or "revolutariny" on him (whatever fits best).


Now i want to go and watch the film! :D



How do you name german *freedom* fighters who fought against the *evil* invaders of america and russia?

Wasnt there really only one attack made, that being the killing of a Mayor who had been installed iirc by the Americans?
If there was more, please say i would be very intrested :)


Corporate Ignorance: Nice list of groups, stats, poll information etc but why is it then ... it appears that the majoirty of people being killed in Iraq are the civvies on the street caught up in the explosions by the above named groups?

[metsapeikko]

;61209']



How do you name german *freedom* fighters who fought against the *evil* invaders of america and russia?



Hmm, I think from some aspect, hes freedom fighter, from other aspect, hes terrorist...

I think "terrorist" can be "good" and "bad" at the same time. It pretty much depents from a point of view.

[OliverMarshall]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.


Out simply there are no good terrrorists even if they are fighting for a good cause since a cause is always one sided and the terrorist is still causing terror.

[enigma]

Its really all about perspectives...

[biggles]

A terrorist tries to scare the people by showing: This is what happens if you are my enemy (you die an unexpected death).

A revolutionary tries to gain the peoples trust by showing: This is what your goverment created. stop it before it's too late!

[JonasDahlin]

"The police near the beginning?
In that case, oneswho were attempting to rape one of the main characters who had done nothing wrong other then brake curfew"

Sorry I meant the police men who were killed at the Newstower, you know when he walks in with a belt of tnt?


"His character was a child molester.

Dr Goebbels so to speak

The head doctor iirc and the one doing the treatments on the people imprisoned in V's camp.

The head of the secret police and his cronies"

Yes you are right, however in the real world we might never would have seen these things. The film showed us that these people were bad but let's say if you didn't know the backround of these people and V would you still have seen V as a hero?

Schrem [506th PIR]
"All i want to say is that you cant say good or not good.....a terrorists always thinks his actions are good for his country and the victim of him always thinks hes a bad guy."

Thanks for proving my point :)

[Corporate Ignorance]

[b]V for Vendetta[/b

Corporate Ignorance: Nice list of groups, stats, poll information etc but why is it then ... it appears that the majoirty of people being killed in Iraq are the civvies on the street caught up in the explosions by the above named groups?

Enigma, as I promised in "Iraq war" thread, I'm gonna post the thread about true horror of war...A thread reflecting nature of war- And I sicnerly hope that it will prove to all here that war is interesting and magnificent on T.V, but not in reality.
So, it's hard to say objectivley who kills and in what numbers due to state of CIVIL WAR in Iraq. U.S coalition forces are among those groups too, by the way.

[sooch90]

Enigma, as I promised in "Iraq war" thread, I'm gonna post the thread about true horror of war...A thread reflecting nature of war- And I sicnerly hope that it will prove to all here that war is interesting and magnificent on T.V, but not in reality.
So, it's hard to say objectivley who kills and in what numbers due to state of CIVIL WAR in Iraq. U.S coalition forces are among those groups too, by the way.

First, I would like to see sources that back up these statistics. Not that I think you're lying, but I would just like to see them.

Second, I think most people here realize that war is in fact gruesome, horrible, and very brutal in reallity. Please don't label us as war fanatics because we're interested in a video game about war.

Third, the U.S. coalition force does not purposefully target civilians like the extremist groups you mentions above. Although you may see claims brought up by "veterans" of the Iraq war that they were ordered to massacre masses of civilians, you must be aware that some of these veterans did not take part in any fighting or were never in Iraq. People will do many things for attention. This is not to say that bad things never happened in Iraq. I'm sure things happen, in war stuff happens. We should not accept it as it is, but we should try to improve it. However, if you look at some of the atrocities that were encouraged by leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and Kim Jong Il, America is not that bad. We're not perfect, but we're far from being these evil tyrants that some people try to portray American people and the government as. Just remember, the majority (by majority I mean almost every single one of them), of U.S. troops are trying their best to serve their country. Don't tarnish their reputation because of some bad incidents of few.

[enigma]

Sorry I meant the police men who were killed at the Newstower, you know when he walks in with a belt of tnt?


I havnt rewatched it yet .... although that does position a moral dilema on the story and the character :)

[Corporate Ignorance]

First, I would like to see sources that back up these statistics. Not that I think you're lying, but I would just like to see them.

However, if you look at some of the atrocities that were encouraged by leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and Kim Jong Il, America is not that bad. We're not perfect, but we're far from being these evil tyrants that some people try to portray American people and the government as. Just remember, the majority (by majority I mean almost every single one of them), of U.S. troops are trying their best to serve their country. Don't tarnish their reputation because of some bad incidents of few.



Regarding sources- in "Fallujah thread" there are sources of civillain looses. They are appaling.

I have nothing against U.S common soldier. Let us try not mix "goverment" and the means by wich goverment fullfill their intentions. Soldiers simply follow orders. I'm not blaming them in the first place. I feel sorry for them.

While speaking about such "beatiful" phrase as serving their country...Well, here I have to disagree...Serving requires knowledge FOR WHAT do you serve. American soldiers fight for oil and corporations and not for freedom or opressed iraqi people. It's a cynic lie.

America is not that bad? Well...I don't understand that logic- if America is not as bad as Hitler, then does it mean that all crimes that its foriegn policy caused should be treated as "not so bad"" let us forget it"?
And I say again- I'm not Anti-American.
The term "anti-American" is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely - but shall we say inaccurately - define its critics. Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they are heard, and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.
But what does the term "anti-American" mean? Does it mean you are anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to freedom of speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? Does it mean that you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?
This sly conflation of America's culture, music, literature, the breathtaking physical beauty of the land, the ordinary pleasures of ordinary people with criticism of the U.S. government's foreign policy (about which, thanks to America's "free press", sadly most Americans know very little) is a deliberate and extremely effective strategy. It's like a retreating army taking cover in a heavily populated city, hoping that the prospect of hitting civilian targets will deter enemy fire.
But there are many Americans who would be mortified to be associated with their government's policies. The most scholarly, scathing, incisive, hilarious critiques of the hypocrisy and the contradictions in U.S. government policy come from American citizens.


I won't cite here anything that I've posted before in "Do you support Iraq war" thread"...I suggest you to join the discussion and read all that I've written there please.
America is the strongest country in the world nowadays. It spits upon U.N.
America, alongside with Soviet Union, had and still has most aggresive, sly, cynical foriegn policy throught 20th century.

[sooch90]

"While speaking about such "beatiful" phrase as serving their country...Well, here I have to disagree...Serving requires knowledge FOR WHAT do you serve. American soldiers fight for oil and corporations and not for freedom or opressed iraqi people. It's a cynic lie. "

Okay, well since you do not wish to debate about the Iraq war here, I won't say too much about this. However, many U.S. troops believe they are fighting for the safety of America, the stability of the Iraqi government, and for a better life for the Iraqi people. The only cynicism I see here, is you.

"America is not that bad? Well...I don't understand that logic- if America is not as bad as Hitler, then does it mean that all crimes that its foriegn policy caused should be treated as "not so bad"" let us forget it"?"

When you quoted me in your last post, you didn't quote everything I said.

"I'm sure things happen, in war stuff happens. We should not accept it as it is, but we should try to improve it."

That is what I said the sentence before you quoted me. I never implied we should forget the bad things, but instead we should continuously work to improve it.

"And I say again- I'm not Anti-American."

I didn't call you anti-American.

"we're far from being these evil tyrants that some people try to portray American people and the government as"

When I said this in my last post, I was referring to the anti-American people who sometimes do whatever they can to defame America.

[Corporate Ignorance]

quote-However, many U.S. troops believe they are fighting for the safety of America, the stability of the Iraqi government, and for a better life for the Iraqi people. The only cynicism I see here, is you.-quote
Well, actually, I'm sorry to say but it dosen't matter , at the end of day, in what do american soldiers belive. Please try to understand what I'm trying to say.
U.S soldiers are the vitctims of the same internationally illegal massacre caused by greed, fueld by lies and lust for hegemony.
They may sincerly belive in high ideals of this war, but every war, as you've said is extermly brutal, especially war fought against people who fought back invaders.(By the way, I doubt not that majority of American soldiers are not crazy hypocrats, they just follow orders and do their job. But I speak of totally diffrent thing. I'm not accusing privates and officers, I accuse generals and politicians)


If I seem cynical, and again I did mention that elsewhere, I refer STRICTLY to American STATE and to a official goverment point of view on reasons, intentions and pre-history of "Operation Iraqi freedom". It's a one big falsehood. .

quote-This is not to say that bad things never happened in Iraq. I'm sure things happen, in war stuff happens. We should not accept it as it is, but we should try to improve it-quote
Well, I don't think that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians that had been killed in the occupation fails into your "category"- "stuff happens"
I don't see possible solution of how can we "improve" more then half million of killed and more then a million of wounded and cripled men, women and children.


And by the way, do you hoenstly belive that we can "improve" killing, especially in the age of modern warfare? Conventions...Well...Nazi Germany also signed lots of Conventions, and Soviet Union...

Indeed, humanity "improved" their weaponry constantly until we've got most terrible, bloody and large-scaled slaughter in the history of this poor planet not in Roman times but in "humanitarian", "enlightened" "techologically advanced" 20 century. Morover, we have nukes and other weapons of mass distruction...League of Nations failed. U.N is failing also.

It's a great shame, actually. If we carefully consider long and winding line of foriegn policy of America( or, if you want Soviet Union, for example)
in Central and South America, Asia and Middle-East for last 70 years the picture we'll get will become quite clear- it's the line of crimes and sly intrigue. Politics in general are using moral only when they need it. It's a sad, but nor less proven rule of history.
But since this thread is not about Iraq , as you rightly have mentioned, I won't say anything more regarding the matter here. If you want to object my position, I think I quite coherently stated it in the "Iraqi thread", beginning from the 3 page, I think. I would be glad if you read it, especially my points regarding whole "reasoning" of this terrible war.

Maybe it will become clear why I'm so bitter to the whole term "freedom" regarding Iraq.


I really feel lots of sadness and respect for dying and suffering soldiers in Iraq...But slaughtered civillains and crippled children make me shudder as well.