Terrorists on Film
-
Rhys666 wrote: When does a freedom fighter become a terrorist, When the principle mode of operation is the intent to murder innocent individuals vs the occupying forces. (I.E. Terrorize people) Now I expect you to come back and say that make Israel, etc terrorist since civilians have been killed. Go back to the intent statement.
What happens with your definition when they target "collaborators"? :~ To play the Devil's advocate, one could argue there's no civilian in Israel, because any adult is part of Tsahal (I disagree with that). Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now I expect you to come back and say that make Israel, etc terrorist since civilians have been killed When boys throwing stones are killed by an obviously disproportionnate response, is this a terrorist act or is it legitimate?
Pushing little children, With their fully automatics, They like to push the weak around
-
This may be a bit of an inane question, but I'm really curious. A few years ago there was a little burst of films made about historic individuals who, by recent events and definitions, would be considered terrorists. E.G., Braveheart (Mel Gibson) & Michael Collins (Liam Neeson ?) These people used violence and fear to achieve a stated goal but have been represented by Hollywood as heroic freedom fighters, and lauded as such by the general masses who have based their knowledge of them and events surrounding them on these films. Given recent and current events in the world... Would these films still be made today? What might be the reaction to them in America? As we can see in these examples history is being challenged. What's the potential for a challenge to the subjective opinion of the masses on current events in the future?
Rhys666 wrote: Would these films still be made today? Yes. because the view in Western culture hasn't changed regarding who was a revolutionary for freedom or who was a terrorist. Whenever you show the story from the point of view of the underdog you'll get sympathy for your chosen hero from the audience. Rhys666 wrote: What might be the reaction to them in America? The movie Braveheart still rocks! people in the US, IMO, don't view anyone against the status quo as a terrorist. That label is primarily reserved for groups who use guerrilla tactics, are not associated with a recognized nation, make no attempt at diplommacy, and are apparently fanatical in their thinking. this would not include Wallace's band of ragtag Scotsmen taking arms against the infiltrating Brits. having said that, you could, I'm sure paint a picture that a terrorist organization is the underdog simply trying to break free of the economic and political oppression of the imperialist Westerners. Show them as trying to live their lives according to their customs, wanting nothing to do with Westerns ways, with no option but to attack in the only way they can make an impact. that is through targeted hit-and-run tactics designed to instill fear in their oppressors. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
Rhys666 wrote: Would these films still be made today? Yes. because the view in Western culture hasn't changed regarding who was a revolutionary for freedom or who was a terrorist. Whenever you show the story from the point of view of the underdog you'll get sympathy for your chosen hero from the audience. Rhys666 wrote: What might be the reaction to them in America? The movie Braveheart still rocks! people in the US, IMO, don't view anyone against the status quo as a terrorist. That label is primarily reserved for groups who use guerrilla tactics, are not associated with a recognized nation, make no attempt at diplommacy, and are apparently fanatical in their thinking. this would not include Wallace's band of ragtag Scotsmen taking arms against the infiltrating Brits. having said that, you could, I'm sure paint a picture that a terrorist organization is the underdog simply trying to break free of the economic and political oppression of the imperialist Westerners. Show them as trying to live their lives according to their customs, wanting nothing to do with Westerns ways, with no option but to attack in the only way they can make an impact. that is through targeted hit-and-run tactics designed to instill fear in their oppressors. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
I've just voted you a 1 for use of the term 'infiltrating Brits', it was the damned English! I'm Welsh and we were repressed by the English before Edward Longshanks got round to Scotland. Longshanks intention was to create a United Kingdom under his direct rule inclusive of England, Scotland, Wales and France i believe, but we were still all seperate entites at that point (with Northern Ireland not existing at all), wheras Britain is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The history of repression against the Welsh by the English extends even into this century when teaching the Welsh language was banned in schools and places couldn't be sign-posted in Welsh. And at least Scotland got represented on the british flag! I know it's confusing, but you'll probably find that any Welsh or Scots man (or woman) would be equally offended by being associated with the English, it's traditional to despise the prawn sandwich eating, shandy drinking gits. We're not particularly militant about it though, until it comes to sports or being called English, we just like to have someone to blame.
-
I've just voted you a 1 for use of the term 'infiltrating Brits', it was the damned English! I'm Welsh and we were repressed by the English before Edward Longshanks got round to Scotland. Longshanks intention was to create a United Kingdom under his direct rule inclusive of England, Scotland, Wales and France i believe, but we were still all seperate entites at that point (with Northern Ireland not existing at all), wheras Britain is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The history of repression against the Welsh by the English extends even into this century when teaching the Welsh language was banned in schools and places couldn't be sign-posted in Welsh. And at least Scotland got represented on the british flag! I know it's confusing, but you'll probably find that any Welsh or Scots man (or woman) would be equally offended by being associated with the English, it's traditional to despise the prawn sandwich eating, shandy drinking gits. We're not particularly militant about it though, until it comes to sports or being called English, we just like to have someone to blame.
Brits != English. Got it. ;) Well, you've got my sincerist apologies for that. no harm intended, mate. :beer: BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
I've just voted you a 1 for use of the term 'infiltrating Brits', it was the damned English! I'm Welsh and we were repressed by the English before Edward Longshanks got round to Scotland. Longshanks intention was to create a United Kingdom under his direct rule inclusive of England, Scotland, Wales and France i believe, but we were still all seperate entites at that point (with Northern Ireland not existing at all), wheras Britain is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The history of repression against the Welsh by the English extends even into this century when teaching the Welsh language was banned in schools and places couldn't be sign-posted in Welsh. And at least Scotland got represented on the british flag! I know it's confusing, but you'll probably find that any Welsh or Scots man (or woman) would be equally offended by being associated with the English, it's traditional to despise the prawn sandwich eating, shandy drinking gits. We're not particularly militant about it though, until it comes to sports or being called English, we just like to have someone to blame.
I was under the impression that Britain was England, Scotland and Wales. The UK was Britain, Northern Ireland and any current colonies or protectorates. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
-
This may be a bit of an inane question, but I'm really curious. A few years ago there was a little burst of films made about historic individuals who, by recent events and definitions, would be considered terrorists. E.G., Braveheart (Mel Gibson) & Michael Collins (Liam Neeson ?) These people used violence and fear to achieve a stated goal but have been represented by Hollywood as heroic freedom fighters, and lauded as such by the general masses who have based their knowledge of them and events surrounding them on these films. Given recent and current events in the world... Would these films still be made today? What might be the reaction to them in America? As we can see in these examples history is being challenged. What's the potential for a challenge to the subjective opinion of the masses on current events in the future?
Um, people here seem very confused about what a terrorist is. A terrorist is someone who intentionally kills innocent civilians as a means to further political agendas. Maybe I missed it when I watched the movie, but I don't recall seeing Braveheart killing civilians. If, historically, Braveheart did this, then that knowledge has never reached "the masses", so they can't be expected to think differently about Braveheart based on information that they do not know. ------------------------------------------ Well, let that be a lesson to you about going around throwing out bathwater without checking its contents first.
-
Not at all. I looked up Terrorist and Terrorism at Dictionary.com, and below have quoted you a couple of sources to demonstrate that there is nothing about intent in the meaning of terrorism or terrorist. You're applying a subjective viewpoint incorrectly and proved my point. It is solely a subjective point of perspective, so I'll ask my same three questions again? Would these films still be made today? What might be the reaction to them in America? As we can see in these examples history is being challenged. What's the potential for a challenge to the subjective opinion of the masses on current events in the future? Terrorist One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. Terrorism The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University This isn't a dig at anyone, I am curious as to whether we're currently in the process of re-defining the meaning or terrorism and terrorist to suit our current needs, and if in the future they'll be re-defined again potentially leading to a completely different picture being presented as per the films I used as general examples.
Sorry, but I'll simply say that the dictionary definitions are not accurate. If you think that takes some balls to stand up and say that, just remember that some person working for a dictionary company somewhere decided that was an adequate definition, and now we're all supposed to accept it. In any case, the thing that people hate about terrorists is their intentional targeting of civilians. If this isn't the "correct" definition of a "terrorist", then fine, we'll call them "politically motivated civilian murderers", and they would still be loathed. By this definition, Braveheart is not a PMCM. OBL is a PMCM. Rhys666 wrote: I am curious as to whether we're currently in the process of re-defining the meaning or terrorism and terrorist to suit our current needs People have always hated PMCMs, and playing around with the definition of "terrorist" to make it bigger or smaller doesn't make OBL's actions any more acceptable. We're judging OBL by his actions, not his label as a "terrorist". ------------------------------------------ Well, let that be a lesson to you about going around throwing out bathwater without checking its contents first.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Well, William Wallace (Mel Gibson in Braveheart) wasn't a terrorist. He was fighting the direct repression of the Scots by the English under Edward I. Well, Hamas isn't a terrorist organization. They are fighting the direct repression of the Israelis under Sharon. See the parallels? I think that's what Rhys666 was trying to hilight. -- Ich bin der böse Mann von Schweden.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Well, Hamas isn't a terrorist organization. They are fighting the direct repression of the Israelis under Sharon. You can fight repression and still be a terrorist. These are not mutually exclusive. Hamas is both. ------------------------------------------ Well, let that be a lesson to you about going around throwing out bathwater without checking its contents first.
-
Um, people here seem very confused about what a terrorist is. A terrorist is someone who intentionally kills innocent civilians as a means to further political agendas. Maybe I missed it when I watched the movie, but I don't recall seeing Braveheart killing civilians. If, historically, Braveheart did this, then that knowledge has never reached "the masses", so they can't be expected to think differently about Braveheart based on information that they do not know. ------------------------------------------ Well, let that be a lesson to you about going around throwing out bathwater without checking its contents first.
Given the era when Wallace existed, it would have been very unusual to have not killed women and children. I don't know that for sure, but such behavior was generally considered the norm at that time. The problem today is that Islam has not completely emerged from that sort of mentality. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
I've just voted you a 1 for use of the term 'infiltrating Brits', it was the damned English! I'm Welsh and we were repressed by the English before Edward Longshanks got round to Scotland. Longshanks intention was to create a United Kingdom under his direct rule inclusive of England, Scotland, Wales and France i believe, but we were still all seperate entites at that point (with Northern Ireland not existing at all), wheras Britain is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The history of repression against the Welsh by the English extends even into this century when teaching the Welsh language was banned in schools and places couldn't be sign-posted in Welsh. And at least Scotland got represented on the british flag! I know it's confusing, but you'll probably find that any Welsh or Scots man (or woman) would be equally offended by being associated with the English, it's traditional to despise the prawn sandwich eating, shandy drinking gits. We're not particularly militant about it though, until it comes to sports or being called English, we just like to have someone to blame.
>it's traditional to despise the prawn sandwich eating, shandy drinking gits. Must... resist ... urge ... to ... tell ... Welsh jokes... ;) Oh, OK, just one: Ivor the shephard is out on a driving lesson. "Can you make a U-turn?" asks the instructor. "Make a ewe turn? I'll make it's fucking eyes water!" says Ivor. And where does "prawn sandwich eating" come from? Never heard that one before Boyo! ;)
-
What happens with your definition when they target "collaborators"? :~ To play the Devil's advocate, one could argue there's no civilian in Israel, because any adult is part of Tsahal (I disagree with that). Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now I expect you to come back and say that make Israel, etc terrorist since civilians have been killed When boys throwing stones are killed by an obviously disproportionnate response, is this a terrorist act or is it legitimate?
Pushing little children, With their fully automatics, They like to push the weak around
Yes you point out some gray interpretations. Not everything is black and white. KaЯl wrote: What happens with your definition when they target "collaborators"? If someone is a collaborator I personally would not consider them innocent civilians anymore. They made a willful choice to join the group in question. KaЯl wrote: When boys throwing stones are killed by an obviously disproportionnate response, is this a terrorist act or is it legitimate? I do not condon the reaction you state and those involved in such cases should be held accountable so it is not legitamate. I will go back to the intent definition, So I do not think the soldiers responding went in to the area with the intent to overly react and would not call it a terrorist act. These are of course my opinions.
-
I was under the impression that Britain was England, Scotland and Wales. The UK was Britain, Northern Ireland and any current colonies or protectorates. "Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don't stare at it. It's too risky. You get a sense of it and then you look away." Jerry Seinfeld
My passport reads "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." To add in the colonies and protectorates the full title would be "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Commonwealth."
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar "On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
-
Exactly. As long as the other side in Iraq or anywhere else attacks American and local armed (security) forces they are called the resistance, not terrorists. I don't think even Americans have problem with this term and journalists even use this term. Terrorists target civilian targets intentionally. Tomaz
I agree. I have even stated that even though some of the tactics the Iraqis used against the coalition were forbidden by the Geneva Convention that because they were fighting armed invaders they had every right to do so. I know that if America is ever invaded I will use whatever dirty trick I can think of to fight back. But when they shift their attacks to civilians in order to get them to turn against the invaders they are engaging in terrorism. I have also said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And you need to pick your side and let the labels fall where they may. The only unacceptable thing to do is to try and ride the fence and pretend that both sides are "right". Most of these terrorists can be easily labelled as such and those whiny idiots that go to great lengths to explain how Al Queda is just a bunch of individuals fighting for their religion or how Hezbollah are just fighting for Palestinan independance are either blind or have a hidden agenda.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
Um, people here seem very confused about what a terrorist is. A terrorist is someone who intentionally kills innocent civilians as a means to further political agendas. Maybe I missed it when I watched the movie, but I don't recall seeing Braveheart killing civilians. If, historically, Braveheart did this, then that knowledge has never reached "the masses", so they can't be expected to think differently about Braveheart based on information that they do not know. ------------------------------------------ Well, let that be a lesson to you about going around throwing out bathwater without checking its contents first.
Brit wrote: A terrorist is someone who intentionally kills innocent civilians as a means to further political agendas Following your definition, Truman was a terrorist when he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima. I'm not sure it's possible to find an objective definition of what a terrorist is.
Pushing little children, With their fully automatics, They like to push the weak around
-
My comment - well done for making people think ! I won't say anything about what people should conclude from this, but leave it up to them. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Yes. let humanity think. This could be the best thing for humanity to do. I won't discuss other things that humanity might do, but some other things might be to not let humanity think. pc++;
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!