The smearing of "V for Vendetta" has begun (CNN) Solidad

Well, it didn't take long. Solidad and her "cutesy" comments in passing about "V for Vendetta" "Some say the movie gives terrorists...." I can't remember how she put it exactly but it was an inference that terrorists are being given a good name in the movie. I was so angry I couldn't see straight. She is doing exactly what the MSM was portrayed as doing in the movie.

Useless News and World Distort gave me a heads up about 'JFK' years ago. I never miss anything
the Right Wing Smear machine targets.

She is going to have someone on to discuss the repercussions of glorifying terrorism. :grr:

terrorists we honor with the title "Founding Fathers"?

But then, history is written by the winning side, never mind that George Washington had a commission in the British Army and thus was a traitor to country and King.

WAR?

Saw it. It was an excellent movie.

The media is playing with fire with this one. I hope they demonize the hell out of it. It only makes them look silly.

Hate Soledad, she is as worthless as Cutie Couric.

I don't understand why we would argue that point.

V is a terrorist. The fact that he is a terrorist for a cause we support is immaterial.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

definition, "terrorists". Terrorism is just a tool, sometimes used for good, sometimes for bad. The idea that all "terrorism" is bad is just a talking point for the fascists...

And am i a Fascist for asking that question?

read it to the end. This country was founded on "murder to make a political point." One man's "terrorism" is another man's "resistence" to oppression.

I suppose I don't care very much what his or her rationale is for the action.

And before someone asks the obvious question, yes that applies to the United States Government and our armed forces as well.

Bryant

I've read the graphic novel. Is the movie V totally sanitized?

I mean that's one of the interesting questions of the Graphic Novel, isn't it? Is V right or is V crazy or is he both.

Bryant

then?

I'm at work.

If it would be easier, I'll just acknowledge the point that nobody V ever killed was the slightest bit innocent and they all had it coming to them. But I think that castrates the whole point to the work.

I don't think that V for Vendetta is supposed to be easily digestable and simplistic. I know the comic book isn't supposed to be, and I'd be surprised if the movie was supposed to.

he's a terrorist, or any of your other posts on the matter?

He commits politic acts designed to create terror. He has to be a terrorist.

Do you see "V" as a simple heroic character?

If anyone causes anyone to feel fear are they terrorists?

isn't the whole point of the movie that Evie sees him as some sort of great man AND a monster at the same time. She's conflicted because of that dichotomy in his character. So, I think it's fair that if the movie asks the question of whether he's sane that we ask the question of whether he's in his right mind.

At the same time, I think it's very important to remember that he never hurt innocent citizens (in the film). I've never read the graphic novels, so I don't know if that holds true in them.

answers. :-)

But I'm cool with that. It's a popular position.

If it makes it more comforting to think it's about you personally, be my guest.

as you should. :) The movie really made me think on a lot of levels. I liked it, though there were parts where I thought it was a little over the top in its zelousness. In the end, though, I've spent a lot of time thinking about this film since Friday (when I saw it), and it's served a very important purpose because of that. It's definitely going to open up a lot of discussion about the nature of terrorism and fascism. Which is a positive! :)

Ah. Okay.

the night clerks in parliament?

If the government was warned a full year before that night and they refused to get people out of harms way, who would you blame? V? The government? Or both?

He got one of the station hands killed by dressing him up as himself, and he got that little girl killed by sending her the costume (so that she was gunned down). He also planted a bomb in the tv station - yeah, most people were warned to get out, but the core crew (dressed up as V) would have died, had the bomb not been defused.

For the most part, however, they nuetered V. Doing a comparison of the movie to the graphic novel at the website.

I will say that I find it simplistic to describe V as a simple terrorist or a simple hero. He is both a terrorist and a hero (the balance is better maintained in the graphic novel; the movie has him mostly a hero). That's one of the questions one has to deal with; how someone can be both a terrorist and a hero.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

try.

"Terrorism" no more equals "murder" than "death in combat" equals murder. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Simplistic, black/white thinking is sometimes a useful tool (like terrorism), but it should never be mistaken for realism. "Terrorism" is a relative term, and we all know it, it is just that our fascist leadership has (successfully) made the term into some kind of absolute, "good guy/bad guy" construct that, in reality, it never has been. "Lock-step" begins in the mind and must be fought against...

It's hard to figure out exactly what that tactic entails - an action designed to create terror (generally in the service of some ideological goal)? So assassinating your political rivals would be terrorism. Blowing up a bus to make a point would be terrorism. How about protesting around an abortion clinic and verbally abusing and threatening the woman visiting the clinic? How about throwing blood on someone wearing a fur coat?

Is killing someone for political purposes still murder?

Bryant

cannot lump all "terrorism", by anyone's definition, together as one thing. Murder is murder because it falls into the category "murder" by legal definition. All killing is not "murder".

"Is killing someone for political purposes still murder?" It only ever was "murder" if it could be proved to be so in a court of law. Some times running over a person with a car is "murder", some times it isn't. Was the killing of Saddam's sons "murder"? Maybe, but we will never know because there will never be a trial.

Is any act of "terrorism" always a crime? It depends upon who is defining "terrorism" and who is conducting the trial. I am sorry, but it just isn't simpler than that, not in reality...

So how does one judge a "terrorist" in your mind. I mean it's all well and good to say "Well I'll just leave it up to the judiciary to figure that one out" but I don't find that satisfying - and I doubt you do either.

As individuals who do we choose to support? Are there causes so important that the bomb thrower (or wearer) is justified?

Bryant

have thought...

I think that each of us (I know, at least it's true for me) have causes and movements that we support on ideological, moral, or even spiritual grounds. We are much more likely to give these the bennefit of the doubt, or to defend actions taken, than if the same actions were taken by people we were opposed to on the same grounds. That doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to excesses committed by persons or groups we support. I, for instance, supported the IRA, but still was against some of the actions they took (or were taken in their name). I support the Palestinians in their struggle against Israeli oppression and systematic violence, but I can never, never sanction children being used as "suicide" bombers. So even one's support for a group or a movement is not (or should not be) "black/white". In war, national armies kill civilians with impunity - they call it "collateral damage", but in reality it is no different than planting bombs in subways or flying planes into buildings. We like to say, "We don't target civilians, they just get in the way." And this is supposed be somehow "better" than saying it is "intentional".

Maybe, in the end, "terrorism" is like "art" - you know it when you see it...

atmosphere in this country or any other--the injustices--get to the point to where a "terrorist" act would be considered an option.

Go see the movie please.

Bryant, but I also think that they made a point in the movie that V tried to empty out all the buildings that he was blowing up. He wasn't interested in hurting anybody (well, other than the evil government people who intentionally hurt him and the population of Britain). Rather, he wanted to make a statement to get the people to start asking the important questions.

I do think that the issue of whether this movie glorifies terrorism is an important discussion, actually. But, I do think that the main difference between V and suicide bombers is that he had no interest or desire in hurting the innocent population of Britain. He didn't view them as his enemy.

Kurdish Freedom Fighters.

Terrorism is relative to which side you are on. American Revolutionaries, Gandhi, IRA, Kurds, PLO or a thousand others throughout history. There are always two sides to every coin.

but sometimes to make politics. That's just my read of history, even celebrated American history.

by definition. No matter what the cause you think you are fighting for, the deliberate targeting of civilian populations (which, by a non-state actor, is my definition of terrorism) is not acceptable.

and basically the one shared by the American Heritage Dictionary:

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
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.

as well as Princeton's WordNet:

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear


so it works for me.

qualify as terrorism, and probably the French Resistence as well.

Iwonder if you feel those examples live up to your definition of terrorism.

those were designed to install fear in a population in order to coerce change? no, the Klan was terrorism, it used violence, and the threat of violence, to force certain behaviour.

for La Resistance. well, certainly some actions would count as terrorism (lining up a collaborator and killing him and his entire family certainly counts) but most of the violence was directed against an occupying army, with the intent of forcing a change on that army, not the populace as a whole. In time of war, military targets are fair game. For the most part, violence by the resistance was aimed directly, and only, at Germans, that's fair, the violence against civilians, as mentioned above, is terrorism. The whole idea of killing collaborators and their families is to instill fear in others. thus, terrorism.

clear enough?

Weren't the slave uiprisings violent? Were they not intended to instill fear? Did they not seek change?

You say for the most part the violence of the French Resistence was aimed at Germans - but surely bombs could not be used without risk to civilians. Could they?

that when civilians were included it became terrorism? the resistance actually used more guns than bombs, as I recall, that was better targeting.

I don't think slave uprisings were intended to create fear among the slave owning population, they were intended to immediately free the slaves involved. If there were roaming bands who randomly went to houses and killed slave owners, then you would have a case, but that simply didn't happen. They weren't saying, in essence, 'if you don't do what we want, we'll kill more people' that's terrorism.

it can simply be the threat of murder.

you can do it on behalf of a state, but you cannot be acting in an official capacity. if you are acting in an official capacity, representing a State, it is either war, or a war crime.

A government that, for instance, supports dictators and their death squads, participates in the overthrow of democratically elected governments, and bombs 3rd world countries with things from cluster bombs to napalm is guilty of instilling the same kind of terror into its victims that a person acting alone could when, for instance, strapping on a bomb, driving a plane into the side of an office tower, or setting off a truck bomb outside a government building. To the victims, the results are the same regardless if it's Bush or Osama bin Laden.

terrorists use violence and intimidation of civilian populations to coerce change. You can, in fact, be a revolutionary without being a terrorist, as you can be a terrorist without being a revolutionary.

in which an individual takes on a repressive regime.

The difference here is twofold: When the Founders do it, it's history. When Keanu or Arnold do it in a movie it's science fiction.

V is more explicit in its politics and mirrors our world today.

-- now he's just a lump of protoplasm. I wish the same for the bush and his neocon buddies. Any who think state sponsored terrorism ain't really 'terrorism' is not really firing on all cylinders. Dead is dead. State killings are simply terrorist killings endorsed by more 'authority'. Whatever the hell that is.

Or are they not both evil?

Is fighting a massive oppressive regime with violence evil?

Unfortunately, not every fighter has the same belief structures with respect to killing, murder, and terrorism, so for instance, some may find it okay to round up soldiers of such an oppressive regime and have them executed on the spot, while others may find that abhorrent. Still others would advocate totally non-violent means of resistance, while still more would advocate reactive violent struggle instead of proactive violent struggle, choosing to attack only when attacked instead of launching unprovoked attacks.

The area is a gray area, which is why characters such as V are controversial. It's very easy to lose one's moral compass in conflict.

As for me, I would say all wars are evil. I reason that if everybody adopted the same stance as mine, nobody would be launching the first attack at all. However, because we don't live in such a world, we have to deal with war and oppression when confronted with it. The question is how. I can't give you an answer really because I am not sure what your own belief structures are. I can only make a determination for myself what is appropriate and what is wrong in carrying out such a struggle. Each and every one of us has to make that decision, and we won't come to the same conclusions.

There is a point where I would resort to open violence, but I have resolved that it will not come to that until all peaceful remedies have been exhausted. Only then would I feel justified in using violence.

There is a continuum of pressure one might imagine. One one end is such mild acts as writing your senator or a letter to the editor - on the other end one might place the deliberate murder of civilians to make a political point.

Writing a letter to the editor is pretty much justified no matter what - I mean you might write something stupid, but the act of writing the letter is pretty unobjectionable. On the other extreme, I can't imagine a cause so great that it would warrent the deliberate murder of civilians (I'll admit, however, that those who do engage in such behaivor generally don't see their targets as civilians. But I think I will use my definition of Civilian and not theirs).

Where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line? I don't know if there is a pat answer to that question.

Bryant

Now you decide that maybe it might not be evil, it depends.

Seems inconsistent to me.

Congratulations Mondo Joe - you have won. I have been defeated, and will no longer discuss this movie.

You are completely victorious! All Hail Mondo Joe!

Bryant

contentious.

...at Time-Warner aren't going to be too happy with her dissing corporate product.

when the film is number one ! An idea cannot be killed.

And y'know what they say... one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

LOL!
The Professor

Except the one thing these morons never learn is to just shut up. The more controversy they stir up, the more likely people will want to see for themselves.


Besides, who the fuck watches that crap in the morning anyway?

The Scoreboard: Friday, March 17
25-54 demographic:

Total day: FNC: 191,000 / CNN: 125,000 / MSNBC: 97,000 / HLN: 74,000 / CNBC: 54,000

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

What's even sadder is how few people in the money demo even watch cable news at all. More people walk by Macy's front window on 5th Avenue in NY the entire day.

There's that famous straw man again! Sure gets around, doesn't he?

I haven't, so I don't feel qualified to comment on it. Just asking because sometimes people jump to conclusions without really knowing the facts. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Just wanted to make that clear so you don't rip me. But I went to see "Syriana" and quite frankly, found it lacking. Maybe Ms. O'Brien felt the same way about "V for Vendetta." I don't know, just asking before we get into a blanket ripping session here.

prostitutes would not like it. It`s a dark movie that shines a bright light on how pitiful the main stream media is when they are totally controlled by crooked government leaders. And the movie points out how these creeps and their rich puppetmasters are going to use the fear of the bird flu among other things to keep the masses from rising up against their fascist rule.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

War would have been called "terrorists" by Bushco. Now they weren't strapping themselves with bombs and blowing up people...but Bushco thinks anyone who doesn't agree with him is a possible terrorist or terrorist "sympathizer." That includes Quakers and other peace activists.

Only the Corporatists and Lobbyist crooks like Abramoff get a free pass with Bush & Co.

is a lil over the top -- doncha think

Does no one care about the totalitarian regime? Who will protect the despots?

We both really really liked it. In fact, over the course of the next couple days we often would comment that we were thinking about it. Very good movie. Solidad is a slut and a whore for the government. A true CNN idiot. Another corporatist jackass.

GAWD that movie was great. I saw it last night, and will have to see it again.

.

You wouldn't know journalism if it came up and said "Hello, I'm Journalism!"

I can block her out and be none worse the wear. She's not a Journalist or an Anchor she's a glob of goo.

...the fix is in. Let them give the movie more publicity. It's such an obvious rip on Bush and his policies, they just can't stand it.


LOVED THE V!

how much longer until Gonzales goes after Hollywood?

"Remember, remember the fifth of November . . . "

;)

OK--I usually wait for the DVD. Guess I'll be forced to hit the theater.

However, I've checked out the cast. I'd probably pay to hear them read the London phone book.

the movie makes no bones about its opinion on repressive government.

The right wingers think it is about them, but IMO, it doesn't matter. Left wing, right wing, when they hit the extremes, you can't tell the difference. Read Animal Farm (sort of anti left) and 1984 (more anti right, maybe). Look at WWII. What most Americans don't see is that it was a titanic struggle between the left (communist USSR) and the right (fascist Germany). The real story of WWII in Europe played out on the Eastern Front. D-Day was kind of a desperate measure, because we were losing time. If we hadn't invaded by then, the Soviets would have overrun all of Germany, at least before we got in.

Europe knows, that's why they are basically so moderate. They remember.

I heard a promo where some Blondie McNewshead asked, "Does 'V for Vendetta' promote terrorism?"

That didn't take long.

:eyes:

William Tell, he only hated the Holy Roman Empire for it's freedoms.
William Wallace, the English had to fight him over there or they'd be fighting him over here.

I could go on all day.

Would love to have one of those Guy Fawkes masks--actually would love to buy several!

All that was missing was the big screen spread across times square.

Just depends on one's perspective.

Bake

without an ascendant corporate oligarchy, she's waitressing for a living

and thought it was great. It bares an eerie resemblance of how things could be headed in this country.

I wonder if there's some sort of right-wing institute where they learn these techniques.

There is a debate about the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, the movie has people talking. What I find amusing is that in the movie only the government called V a terrorist. I never saw him as a terrorist. I saw him as a monster that the facist, opressive government created and it came back to bite them in the ass. The facist government in the movie, who did everything "for your protection" took this man's life, took his mind and his body and then tried to kill him. IMHO he was just seeking revenge. I think the movie went out of it's way to portray him as less than sympathetic especially after what he did to Evey.
Oh and for those who want to know they followed the Graphic Novel about 70% and most people seem more suprised about what they left in rather than what they left out.

Great movie.

I hate that. "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say" "Some say"

Promoted to Faux 'News', that is. It's their catch-phrase, after all. "Some people say...."

The movie is a hit. People don't like the way this country is being run, & the film has connected with them in a big way. It doesn't mean that we want to be terrorists--it means that we despise the gang of fascists who are running our country. So stuff it, Soledad.

Tammy

Some would claim he could have been a hero if he were successful. It all depends on your perspective.

Found another good mask image that I just converted into an icon that works well with white backgrounds. The larger one is here in case you want it in your sig instead of your avatar.