Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Question of the Day #63: Terrorism

Earlier this year, I rather enjoyed the movie "V for Vendetta", having read the book years before and not being disappointed by the movie adaptation. Before seeing the movie, I had read one bad review of it, but that review seemed to be giving thumbs down not to the movie itself so much as the concept of a movie hero that was essentially a terrorist. In the "post-9/11 world", this sort of hero had no place for this reviewer. I disagreed, and not even necessarily just on the level of artistic statement.

Is it possible that terrorism is ever justified?

Post a Comment


At 9/12/2006 2:46 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

To start, let me say that I also love the V for Vendetta movie, and I have read the graphic novel by Alan Moore multiple times.

Terrorism is never justified. However, V is not a terrorist. The terrorist(s) in the V for Vendetta story are the government authorities, like Susan (Satler in the movie) and Creedy.

V was only getting back at those who had wronged him. The government was the actual terrorist; the gov has terrorized V, and then used V's revenge scheme as a terrorization tool or propaganda piece to use against the general populace.

At 9/12/2006 4:42 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

I would agree, Aaron. The tactic of terrorism is used against civilians, not the government. V should really be considered as more of a guerilla fighter.

At 9/12/2006 6:44 PM, Blogger ryan maddox declaimed...

I think we all agree V for vendetta is a great movie. I'm yet to read the book.

Aaron, I'm have desrcibed your views on "apathetic anarchism"(I think it was called). Wouldn't fighting the state with violence go against those views?

At 9/12/2006 6:56 PM, Blogger Hellbound Alleee declaimed...

It is a movie, after all...

At 9/12/2006 7:28 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Yeah, the book/movie just uses those acts of violence as a metaphor for the struggle against government repression. In fact, V says that his acts of destruction are more about symbolism than they are about specific military objectives.

At 9/12/2006 7:51 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

I am against the use of violence for myself and those I am friends or allied with, but I don't condemn it when others do it.

At 9/13/2006 4:18 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Ryan Maddox,

Yes that is correct. I am against violence. Specifically, I condemn the initiation of violence as immoral, and I discourage the use of violent defensive acts when practical to do so (but do not condemn violent defense).

Regarding an anarchist revolution, I do not believe that violence should be used to eradicate government from society. My approach would involve vocal condemnation, and disobedience in the form of disengagement from government. Imagine a revolution based on apathy and disinterest.

So I guess you could say that I disagree with V for Vendettas message of violent revolution.

And yes, fighting the state with violence is CONTRARY to my strategy of bringing about an anarchist society.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up.

And still, V for Vendetta is a kickass movie just the same. ;)

At 9/14/2006 5:15 PM, Blogger breakerslion declaimed...

Guy Fawkes.

I guess it depends on your definition of terrorist. If the target would have no qualms sending troops to obtain your destruction, and if the target has the power and authority to do so, are you ethically bound to play by a higher set of rules? Be prepared for the consequences, either way.



Create a Link

<< Home