?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A few words on Terrorism


terrorism




2 entries found.













Main Entry:

ter·ror·ism Listen to the pronunciation of terrorism

Pronunciation:



\ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

Function:

noun

Date:


1795



: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

ter·ror·ist Listen to the pronunciation of terrorist \-ər-ist\ adjective or noun


ter·ror·is·tic Listen to the pronunciation of terroristic \ˌter-ər-ˈis-tik\ adjective



I wasn't entirely sure if everyone knew the definition of the word. It's used everywhere nowadays - suicide bombings, 9/11, attacks on Muslim women in Islam. Yet I find that when the word is examined, you'll fine is often misused and its meaning perverted. Why is that? Simple.
Because terrorism modivates people. It gains support for wars, it empowers religious zealots, it breeds fear, and it impairs communicative understanding between peoples - a component desperately needed for peace.

So all that is needed is some well-formed hysteria and you can seperate certain people and rally others. You can incubate fear and motivate actions of a desperate and protective nature. Action where compromises are made in the name of general safety. Sounds a lot like terrorism to me.






So this conservative nutbar posts this editorial piece on the film "V for Vendetta" where he slams the film, its makers, actors, and even Hollywood itself for romanticizing acts of terrorism while drawing deliberate comparisons between our government administration and totalitarian fascism. He then uses the tragedy of 9/11 as a comparison to the graphic violence 'glorified' in the film. The defends this country to the hilt,admitting no wrongdoings at all as he berrates every aspect of the motion picture.

Ready to get sick? Check this out:



and you can read the article here


Here's the thing, asshat. First of all, if you weren't so cinematically myopic you would know that there was a lot more going on with V for Vendetta than a simple tale or anarchy. One who does not like or cannot follow the plot is still left with a visually stunning piece of heightened realitry cinema. That being said, it seems a bit short sighted to simply call the movie 'bad' on all grounds.

Second, I hate to break this to you, but that movie had nothing to do with our country directly. It was based on a graphic novella that was written in 1983, and was scripted in the mid-nineties. If simalarities are appearant, even to you, it is not the fault nor the responcibility of the filmmakers to soothe your overactive imagination or ease your paranoia. It also is not America is the film.

But since you're going to argue the 'American good, Hollywood bad' stand, let's explore your argument.

No, the 1700s America wasn't involved in suicide bombings. For the record, the 1700s Middle East wasn't suicide bombing either. We may not have called for assassination over political cartoons, however we have imprisoned over anti-war sentiment flyers. (Schenck v. United States) We may never have 'honor killed' women, but we did kill countless men women and children but purposely infecting them with smallpox (a willfull act of germatic coercion in peacetime, see definition of trerrorism at top of page.)

It should be said that I do not consider myself a feminist. However, to note that someone is attractive but that they disappoint by having a different opinion in not only smallminded, it implies that the purpose of the woman is to appeal. To be attractive. That in having an opinion, especially a contrasting one, is a disappointment. Nice attitude, dumbfuck.

Again it should be stated that there are no overt, implied corelations to our current administration. If you read the graphic novel, you would know that the film was following a story mapped out some 23 years prior. Yet I digress. Now I'm gonna get very elementary here. Try to keep up.

Yes, speech is free in this country. Unless of course you are in a declared free speech zone where you can be removed and possibly detained for speaking against the declared revelrie.

It must indeed be disturbing to a Christian to have your faith compared to Nazi-ism (which, for record, didn't happen.) However, to you yourself compare the practice of armed men entering the home of a civilian in the dead of night and placing the in detention center where they serve as medical test subjects for no ther reason that their religion or sexual preference as 'having traditional values' is utterly freightening. Your words, no one else's.

And pardon me, but the Left isn't supportive of the victims of terrorism? Are you mental? For the record, the ACLU doesn't endorse NAMBLA, they simply support the right of NAMBLA to exist, because as anyone with common sense MUST know, the second you begin impeding the rights of any group because they are undesirable then all freedom in this country is lost. Desire, as with acceptability is all perspective.

I would also like to say for a man who supports the discrimination of peoples and has no problem referring to people who different sexual or religious preferences as amoral, you maintain a fanciful concept of oppresion and bravery. I suppose it must be easy for someone who has never had to fight or risk rejection over loving someone, following a belief, or living your life exactly the way you choose to in a free country. I suppose it's much easier to perpetuate to very hatred and judgement that breeds said oppresion.





The very idea that you are comfortable using images of terrorism and 9/11 to perpetuate your bullshit propaganda trivializes the tragedy and puts you in league with the terrorist themselves. The fact that you would see so much threat in a film - - A FILM, which is a work of fiction says so much mopre about you and your place in this world that any silly little story. It makes me sick to know you wrap this hatred and ignorance is the title 'common sense.' Shame on you.

Comments

( 1 comment — Leave a comment )
jesus_h_biscuit
Feb. 15th, 2007 06:27 pm (UTC)
MMMM.... myopia...
( 1 comment — Leave a comment )