Wednesday, September 13, 2006
V
I recently watched a movie called "V - For Vendetta." It's a fairly new film based on a comic book - oops, graphic novel. It was pretty good. However, if you're a President Bush fan, you'll have a hard time enjoying it -- unless like some, you figure it's really about Maggie Thatcher in the 80s.
It's basically about a terrorist who works to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Britain through murder and mayhem. Of course, this is all good since the government is so obviously bad. Which brings up the question of how does one define a terrorist? And my answer is that it all depends on which side of the terrorists' activity you're on. If you were a tea exporter or Crown supporter in the 18th century, it pretty obvious that the bunch of radicals around Philadelphia and Boston should have been imprisoned with the key tossed - or is that have a rendition performed in defense of the Crown and Royalists everywhere?
It would be interesting to know how most Israelis consider her movement members from the late 1940s? How about French Resistance fighters from the 30s and 40s? After all the French government did fold after the German invasion, and wouldn't that make the Germans the legitimate party? And even stickier how about the Eastern Front during WW2? Who really were the bad guys? Troops led by Hitler who killed 8 million or troops led by Stalin who killed 20 million? Or how about the overthrow of the Iranian Shah? Was he really any worse than those who are now in power? Is a theocracy better than a republic? Do Christians really act any better than Muslims? Do you really want guy who figures some invisible being (who's views are interpreted as they see fit) should decide how you live? But that's wandering from my point.
The point being; who decides just what terrorism is?
