posted
I certainly thought he was. What other tactics besides fear/terror inducing methods did he use to manipulate things?
What I mean is, would he have been able to accomplish what he does in the movie without destroying/killing things?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
V was awesome. He was fighting against an unjust government, not just with bombings, but with words and persuasion of the populace, too. And he only killed really bad people.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
not exactly true. for instance, when he's at the tv station he kills a lot of the cops after him. those weren't all "evil" cops were they?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been awhile since I've seen the film or read the graphic novel, so my memory is sketchy. To my mind, he was not a terrorist although he used some terrorist-style methods...if that makes any sense. In the same way a private investigator is not a police officer, though he uses their methods and a car thief is not an auto mechanic.
I don't really remember him targeting civilians with murder. Whether or not the police officers were evil is one question, but they were undeniably not civilians either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My operating definition of "terrorist" isn't necessarily exactly the same definition as the dictionary definition, so that may be where we need to start.
To me, the World Trade Center, had no direct governmental connections despite being a financial hub so the act was much more clearly "terrorism"
If a plane had only crashed into the Pentagon, or even if one had made it in to destroy Congress, it would have been slightly morally different, to me. More like an act of war (even if Al-Queda isn't an actual government...I'm leaving that aspect of things aside) rather than an act of terrorism.
For example, while an act of agression for sure, Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, was a warlike act on a governmental target, rather than a terroristic act, in my current view.
I guess terrorism to me also has a wanton element to it, an element of randomness, it could happen to anyone or everyone.
V wasn't random whatsoever, and quite surgical and deliberate in his target selection. He never directly killed innocent bystanders that I remember.
He'd kill a guard or police officer, inhibiting from getting to his intended target but that's somewhat different.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: V was awesome. He was fighting against an unjust government, not just with bombings, but with words and persuasion of the populace, too. And he only killed really bad people.
Thats really all Osama Bin Ladin does isnt it? At least according to him.
I didnt think V was a BAD GUY, I just am not sure if I can completely sever him from the terrorist label.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a plane had only crashed into the Pentagon, or even if one had made it in to destroy Congress, it would have been slightly morally different, to me. More like an act of war (even if Al-Queda isn't an actual government...I'm leaving that aspect of things aside) rather than an act of terrorism.
It depends what sort of plane they use... if it's their plane and the only people on it are in on the attack, then that's different than a passenger plane full of civilians.
Blackblade, V didn't kill civilians.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
By this measure, V was clearly a terrorist, as he used violence against both people and property to intimidate a government for an ideological purpose. However, do I think he acted immorally? No. The difference between Osama and V, I would say, is that V is actually right. The people he is fighting are evil and corrupt and hurting innocents in order to stay in power. This is not the case with Osama (edit: since he has no problem killing civilans - I suppose one could make a case that our government is in some ways similar to V's, but the magnitude, at least, is quite different.)
Moral relativism is a bad, bad thing, kids.
edit: Katarain, we had a thread about this when the movie came out. I think it was general consenus that, even if V didn't *target* civilians, some must have died from the building explosions. And we know some were injured - for instance, the first civilian who was wearing a mask when the police break into the TV room.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the point of V in the graphic novel is that he will kill good people. He is a terrorist. He did consider anarchy a better situation than the perverted justice of his times. Moore wrote after seeing the script that the movie V was far too nice for his vision (and promptly disowned the movie, for that and other reasons).
edit: Moore didn't like V being made into more of a terrorist, either, but V in his vision was a terrorist, just a terrorist pushing for the sociopolitical ideal of anarchy; its the statist implications of V's terrorism that Moore seemed to be getting disgruntled at.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Dictionary.com defines terroism as:
quote: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.
By this measure, V was clearly a terrorist, as he used violence against both people and property to intimidate a government for an ideological purpose. However, do I think he acted immorally? No. The difference between Osama and V, I would say, is that V is actually right. The people he is fighting are evil and corrupt and hurting innocents in order to stay in power. This is not the case with Osama (edit: since he has no problem killing civilans - I suppose one could make a case that our government is in some ways similar to V's, but the magnitude, at least, is quite different.)
Moral relativism is a bad, bad thing, kids.
edit: Katarain, we had a thread about this when the movie came out. I think it was general consenus that, even if V didn't *target* civilians, some must have died from the building explosions. And we know some were injured - for instance, the first civilian who was wearing a mask when the police break into the TV room.
Your edit is pretty much what I was thinking.
Also if V HAD accidentally killed a civilian and found out about it what do you think his response would have been? And would that act of accidental killing suddenly make him a terrorist?
*Spoilers*
Certainly he was not near the buildings he blew up to make SURE no civilians were hurt, and he was willing to fill a train full of explosives and leave the actualy detonating into the hands of somebody he could not supervise (he died you see).
I guess that might make him irresponsible, not neccesarily a terrorist. But he does explain this action in that he is leaving the creation of this new world to those who will live in it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that's crazy, I just watched this movie for the first time 2 days ago, and your question was definately one of mine.
To me, the dictionary definition of terrorism is so broad as to be unusable. I mean, a U.N. resolution not recognized by the country targeted could practically be considered a terrorist act.
I lean toward the not terrorist classification for the same reason you did- he didn't deliberately target civilians in order to incite general fear and terror. He was basically waging war against the government and inciting a rebellion. I don't think that necessarily means he was terrorist.
As for killing people in building explosions, I suspect that no one was inside the first one due to the fake news reports claiming that it was a demolition. That wouldn't work so well if there were people inside. The only other building he blew up he gave everyone a years notice to be out of there. More than fair Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Wow, that's crazy, I just watched this movie for the first time 2 days ago, and your question was definately one of mine.
To me, the dictionary definition of terrorism is so broad as to be unusable. I mean, a U.N. resolution not recognized by the country targeted could practically be considered a terrorist act.
I lean toward the not terrorist classification for the same reason you did- he didn't deliberately target civilians in order to incite general fear and terror. He was basically waging war against the government and inciting a rebellion. I don't think that necessarily means he was terrorist.
As for killing people in building explosions, I suspect that no one was inside the first one due to the fake news reports claiming that it was a demolition. That wouldn't work so well if there were people inside. The only other building he blew up he gave everyone a years notice to be out of there. More than fair
*Spoiler*
what about the bomb he left inside the TV station after his broadcast?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl the "cops" if you want to call them such in this movie are most definitely *not* a standard American police officer type, so I don't know that it would bother you as much as it could.
The movie is set in the future in England, the police-ish types are police more in the "police state" meaning of the word than "officer of the peace" meaning of the word. These "police" will, inflict harm or voilence on civillians if they go out after curfew because it's what someone deserves for being out after that time. Most are portrayed as gun-toting thugs dragging people off to be interrogated at times.
It isn't intended to be any sort of realistic portrayal of anything. The closest comparison I could think of is the police in the Matrix.
posted
Farmgirl- I'm one of the most easily scared people imaginable (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban left me sleepless for a week) and I didn't find V too violent. There were some disturbiing scenes, but only one I needed to cover my eyes during. And there weren't any disturbing images that stuck with me.
V had to have known that someone wearing that masks would be killed and that their death would outrage the populace. I thought that was the point of sending out the masks, making himself impossible to distinguish was a nice side effect.
I think he was willing to sacrifice both his life and others for freedom. I left the movie wondering if I would be able to make those sacrifices, and whether they would be worth it.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a not a horror, by any means. I'd say it's a drama or thriller. While it's in some future, its not a distant future - all of the technology shown there is quite possible today, so I wouldn't really call it sci-fi.
posted
I guess it depends on your tolerance. V's killing people is very stylized and surreal from the get go. He uses two short swords, in semi-samurai sort of 3- musketteers style.
Blood does spurt occasionally. I had no problem watching it as far as the gore factor goes, but it wasn't particularly realistic IMO, I can watch the Blade movies also, because that sort of thing doesn't bother me... it's clear it's fiction.
The ones that get me personally are the ones like "We were soliders once" or "Saving Private Ryan" I can't do the gritty realism thing, at all.
Can't stand straight horror either, but it's becuase of the suspense and the soundtracks playing on my emotions, not the actual gore.
posted
aHA! I knew someone would start a thread about this and not search and find the other threads. Though I know at least one was on the OSC side. I can't remember if there was a legitimate one over here. Anyways, I won't get into the debate over whether he was a terrorist or not, I'll just say that I loved the movie. Got my paycheck on Tuesday and went out and bought it. What I love about it is the whole "you can't kill an idea" aspect of it. The power of an idea is fascinating.
And while it does have blood, I would definately not say it's too violent. It is intense in some parts, but nothing mind shattering. I think people should watch it just because it makes questions. It makes people think. Even if you only watch it once and hate most everything about it, it will still probably get you thinking.
Oh, and one last thing (spoiler): I'd be willing to bet that in both of the explosions (Old Bailey and Parliament), at least a few innocent people died.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched this movie over the weekend for the first time and I really liked it. I liked that while there were opportunities for gratuitous violence, gore, language, sex and nudity, there was none. It wasn't gory, there was little swearing, there was no sex or nudity, and while there was violence, I thought it was remarkably restrained.
*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*
One of my favorite aspects of the whole movie was that we never see V's face. Even after he dies, he is still the masked idea. This movie makes you think, not unlike 1984 makes you think. You have to consider the idea that government could become something insidious, that during a time of national hyper-sentivity and fear, society could embrace a figure that would create a police state that anarchy might be the easiest way to unite society.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you give the link to the thread on the other side?
Everyone that I've watched it with now, to a person says that V wasn't a terrorist for exactly the same reasons. So I'm not the only one who views the "civilian" vs "non-civillian" target as a defining line in terrorism, different from collateral damage.
In an interesting juxtaposition, I also happened to watch Lord of War this weekend. The movies were in some ways direct inverses of each other.
*SPOILERS* on Lord of War....
Lord of War has an arms dealer that refuses in general to actually kill people himself, and refuses to accept responsibility for his actions, always putting it on other people and attempting to maintane a distance between the two (although he doesn't always succeed) He has no idealology, and is so apolitical he'll sell arms to both sides of the same conflict.
He has no ideals and his amorality eventually causes him to lose his family, but he keeps his life and his business "because he's good at it" and for no other reason.
V loses his life but gains a family because of his ideals, and never was "because I'm good at it" anywhere on his agenda. He does kill people himself and accepts responsibility for their death, and realizes that what he does makes him an outcast to the world he wants to create.
posted
How do you determine who is a civilian and who isn't. Most of the people V kills are civilians by the normal definition of the word. A bishop, a doctor, a television announcer. He blows up the House of Parliment and totally wrecks the BBC. Even the cops he kills would not normally be considered non-civilians.
Are industry leaders civilians or not? Top researchers? Politicians? If they are legitimate military targets, is "getting" them accompanied by killing a bunch of actual civilians a case of collateral damage or terrorism?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, if you watched the movie, it was clear they'd all worked in a military/governmental capcity at some point in their lives (and in fact all at the same institution), and the black bagging cops and finger men are definitely pawns of the regime, not ordinary citizens.
The difference between the television comedian and the governmental television pundit was abundantly clear.
It is also clear that he held the citizens partially responsible for their freedoms being taken away because of fear. So in that sense everyone was guilty.
posted
Err...so non-civilians are anyone who was ever in the military?
Would it be a terrorist attack for someone to blow up our police stations if they thought they were pawns of our regime? Is Bill O'Reilly a legitimate military target?
If V's not a terrorist, what is he? A freedom fighter? If someone uses the same tactics to bring down a government in the service of another country that will then take that country over, what would they be?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not saying it well. All of the people who perpetrated the evils against V except one, had benefited from and were still heavily involved in the political regime. When I say non-civillian, in this case I guess I mean "outside the regime".
The futuristic State had become a One Party State not unlike the Stalinist/Lenninist regime in the USSR. The collaps of this State were from the inside out (with a little help from V) as was the collaps of the former Soviet bloc.
The futuristic government could be argued to be "terroristic" itself, as it was holding the populace hostage through fear and terror. Admittedly it was an originally consenting slippery slope downhill, but the fear that was generated to allow the consent to a totalitarian state, was caused by those who came to power in the totalitarian government.
If V was a terrorist then he was inspiring terror in a government that was committing genocide.
posted
This discussion is very much akin to asking if Robin Hood was a thief...
Though I suppose Robin Hood is a little more cut and dry thief, so perhaps was he an outlaw or a freedom fighter?
Were the vast majority of V's actions more or less altruistic and well-intentioned? Yes.
Were innocent people killed, harmed or exposed to harm because of his actions? Certainly.
If for no other reason than the TV station event he certainly did commit terrorist acts. He hid behind civilians, to the extent that at least one of them was severely injured (see hezbollah). He injured/killed a number of presumably uncorrupt police officers (even given that the fingermen and black-baggers etc were "evil" one cannot presume that every cop is willingly accepting of all the heinous acts perpetrated by the state. Else one of the main characters would have been a sham). And the security guard (who seemed well-natured enough) was at least mildly injured and potentially exposed to severe danger (I can't recall if he was actually shot at the moment).
This one incident is enough to consider him a terrorist. The rest of his actions can fall on either side depending on how you work the definition of terrorism, but I feel this one incident is fairly cut-and-dry.
Now you could still rule that he is inherently a good man, but a terrorist nonetheless.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh. Dr. Strangelove.... you see I didn't see the movie until it came out on DVD, this past week or so. And since I try to avoid spoilers it hadn't registered that those threads had existed.
posted
I guess I don't generally view civillians dying as "terrorism" if the target is legitimately politicial/military, they are collateral damage. War is all about Necessary Evil to begin with.
Putting a hospital over an arms silo is a dispicable act. Blowing up the arms silo and hence the hospital might be a Necessary Evil.
Blowing up a legitimate coffee shop or supermarket is different in my view. It serves no strategic purpose other than instilling fear, it doesn't limit casualties on either side, only creates more.
posted
BannaOj, I'm not sure how you get my comments there as making that definition of war. If each of those wars involved one/both sides dressing up civilians as combatants and shoving them out on the front lines at some point during the war then yes I'd question their legitimacy, but other than that I don't see a direct comparison. If you're talking about the fact that civilians inevitably get caught up in wars and exposed to harm then I would argue that in legitimate war it is a side-effect rather than a direct consequence of the actions in the war.
Additionaly, legitimate war has fairly clear rules established on who are combatants, what actions are appropriate or not etc... (it's not really that clear, but a lot more so than situations like V's)
Even if you use that stated definition of terrorism I would argue that a large portion of the population would be instilled with terror by V's actions. Even given that the regime was brutal there would certainly be a reasonable portion of the populous which would be fearing for their saftey for some of the following reasons: 1) Generally people who resort to blowing up buildings and using human shields aren't all that trustworthy. 2) As stated, V holds the populus partly responsible for all the evils which have taken place and could "legitimately" target anyone basically. 3) The government could easily start cracking down more, making the lives of the general populus more dangerous. 4) As a worker for the state (as most anyone in a totalitarian state like that would be) they could be exposed to harm. (Think of a random power-plant worker who could be killed or hurt or at least put out of a job should the terrorists want to use his workplace as their next target)...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: If each of those wars involved one/both sides dressing up civilians as combatants and shoving them out on the front lines at some point during the war then yes I'd question their legitimacy
This happens frequently to any losing side in any war. Does that make the winners terrorists? (I believe true "legitimate wars" are few and far between.)
You've got good points, and I'll think about them a bit before I respond.
posted
1)I agree as to their untrustworthiness, however blowing up the building didn't inspire fear in the populace but skepticism towards the regime, even if it was a nutcase getting back at the regime like they wanted to.
2) Yes, but a vendetta is a feud. A private war. Within that vendetta there were civillians as collateral damage. But his war was directly against those who had caused him harm first, and changing society was just a necessary step in totally destroying those who caused him harm. He understands that the populace isn't wholly responsible and that they were lied to at the outset to get the regime in place.
3) This happened, that isn't terrorism that you can directly blame on V. The government is still responsible for creating more fear, not V. The people weren't afraid of V (which they should have been if he was a "terrorist"), they were afraid of their government.
4) What you are arguing is an extension of the "independent contractor" argument from the Death Star II blowing up. Since there were doubtless innocent civillian independent contractors on the not quite finished, if functional, Death Star, did that mean that it shouldn't have been destroyed?
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, I don't think V views himself as good in any sense. I think he views his own life and actions as a Necessary Evil to compensate for greater evil done previously.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read all of this thread so I don't know how much ground has been covered, but I'll throw in my two cents. I think V is a terrorist, but not in the way most people think of a terrorist. One of the quotes from the movie is "People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people". I think V's aim was to instill terror (making him a terrorist), not in the general populace, but in the government. Notice how the purpose of V's video was not to frighten people, but to frighten the government. And, of course, the government does consist of actual people. One of the things I love most about this movie is it's treatment of the concept of 'an idea'. V was waging a war, idea against idea, not person against person. Idea's must have people behind them, so to defeat the idea you must also defeat the people propogating the idea (collateral damage possibly?), but the purpose of V's vendetta was to bring down an idea.
Of course, this somewhat falls apart when considering the murders V committed. Suttler, Creedy, and Prothero I can see as necessary, but not really the other's. So I would say V is a murderer, flat out, but I would add in my caveats when calling him a terrorist.
Again, apologies if I've just repeated others, but that's my take on it.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a more relevant question than "Was Va terrorist?" is "Should V not have behaved in the way he did?"
I, for one, think he behaved correctly. I think that many of his actions were morally wrong, but they were also necessary. I could not have been V, have done what he did, but if I had been a citizen of that country, I would have hoped for a V to free me.
Or maybe an even better question "Do you think the sacrifices V made, both of his own life and others, were worthwhile?"
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the book, the vendetta is a just a purloined letter to hide his real goal of overthrowing the government.
That's part of the problem that I have making this argument. The movie is significantly different from the book and I'm really attached to the book.
In the book, V is not a good person. He's not a bad person either. He is at most, a responsible person. He allows himself to be killed in the end for much the same reason that the Operative in Serenity acknowledges that he has no place in the society he's trying to create.
He tortures Evie and doesn't feel remorse. The reason he doesn't kill kill many civilians isn't that he's morally opposed to it, but that it wouldn't serve his purpose.
Also in the book, there's a whole level of rank and file party members who supported the government. Given that the movie presented a religiously oriented government, I think it would be fair to say that there would be plenty of Christian Coalition type groups supporting it.
---
Banna, Using that definition and the movie, I agree that V isn't technically a terrorist. The problem is that, by that definition, pretty much every military that has fought a modern war is full of terrorists.
quote:Blowing up a legitimate coffee shop or supermarket is different in my view. It serves no strategic purpose other than instilling fear, it doesn't limit casualties on either side, only creates more.
I'm not quite willing to grant that, but I see what you're saying.
What about blowing up various Microsoft offices, or Lockheed complexes, or the New York Stock Exchange? These would all be considered terorrist actions, but they have many more effects besides instilling fear.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not at all well versed in Batman lore, but I picture him as a vigilante, not a terrorist. Not a large enough scale to be considered a terrorist.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw Grimace re-reading, I think I mostly agree with you, however I think my specific quibble is that I still don't think the TV station incident was a terrorist act.
Oh and Robin Hood was definitely an outlaw and vigilante. By outward appearance the government he stood against was less legitimate than the government V was working against. However when you realize that V's government used genocide and illegitimate means to attain power, there is no difference, and if anything V's government was less legitimate than Prince John's government which had blood sucession going for it. (I've always found it ironic that the evil Prince John of Robin Hood legend was the same one that signed the Magna Carta IRL)
Maybe we could put V in the vigilante category, but I don't think even vigilantes are necessarily terrorists.
quote: Banna, Using that definition and the movie, I agree that V isn't technically a terrorist. The problem is that, by that definition, pretty much every military that has fought a modern war is full of terrorists.
Sorry Squicky I've rephrased my "definition" so many times I'm not sure which you mean, are we discussing the supermarkets and coffee shops?
Blowing up a Starbucks would be a fairly apolitical statement and a terrorist act.
I wouldn't blow up a grocery store, because of the people there, however I have no problem (in warfare) of going after the trains and trucks that deliver the food. It would be better to go after the military supply lines than the civilian supply lines if the two aren't mixed, but if they are, so be it.
I'm glad you mentioned the Operative in Serenity, I think there are a lot of parallels. There is the "underdog" inversion between the two though, that probably plays on us at an emotional level.
The Operative was the hand of the regime in power and operating from a position of strength and virtually unlimited resources, V was [typo edit] in exactly the opposite position.
Also I've never read the book so that definitely convelutes the issues.
posted
BannaOj, I agree that we probably aren't in that stark disagreement on that issue, but only a little to either side of our respective lines.
I think you made some good points in contrast to mine, but I still think there is at least some potential for validity with some of them.
2) I'm not saying that most people would think they were the next target or that V intended to attack them. However, I do think his actions at the TV station would raise the thought at least in the back of people's minds that they might potentially be involved just like those TV people were. And/or there is always the question of where you draw the line: sure there are some prominant party members or obviously immoral fingermen that are seemingly valid targets, but what about the grey areas. What about the "detective Gordons" (batman begins) who are in a position to see some of the corruption but do their daily job with the despair that they don't see anything they can do about it. What about the people that campaigned for the chancellor with or without the knowledge of what was actually going on at the camps etc... How far down the line will V claim my responsibility for these evils? These are the kinds of things I see going through at least some civilian's heads.
4) While the civilian contractor issue is a valid comparison there is a world of difference between working on a clearly military project and working on a civil project. As a defense contractor I honestly do see myself as a somewhat valid target were an enemy attack to ensue. I clearly work in a function to advance our country's military capabilities (even if that's not the majority of my work) and therefore I'm making a choice to work in a potentially dangerous industry. However, when a news anchor signs up to work at a TV station, they are not signing up for the same dangerous life.
I'm definately not saying that everyone would feel threatened by V's actions, nor that V necessarily intended to terrorize the general populous, but I do think he would have known that at least some portion of the innocent population would be hurt/scared by his actions.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is a grey area. It probably does depend on order of magnitude, not in the majority rules sense, but was the greater part of the population trembling in fear because of V or fearful because of the government.
I think terrorism has to cause near universal, well "terror" a gripping fear that leaves one powerless to cope or to transcend. Remember Evie was "always afraid" because of the government, not because of V.
V and Evie both did transcend their fear. And we have records of people throughout history that did transcend similar fears. But it took inhumane measures to do so. I suspect that transcendence is the exception rather than the rule even in the inhumane situations. That's why we need the trancendent stories to inspire us and give us hope.
In a totalitarian regime I don't believe there is much difference between a "civil" project and a "military" one. The TV anchor reading what she knows to be government manufactured lies is equally as culpable.
posted
I tend to believe that a contractor's personal politics have to come into play heavily when they are choosing jobs.
Any contractor working on that Death Star knew the risk involved. It's their own fault. A contractor's got to listen to his head, not his wallet.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rebellion was supposed to have been wiped out. Wasn't supposed to be a lot of risk on Death Star II. .... Squicky you have seen Clerks right?
posted
Banna, That was a near direct quote from Clerks. A contractor breaks into the conversation to give his opinion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
