V for vendetta

I have not seen this movie, but Fox news and CNN both had stories on the movie about how a terrorist is protrayed as a hero. Some find it in poor taste.

What are your thoughts..

I think my catch line below the topic says it best.

imdb link

Trailer

Looks like a nice flick. Anyone seen it?

As for the terrorist thing, I think what you said sounds pretty reasonable.

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

Yeah the thought of him being a terrorist is reasonable, but to think
that it shouldn't be show because of that is not at all. I think its
more or less trying to show it as person fighting for rights? not a
terrorist.

---

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8521/windows981dk.jpg

Nickelplate is my dad

Terrorism, isn't always some kind of civilian killing madness - see
"The Angry Brigade" circa 1960s Britain, and quite often has legitimate
complaints. Can't be arsed to wade into a debate over it, but it's an
old and complex social phenomenon.

Besides that, the comic is way older than mainstream Islamic
fundamentalism, so had little or no bearing on events pertaining to the
2001 attacks on America. Judge the movie on its merits as a film and a
conversion to screen from an old (and excellent) DC Comic story,
nothing more.

V for Vendetta was written and published about twenty years ago. But, Alan Moore has a way of writing improbable situations and making them reflect the current and future world for many years.

I love V for Vendetta. There were things that were changed in the adaptation to make it more "current", but, it still stands as blatant fiction. If you see the context of the G.Novel/Film, it makes much more sense. It doesn't approve terrorism, but rather reclaiming your own rights. (U.S. Revolutionary War, would be a proper comparison)

If someone does Watchmen right, I'll be very happy ... but ... the content matter is so f**king close to 9/11 even though it was written 20 years before 2001. People will no doubt make that connection because it's the only thing they can see. As a whole, audiences lack the ability to see a film for more than face value, that's something that's bugged me for a long time.

Fox and CNN are by far credible news sources anymore. That and, they're playing on this idea as a tactic. Nothing more.
Also, EVERYONE who knows this wonderful story have known for over a year (or so) that people would react this way, simply because of the core content matter.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I want to see that movie, looks really good.

[size=32]V For Verdana :razz:
<br style="font-family: Verdana;">V For Vendetta: 8/10. It was a really solid and quite inspirational if you can look past the improbability of a lot of it. It was a really kickass flick with intelligent dialogue by 'V'....also, I was unaware of it till I looked on IMDB, but Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith) plays the role of 'V'...also...the script was written by the Wachowski Brothers (Matrix trilogy) about 9 years before The Matrix came out.....The Matrix....Wachowski's....Agent Smith....Hugo Weaving...V.....there are no coincidences (also a them in the movie :smile: ).....................<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">And yes, back on topic....while watching it I became aware of how it was like pro-terrorist.......I thought it was rather humorous, as most movies are the opposite. I wouldnt call the movie groundbreakign in any way, but definately a fun romp. Kinda reminded me of:<br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">Fight Club in a way.....anyone agree? I am of course referring to the ending...how it is like pro-terrorist in that the building(s) blow up at the hand of some one speaking out against what they believe in</span><br style="font-family: Verdana;"><br style="font-family: Verdana;">I would recommend dis moveh.[/size]

If I find myself at the movies sometimes soon, I'll go watch this. And Crono, the U.S. Revolutionary War was exactly what I thought of when I read the subtitle to this thread.

"Raging against the machine" and "stickin' it to the man" is not the same as terrorism.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

here is our governments(the usa) definition of a terrorist

in section 802 I have copied it from the document

the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

so i am a terrorist

How do you figure?

Meh, he's one of those ultra-liberal goofballs that wants to change everything... :biggrin:

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

um no actually we want to keep the rights our government is trying to steal

by our governments standards if you get a speading ticket you are a terrorist

but only if you're in the united states

Having rights are a good thing to have. I don't like that "patriot act" deal. It leaves me with a butt-ache.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

no that's from your boyfriend

just playin

but yeah that was retarded, and that was only 1 of the 2 they tried to pass

they are trying to take our rights and our ignorant citizens are
supporting them because they're to stupid to think about what is
happening

oh boy... I just can't wait for the Reich!!

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

It's rated R... can't see it yet.

I wondered after I saw the movie as to what we're supposed to take away from it. Perhaps I only have this perspective because I live in the Bay Area and am regularly exposed to liberal ideas over the internet, but it seems to me that the gist of it - all that rebellion and never give up your individuality and all that - is pretty played out.

I really liked the Matrix because it adressed issues of individuality versus "the system" and eventually got past that: Revolutions questions the value of individual identity, asks what it is and what it means, rather than taking it as something grand and romantic to fight for.

V was a good movie. The explanation of the backstory was kind of patchy: it wasn't given to us as a string of clues leading up to a realization of what really went on, but in awkward chunks, some more significant or relevant than others. Other elements seemed a little too simplistic: Portman's character is extremely credulous and naive, and that V "fell in love with her" seems very token - it doesn't really fit except in the sense that we're watching a Hollywood movie, and somebody has to fall in love with somebody in a Hollywood movie. The assistant to the High Chancellor or whatever the office was actually taking the Chancellor to V was stupid. And overall, stepping back from the romanticism of the characters and wondering for a minute what V really accomplished by destroying the government and himself in a grand act of martyrdom: who will lead the nation? Who will actually give out the vaccine that apparently infected the rest of the world? Now that Portman no longer has a government to fight - one that she was conditioned to fight and built her whole life around fighting - what will she do?

Sadly, V for Vendetta doesn't really consider such questions. It espouses a romantic revolutionary spirit that does not pause to consider practical or realistic concerns. That isn't a problem with the film as a piece of art - that's a problem with the fact that it encourages the audience to adopt the anti-authoritarianism it puts across, though of course not in such an extreme fashion as V does - and a problem with the fact that people do and will buy that philosophy or something similar.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Sadly, V for Vendetta doesn't really consider such questions. It espouses a romantic revolutionary spirit that does not pause to consider practical or realistic concerns. That isn't a problem with the film as a piece of art - that's a problem with the fact that it encourages the audience to adopt the anti-authoritarianism it puts across, though of course not in such an extreme fashion as V does - and a problem with the fact that people do and will buy that philosophy or something similar.</DIV></DIV>

maybe when they adapt The Green Lantern it'll live up to your philosphy-injecting-movie standards, cass. =P

..or maybe it'll be another adaptation of a 20-year-old DC comic. meh

Real Americans would consider their rights more important than their safety. As if any of this crap the Bush administration is doing is making us safer anyway.

It's a great graphic novel, I'm going to see the movie this afternoon. I don't think you have to consider V to be a hero necessarily. While the government in Vendetta is corrupt and evil, I don't think the story necessarily pushes the idea that V himself is "good". He's monstrous in his own ways.

The Watchmen was fantastic, one of my favorite stories ever.

---

it seems to me that the gist of it - all that rebellion and never give up your individuality and all that - is pretty played out.

but in a way, didn't V totally give up his individuality to his cause?

I think the problem is that everyone wants to see this as purely good vs evil and whatnot. If you've read other stuff by Moore like Watchmen you would understand that he likes to play with ideas of morality, and with ideas of whether doing terrible things toward a good end is justified. Moore has written stories where the bad guys win, and possibly for the best, so don't try to look at Vendetta as a black and white, good vs evil story because it certainly is not.

Funny that you should mention Alan Moore, who was apparently so dissatisfied with the film's representation of his work that he had his name removed from the credits. Perhaps I was unable to grasp the moral complexities Moore suggested in the graphic novel because I watched the movie - which, as I suppose Moore's decision would imply, is an entirely different work, and which, I would say, did not pose any of the questions I mentioned. Rather, it simply glorifies V's violent romanticism as just without considering its repercussions.

I have read The Watchmen, by the way. I apologize if my post that made no mention of it suggested that I hadn't.

Alan Moore doesn't see any adaptations of his books, period. So, it has nothing to do with dissatisfaction, although, this is the first movie adapted from one of his works that was actually ... faithful. On the other hand David Lloyd apparently loved it and thought it captured the characters well. (google for interviews)

[SPOILER GALORE (Movie and Graphic Novel)]
I think that, generally, the film was toned down. Not in violent content (it's technically more violent than the book), but they toned V down. In the book he kills EVERYONE he comes in contact with except Evey and the Inspector. This, coupled with the order things are revealed in the book make V a very menacing character. You pretty much identify with him very little (which is why Evey is present throughout the book).

Something else they changed that really drastically changes the interpretation upon viewing is the circumstances of what and when things happen. The reason imprisons Evey and "set's her free" is far different in both versions: Movie, because ... he has no one else to do it to? I'm not really sure since it's not particularly apparent, probably along the lines of "there are no coincidences". Book: she shows compassion for V, by attempting to Murder someone (Creedy, if you're wondering) after she explained (loudly) to V she wasn't going to be involved in any killing. It kind of changes the reasoning based on situation.
[/SPOILERS]

As for some of your "complaints" Cass, the book really defines all the characters, and they're transfered well onto the screen. However, I really think people who've already read the book will have some advantage in enjoying the movie over people who haven't, since the characters are already familiar and the worst thing you think is: "It's a shame they didn't flesh out that character more, because I really liked them in the book", it doesn't make the movie confusing (in any aspect) and overall you realize they both have the same message.

On a side note: I love Watchmen, far more than V.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

So your allowed glorified American war films killing "terrorists", but when it comes to the other side its evil? Please... The yanks deserve a lot of what they get- they've been bombing people in Iraq since the first war there, and thier only desire is all the money in the world.

Hardly suprising that the corporate country that is America would disagree strongly with anything that attacks its ideas- just like adverts.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

wtf myrk? where'd that come from?

hijacking a few passenger airplanes and smashing them into various populated buildings is only a terrorist act in america's eyes? it's one thing for someone to commit terrorism when it comes to political/government views, and quite another when it comes to commiting terrorism because your god said to. (god forbid american women waltz around scantily-clad.) radical islam is terrorism by anyone's standards but radical islam's.

if the USA marched into afganistan and iraq to take control of their government without the pretense of halting terrorist and/or dangerous activity, then maybe one could justify attacks on the USA. however, that's not the case. we responded to an immediate threat in afghanistan, and nipped hussein's murderous government in the bud before he had the capabilities to continue his genocide with WsMD. (one reason. one of many for entering iraq.)

...if we're looking for all the money in the world, why is it we're plunking billions of our own dollars down the hole for this war? many would think we're gonna procure some of the richest oil fields in the mideast as our spoils, but you know who's going to keep and make profit of those fields in actuality? the iraqis. and as far as rebuilding contracts go, it wasn't just american companies in line.. but hey, "desiring all the money in the world" is easily confused with "desiring peace and security from the middle-east even at the immense currency and mortality cost."

..i can just hope you meant to add sarcasm formatting with that post and simply forgot, myrk. because then maybe it'd make a lick of sense.

Don't worry, he's reactionary for the sake of being reactionary :razz:

Although -

and nipped hussein's murderous government in the bud before he had the
capabilities to continue his genocide with WsMD. (one reason. one of
many for entering iraq.)

Rubbish :razz: the United States and the coalition forces went to war with
Iraq on the basis of bad intelligence, lies and speculation. None of
the reasons they tout now ("we got rid of a tyrant!") were in their
causes when the war started.

Whatever you think of being in Iraq, the current situation in Iraq and
the ethics of war, there is no denying the face the US/UK/etc
governments went to war on a pack of fabricated rubbish and changed the
reasons after.

fabricated reasoning and reasoning based on misinformation are very different things.. hussein's own generals believed there were WsMD when they had already actually been destroyed. if the country shows every sign of having WsMD up until you threaten to invade, when they suddenly denying it, something naughty is probably afoot. especially when they deny inspectors to properly search all facilities.

even if there are zero WsMD, there was more than enough reason to believe there were. gotta wonder what would have happened if he actually did have the capabilities to launch attacks on neighboring countries.. $10 says the USA would have been found guilty in the court of public opinion for not acting on the intelligence.

"Tonight on CNN: Special Report: USA had intelligence outlining Iraq's capabilities prior to attacks. ..In other news, Bush is a poopyhead."

That's just it though, large portions of the UN presentation and in
Britain, "the dodgy dossier" were outright lies - and they knew it too!

As for it being a reaction the attacks of 2001... hello! Iraq has no links to al Qaeda and actively disagrees with the group...

Anyway, this ground has been covered too many times before, so I won't get into a discussion on it.

also, i concede that the pretense of WsMD was emphasized when entering iraq.. who is going to join the US in a war to protect primarily itself? WsMD showed that he was a danger to everyone.. kinda backfired, seeing as how that huge figurehead kinda fell apart. bleh.

<div class="abouttext">Message submitted 1 minutes after original post:</b></div>

Gwil said:
That's just it though, large portions of the UN presentation and in Britain, "the dodgy dossier" were outright lies - and they knew it too!

As for it being a reaction the attacks of 2001... hello! Iraq has no links to al Qaeda and actively disagrees with the group...

Anyway, this ground has been covered too many times before, so I won't get into a discussion on it.

agreed.

climbs back into hole

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

yet who knows if the US gov't knew the plane crashes where going to happen beforehand?

hm...let's see

about 911:

• Norad standing down on 911, fake terror drills- documented.
  </li>
• Executive Order 199i where bush called the FBI off of binladen months before 911
  </li>
• The fbi and cia training at least 9 of the hijackers, documented pensacola airforce base
  </li>
• Bush inaction after the first crash
  </li>
• bush's continued inaction after the second
  </li>
• I could go on and on their are so many red flags</li>

<span class="postbody">

heres some other reasons our gov't is s**t:

</span>

• "We can't be so fixated our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." -Bill Clinton
  </li>

In 1917 it was brought before the House of
represenitives that at that time the top twenty five media outlets were
all being bought up and conglomerated into larger and larger groups,
but keeping the old names as if thier opinions would still differ as
they did before. what you then have is a group of media that are all
owned and operated by a select group. This group is of course closely
tied with the politicians at capital hill. The news we hear about are
only the stories that they could not keep quit. The real stories the
main stream doesn't cover because they are told not to. Today our media
empire are all interconnected, check it out its easy to see. So when
all the media is controlled by a select and small group only the news
they want to get out will get out, and the stuff that is coming out on
bush is mearly the stories that they could not hold back.

• here are two quotes
  </li>

Richard Cohen senior producer CBS "We are going to impose our
agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects we choose to
deal with."

Richard Salant former Pres CBS "Our job is to give people not what they want but what we decide they ought to have."

<span class="postbody">(that means that our gov't decides what we deserve to hear on the news, which is why the only part i believe is the weather)</span>

Believe it or not but Joe Public is as stupid everywhere else as it is in America.

---

Ham and Jam Contributor
http://www.hamandjam.org

'Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!'

Saw the movie.... the first 15 minutes sucked, but it was quite good when it got going. I'm not crazy about the ending, though, as compared to the graphic novel. Although they did an amazing job on some parts, such as when Evey is in 'prison' and receiving notes. That was just an amazing sequence.

Anyway, if you liked the movie, go read the graphic novel, too. As good as the movie was, the novel is better and fills in a lot that had to be cut in a two-hour movie.

---

EDIT - just plain sick of bitching about the Bush administration. if someone is too stupid at this point to see how corrupt and incompetant they are, they aren't worth talking to.

For me, V prompted this question: to Fatstrings and all those who think along similar lines, what are you doing? If you honestly believe that the American government allowed or encourage terrorists to attack Americans, what are you doing writing about it on the internet? Shouldn't such extreme action invite outrage or protest beyond the formulation of conspiracy theories?

i'm not trying to show you a conspiracy "theory" the fact remains that
it is quite possible our government could have stopped these attacks

another such incident is the Oklahoma City bombing where the government
just happened to give the bomb squad the day off and for some reason
gave the public innacurate information about the bombing, such as how
it was bombed and where the bombs were placed/detonated

i am not just making this up it is all documented fact

you must remember that our president is a member of the skull and bones
(yes the organization that the movie The Skulls is about) yes it exists
though the movies got alot wrong

the skull and bones are an occultic fraternal
order at yale were they
have to take an everlasting oath to each other that would suppersede
anyoath of office they may take in the future, just like freemasonry. i
might add that bush and kerry are both members and happen to be of the
same level as they are of the same year, in fact kerry was nominated
into the order by bush senior, hm the plot thickens

i remind you these are all facts

So your allowed glorified American war films killing "terrorists", but when it comes to the other side its evil? Please... The yanks deserve a lot of what they get- they've been bombing people in Iraq since the first war there, and thier only desire is all the money in the world.
Hardly suprising that the corporate country that is America would disagree strongly with anything that attacks its ideas- just like adverts.

WOA there, your way outta line. Lets not confuse this movie with your Anti-America agenda Myrk.

I love how people can say we yanks deserve to have our innocents killed because we are consumer based society. Lets face it is America was to just go poof tomorrow, your country and the rest of them would just die off slow painful deaths. America supports the world. We are the Super Power. And you can just be mad as hell that we are all you want.

We have been bombing people in Iraq, no we have been bombing terrorist and attacking militia in Iraq, not only to protect American lives but lives of everyone in the world. We are also dumping billions of dollars into iraq rebuilding schools, and hospitals. I love how a closed minded fool like yourself can watch the news and assume that what he sees is the only truth. We do a lot of good over there. So I take great offence to you saying we deserve it.

As for all the money in the world.. We already have it. We could buy your country, and iff not we could nuke it off the face of the earth and wait tll it was ready to be re populated, so just stop acting like America has some hidden agenda and we are the bad guys of the world.

wow

Funny enough Money I think your last comments may just prove Myrk's point.

---

Ham and Jam Contributor
http://www.hamandjam.org

'Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!'

Naw.. where one could, and one does are two different things.

but I see your point of view.

<span style="color: lightblue;">man you sound like a stuck up asshole america

i can certainly understand why people from other countries would feel the way Myrk does MS

it doesn't surprise me at all

i mean look at Bush who is pushing so hard for us to ruin natural habitats and drill oil in Alaska

don't get me wrong i'm not a true greeny but hey it's their world too

be reminded that Bush is an oil tycoon, hmm...where do his motives lie?<br style="color: lightblue;">
</span>

fats, your starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theoriest. More and more like a nut job too me.. there are hidden agendas in the shadows look out.. oh my god.. Next thing you'll be saying im a Goverment plant here to suck out your brain.

I will admit Bush has not been the best President in american history, but he has not been the worst either. Dont judge the American people buy one mans actions. Look at the polls, the majority of America doesn't agree with Bush..

And I understand it as well.. But for him to say innocent people deserve to die is a load of crap and wrong no matter what he believes.. if he is gonna take that stance then he would also have to believe that the Iraq people had it coming to them as well, hell after attacking their neibors, flying planes into our twin towers etc etc..

And I am sure there is some evil his country has pulled off that would also make it deserved to get something nasty to happen to it.. do you see where I am going..

One more thing, the Attacks on the twin Towers was an attack on the world. every country had people in there.. so this was not just an attack on America.. lets not forget that.

EDIT: yeah I am a stuck up American Asshole, so what?

not anymore they don't agree with bush

and sorry if i lay this stuff on a bit heavy

but i live in an area of the united states where half of the populations is illiterate

i am actually persecuted by some for being catholic (i live in the buckle of the bible belt)

and our average citizen votes straight ticket for republicans no matter what

i know a family whos 6 year old granddaughter tore down a kerry sign
because it was in her grandparent's front yard with now prompting from
her family

that is sad

if i sound like a conspiracy theorist to you that's your problem
these are the facts and i feel that a true american citizen would take
the time to look into this kindof thing

if you understand what i have to live with every day you might understand why i get pissed about this kind of thing

WOA there, your way outta line. Lets not confuse this movie with your Anti-America agenda Myrk.

I love how people can say we yanks deserve to have our innocents
killed because we are consumer based society. Lets face it is America
was to just go poof tomorrow, your country and the rest of them would
just die off slow painful deaths. America supports the world. We are
the Super Power. And you can just be mad as hell that we are all you
want.

We have been bombing people in Iraq, no we have been
bombing terrorist and attacking militia in Iraq, not only to protect
American lives but lives of everyone in the world. We are also dumping
billions of dollars into iraq rebuilding schools, and hospitals. I love
how a closed minded fool like yourself can watch the news and assume
that what he sees is the only truth. We do a lot of good over there. So
I take great offence to you saying we deserve it.

As for all the
money in the world.. We already have it. We could buy your country, and
iff not we could nuke it off the face of the earth and wait tll it was
ready to be re populated, so just stop acting like America has some
hidden agenda and we are the bad guys of the world.

I think you're insane. You're the pompous dick that represents America
in the eyes of the rest of the world. I bet if America went poof
tomorrow, we would all prosper due to the fact that we're not having
our asses bombed for no good reason.

I live in El Paso TX where they vote straight Democrap. I am a minority here because I am white. the average person here cant speak english, and the choosen religion here is Catholic. Maybe we should exchange houses. Do you like Heat, and the color brown?

One mans facts is another mans rubbish. For every fact you toss out there, I am sure there is a counter fact. just because you say they are facts and can point to some web page does not make it true or fact.

I am niether republican, nor democrat. I see myself more as an independent. I vote for the best man/woman for the job reguardless of political sides. I honestly think both sides are so far gone that its time we had a 3rd party come in and have a chance.

No fats I dont really.. I tend to think that everyman has his burden to carry, and as self absorbed humens we tend to think our situation is far worst than the guy next door. So forgive me if I dont cry you a river. I however would try to help lift you up out of your personal hell there if I could.

By the way Bugs was always Sexy in a dress.. ( loved Waynes World ).

We have really strayed off topic here huh. lol love how that happens.

EDIT: French.. LOL, yeah I maybe a Pompous dick, and I bet somewhere along your history path, we saved your country from something.. maybe the Nazis. Didnt hear you complaining then. Gotta love how everyone thinks we are bombing the world.. lol thats very funny. Your more likely to be blown up by a Iraq terrorist than an America. Oh and if your all commenting on that huge Air strike thats all over the news.. That was An Iraq Army operation that we assisted with, as did the UK and other world armies. But yeah lets paint the US as the big bad guys once again. And you say Bomb for no good reason.. thats a laugh.. your a riot man.

Okay, I'll admit I was lying when I said bombing for nothing. I shoulda said oil.

Here's the deal:

All you liberals in america want to beleive that nothing we are doing was supposed to happen. You don't ever talk about the fact that we DID find links between Osama and Saddam.

Even if we DID attack saddam's regime for selfish reasons, aren't you glad he's gone all the same?!! YOU didn't have to pay anything for it, WE did it. Sure we may have made some bad decisions and did things with shady intent, but what's done is done, just be glad that we got some good things done in the process of our wrongdoing. I don't like war, or being lied to any more than anyone else. But I don't mind being lied to if it means lower gas prices or if t means that some prig over there is stopped from killing and raping and terrorizing.

Everyone thinks that we are just bombing indiscriminately for our own gain, but there's not a country in the world we haven't saved in some capacity. Nobody wants to thank us, they just want us to make things better and to feed off our once-strong economy. Then whenever we do something that you don't think affects you in any way, you want to criticize us for being big bad bullies. If it "doesn't concern" you so much, leave it the F alone.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

For the love of God:

then he would also have to believe that the Iraq people had it coming
to them as well, hell after attacking their neibors, flying planes into
our twin towers etc etc..

There is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Iraq has attacked it's neighbours before 1990. Remember the war with
Iran when 1m+ died? The Americans encouraged and funded that.

Remember also that despite Iraq being played up as the "great America
hating evil" - IRAN! is the country which is the dominant Shia society,
the hardline Islamist state, those that most vehemently attack the US -
and what have we done in invading Iraq? We have played Iraq right into
the hands of the neighbour that we haven't liked since 1979 (a
revolution fermented by CIA meddlings, incidentally).

PS - America didn't "save" anyone from the Nazis. Let's not go over that again.

I think, you said it best yourself.

One mans facts is another mans rubbish.

If you want to make reasoned arguments, dont litter your prose with reactionary, speculative, misinformed right wing trash.

--

For me, V prompted this question: to Fatstrings and all
those who think along similar lines, what are you doing? If you
honestly believe that the American government allowed or encourage
terrorists to attack Americans, what are you doing writing about it on
the internet? Shouldn't such extreme action invite outrage or protest
beyond the formulation of conspiracy theories?

Exactly! Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I find it
highly unlikely that anything more than a few people hellbent on
causing suffering were behind the attacks on September 11. Perhaps the
US governments response outside of Afghanistan was poorly planned and
ill founded in an ethical sense, but I severely doubt they would blow
up their own citizens.

Edit: Just to prove a point about "one mans facts" - take a look at this Texas census:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

As for all the money in the world.. We already have it.

This is true - because you keep on borrowing it all :razz:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

MS i don't want your sympathy

i don't think i'm wallowing in self-pity because i don't care much about myself, in fact what pisses me off about our government is how they treat the rest of the world

Most of our citizens don't realized how well Team America portrayed us

we think we are the "world police" and assume that because we are doing well everyone should want to be like us

Lets face it is America was to just go poof tomorrow, your country and the rest of them would just die off slow painful deaths. America supports the world. We are the Super Power. And you can just be mad as hell that we are all you want.

anyone that's taken highschool econ will agree.. to an extent.

Okay, I'll admit I was lying when I said bombing for nothing. I shoulda said oil.

seen our gas prices? we havent hit a major new source of oil in years.. hence the push for drilling in alaska. if we made it a practice of bombing for oil, i wouldnt have to pay $30+ to fill my camaro. get a clue. (again, the oil fields in iraq belong to the iraqis... not us. we WILLINGLY gave them up after invading.)

Remember also that despite Iraq being played up as the "great America hating evil" - IRAN!

as it looks to me, iran would have caused many many more casualties without the immediate payoff. both iraq and iran threaten the USA and their neighbors, but iraq was more immediate and more vulnerable. if we marched into iran, there would have been a massive army with heavy artillary waiting for us rather than a few republic guards with ak47's. again, just speculation, but that's what i would have done. at the time, saddam repeatedly made threats on the USA and praised the terrorists that attacked us. (not to mention the WsMD, but maybe i shouldn't bring that up again.. such an easy point to defeat.) take a gander at the film "FahrenHYPE 9/11". Really puts things in perspective.

There is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

how about some shameless copy and pasting? read em all.. don't stop once you find something to dispute.

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddams hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddams mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddams men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraqs mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Janes Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Janes reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaedas No. 2 man.

* As recently as 2001, Iraqs embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," Londons Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Ladens fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddams Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: Youll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Ladens group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq."

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddams son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiris bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaedas global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was good," according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawis Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawis cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaedas military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddams regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a Londons Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 to undertake jihad," Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekars group was funded by "Saddam Husseins regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islams strongholds inside northern Iraq.

What really worries me is that Bush and his wars are causing people all around the world to hate us. We're supposed to be fighting terrorism, but honestly going into other countries and causing death and destruction on both sides isn't going to stop violence or terrorism, just the opposite. It doesn't matter if the US is justified, because the bottom line is innocent people are being killed, and I'm sure that for every child who is killed by a stray American bullet or bomb, there will be a handful of relatives who will hate America forever.

That scares me, especially when I think about the number of people who have died in Iraq already.

Bush will be out of office in 2 years, and we may or may not have a president who will have some grasp of foreign relations and how not to alienate our nation from the rest of the world.

I'm 20 years old. I probably have another 55 years to spend on this Earth, and I'm not looking forward to being despised and hated for my nationality for the rest of my time here.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Agent Smith</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Funny enough Money I think your last comments may just prove Myrk's point.
</DIV></DIV>

As usual, the question answers itself in the evolving discussion. :razz:

Also quit your bitching about "gas prices". Try buying fuel in Hong Kong or UK, we pay per litre, not gallon, and we pay just under ?1 a litre ($1.74).

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-