ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (12/17/84)
From: Mike Ciaraldi <ciaraldi> There was a line in the new DD where he refers to the IRA as "terrorists" and Glorianna says something like, "no, they're just people fighting for their homes however they can." That's as may be, but it has nothing to do with whether they are terrorists or not. Unless the definition has changed in the las few years, I have always been under the impression that "terrorism" is defined according to your methods, not your motives. A terrorist works by spreading terror, so as to demoralize his opponents or put pressure on them. Thus, terrorists such as the PLO and IRA do things like planting bombs in department stores, public busses, and other area where the explosion will kill and injure innocent people indiscriminately. This is totally separate from the question of their motivation. They might be doing this to subvert the government to facilitate a foreign takeover, or to support a local revolution, or a counter-revolution, or any of a number of reasons. If they go around attacking military bases and their opponents' soldiers, they might be guerillas (as many terrorists and non-terrorists are), but this would not make them terrorists because they are not indiscriminately attacking civilians. Comments? Mike Ciaraldi ciaraldi@rochester seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (12/17/84)
In article <4784@rochester.UUCP> ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP writes: >From: Mike Ciaraldi <ciaraldi> > >There was a line in the new DD where he refers to >the IRA as "terrorists" and Glorianna says something like, >"no, they're just people fighting for their homes however >they can." (comments about terrorism and the IRA omitted) > >Comments? > >Mike Ciaraldi >ciaraldi@rochester >seismo!rochester!ciaraldi Yes. PLEASE don't comment about the motives of the IRA in net.comics. A remarkably fruitless discussion about all of this has been going on forever on the net, cross-posted to net.legal, net.politics, net.nlang.celts, and net.flame. Periodically, something like net.general and net.tv gets dragged in as well. I really don't want to see net.comics get into this as well. Comment about Glorianna O'Breen, talk about the statements made by Daredevil, come up with inconsistencies and such in the plots. Even talk about the IRA, as portrayed in Marvel comics. But please don't discuss the real IRA as it operates in the real world in this newsgroup. -- "He's the only man for me." -- Heather Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (12/20/84)
> PLEASE don't comment about the motives of the IRA in net.comics. > A remarkably fruitless discussion about all of this has been going > on forever on the net, cross-posted to net.legal, net.politics, > net.nlang.celts, and net.flame. Periodically, something like > net.general and net.tv gets dragged in as well. > I really don't want to see net.comics get into this as well. > Comment about Glorianna O'Breen, talk about the statements made > by Daredevil, come up with inconsistencies and such in the plots. > Even talk about the IRA, as portrayed in Marvel comics. Alright, you want to talk about inconsistencies? Daredevil has ALWAYS (until now) been portrayed as an individual who is very concerned with the morality of his actions. Yet now, he is protecting someone, Glorianna, who he KNOWS is protecting terrorists, helping them escape from police, helping them to kill again. THAT's inconsistancy. Regardless of their motives, it's a known fact that they bomb innocent people. Who cares about their motives after that? Maybe they will expand on this in future issues, showing Daredevil recognize that he's only protecting her instead of telling the police about her because he (loves?) her, and how he deals with that conflict. Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j