So now villains are "terrorists" ?

[Michael P]

Depends on where you live. The British were quite aware of it in the '80s and '90s, but having Northern Ireland right next door will do that.

[CSTowle]

Between Beirut, the first World Trade Center bombing, Oklahoma City, and the USS Cole I think Americans were aware of terrorism but they hadn't achieved the goal of putting themselves on the level of say the Soviet Union as a threat to the US specifically (which they're still very much not, but they've succeeded in getting us to treat them that way).

I'd argue 9/11 wouldn't have been as successful as it was for al Qaeda and the like if it hadn't made for such compelling viewing. If 3,000 people had died at a minor sporting event (say a truck bomb like OKC) and all we saw was the smoking wreckage of the stadium it wouldn't have been the same as seeing the towers in flames, smoking on the New York City skyline and then collapsing like they did. Everyone kept saying, "it's like a movie".

As to fictional villains, why wouldn't terrorism be a means to their ends? Certainly nothing new.

[Abishai100]

Considerations

Ra's al Ghul is a villain foil for the Dark Knight who tackles 'criminally insane' terrorists in Gotham City, and Ra's is a villain who engages in forms of eco-terrorism. The message in Batman (DC Comics) sometimes feels like "war against maniacs," and Ra's certainly takes eco-terrorism to the realm of pure shadowlands.


Maybe the connection between terrorism and villainy avatars in our modern world of populism paranoia dialogue (i.e., crime syndicates in urban environments) is one of 'ambition flowery' (perhaps especially so in our fantastic arena of comic book fantasia).


I think a clear comic book super-villain who helps readers differentiate between radical terrorism and pure mania or evil is Toyman (DC Comics), an eerie nemesis of the Superfriends (i.e., Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, etc.), who devises toys that act like weapons and bombs.




Toyman (DC Wikia)

[Fenris]

From Die Hard:

"You want money? What kind of terrorists are you?"
"Who said we were terrorists?"
...
"After all your posturing, all your little speeches, you're nothing but a common thief."
"I am an exceptional thief, Mrs. McClane. And since I'm moving up to kidnapping, you should be more polite."

It's really weird to look back before 9/11, and see how terrorists were viewed more positively than robbers. Because they believed in something, I guess?


õ
Now we have a greater appreciation for simple criminal avarice!

[Lorendiac]

I would assume the ones that engage in terrorism as opposed to the "regular" criminal activity you mention. I don't read current comics, but Magneto was always a terrorist, for example.

I'm not so sure. Is it "terrorism" to try to take control of a small nation, or a large city, and sometimes even succeed in that attempt? (At least for a little while.) I'd call it "staging a coup" or "a successful invasion" rather than "an act of terrorism." Magneto has tried that sort of thing on various occasions. It's different from "just trying to terrify an existing government in order to make it behave differently from this day forward."

[Turn the Page]

Look Up the IRA and FLQ. Two "Western" terrorist examples I can think of. Ever since 9/11 2001 the media has put a certain twist on the word "terrorist" and made a new buzzword of it. Propaganda if you will. The concept has existed long before a decade and a half ago.

[PretenderNX01]

For movies maybe, since they need to be "events" and it's hard to make an event out of a supervillain robbing a bank.
But on TV you still have your mad scientists, assassins , mobsters, smugglers, evil politicians and so on.

[Lorendiac]

It's really weird to look back before 9/11, and see how terrorists were viewed more positively than robbers. Because they believed in something, I guess?

I was already a grown man before 9/11, and I don't remember having a more "positive" view of terrorists than of robbers. If anything, I was keenly aware that terrorists were probably more dangerous, because they were more likely to set off a bomb in a public place and quite possibly kill you (a total stranger) as part of a "sacred duty," whereas professional robbers usually just wanted the money and would only kill you if you personally got in their way.

(Not that I'd feel better about being killed by one type of criminal than by the other, you understand. I was just aware that their motives and methods were very different.)