So now villains are "terrorists" ?

[Pinsir]

Yeah I was going to say the villains change to fit the times. In the 50's Luthor was a mad scientist, in the 80's he was corporate mastermind.

[Paradox]

Mikekerr3 enumerates:

That would apply to folks like George Washington, Patrick Henry, the founders Of Israel, and a huge chunk of the people we commonly refer to as heroic in history.

That is correct, yes.

[Tupiaz]

Lady Shiva
Joker (he is spreading fear in the public and was connect to terrorist act in A Death in the Family)
Bane (at least in the movie)
The League of Assassins (Ra's Al Ghul, Talia and so on)

I disagree. A terrorist is always a terrorist. They can be freedom fighters as well, but that doesn't stop them from being terrorists.

The term terrorist is today a term you used against your opponent in a propaganda warfare. Many freedom fighters has been called terrorist for being on the "wrong" side and many terrorist has been called freedom fighters because the where on the "right" side.

[Paradox]

Terrorists are people who use terrorist tactics. It's really that simple. Propaganda aside, of course. Not everyone who's CALLED something really is.

[Tupiaz]

Terrorists are people who use terrorist tactics. It's really that simple. Propaganda aside, of course. Not everyone who's CALLED something really is.

How would you define terrorism? Is it easy to call someone a terrorist when there is no definition. Usually the term would be that civilians is either target as victims or by fear campaigns (psychological terrorism). However it is now clearly used against people who are on the other site and/or is fighting against the establishment.

[Paradox]

Your "usually" is the definition, more or less. What does people misusing it to smear their enemies have anything to do with it? It is what it is.

[Coin Biter]

That would apply to folks like George Washington, Patrick Henry, the founders Of Israel, and a huge chunk of the people we commonly refer to as heroic in history.

Indeed. The bombing of the King David Hotel, to take one example, was unquestionably an act of terror.

But yes... I agree that the villains in films do tend to reflect contemporary concerns. So far as the Batman films are concerned, in addition, the League of Shadows/Joker/Steroidal guy with nonsensical voice had to seem more fearsome than the organised crime figures Batman combatted, and have very different aims than the acquisition of wealth and power - as Alfred pointed out in TDK.

Many of the other superhero franchises have always had terrorists as enemies. Thematically, X-Men antagonists have often tended to be terrorists. The X-Men weren't generally there to combat bank robbers, extortionists, or unscrupulous timeshare salesman - they were often fighting oppressors of mutantkind, and mutants who adopt terrorist methods for whatever reason. Cap's enemies have often been terrorists, whether domestic or external, who he defeats by his inherent nobility and love of punching. And there are other examples - Iron Man, and so on. This is nothing particular new to many of these heroes.

[weezer17]

Scarecrow is nothing if not a terror-ist.

Ooh... that was so bad it hurt! :P

[Tupiaz]

Your "usually" is the definition, more or less. What does people misusing it to smear their enemies have anything to do with it? It is what it is.

Because it for many people blurs the line. Just look at how heated a debate about Israel/Palestine can get (no I don't want to start one here).

Indeed. The bombing of the King David Hotel, to take one example, was unquestionably an act of terror.

But yes... I agree that the villains in films do tend to reflect contemporary concerns. So far as the Batman films are concerned, in addition, the League of Shadows/Joker/Steroidal guy with nonsensical voice had to seem more fearsome than the organised crime figures Batman combatted, and have very different aims than the acquisition of wealth and power - as Alfred pointed out in TDK.

Many of the other superhero franchises have always had terrorists as enemies. Thematically, X-Men antagonists have often tended to be terrorists. The X-Men weren't generally there to combat bank robbers, extortionists, or unscrupulous timeshare salesman - they were often fighting oppressors of mutantkind, and mutants who adopt terrorist methods for whatever reason. Cap's enemies have often been terrorists, whether domestic or external, who he defeats by his inherent nobility and love of punching. And there are other examples - Iron Man, and so on. This is nothing particular new to many of these heroes.

I think the point he7she was trying to make was that Batman's villains has changed over the years. Not so much if heroes have fought terrorist before.

[Paradox]

Tupiaz confuses me:

Because it for many people blurs the line.

Those people need to pull their heads out of their asses. Republicans think "liberal" is a dirty word and use it as such. Doesn't change what "liberal" really means (at least the American definition).

[Mikekerr3]

How would you define terrorism? Is it easy to call someone a terrorist when there is no definition. Usually the term would be that civilians is either target as victims or by fear campaigns (psychological terrorism). However it is now clearly used against people who are on the other site and/or is fighting against the establishment.

there is a pretty clear definition: a non-state actor that uses action intended to incite terror for a political objective.

The folks that use it another way are simply twisting the truth for their own purposes

[Carabas]

there is a pretty clear definition: a non-state actor that uses action intended to incite terror for a political objective.

Why specifically non-state?

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

Scarecrow is nothing if not a terror-ist.

A fear monger terrorist.
Yes I made that up that term.


It's nothing new there have been terrorists in movies long before Nolan's batman.
Stranix in Under Siege without a doubt was a terrorist as he and his crew hijacked a Navy ship. He decides to deal with his problem of his ex boss by shooting missiles at Honolulu Hawaii which would have killed a vast amount of people.

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

Why specifically non-state?

I believe because this has long has to do with people that don't work for the military, department of defense, homeland security, or any other government organization.

[Mikekerr3]

Why specifically non-state?

Becasue when it is a state acting it is either a act of war or a crime against humanity. Just like state sanction executions are not normal called premeditated murders even though they are.