v is he a terrorist

would you consider v from v for vendetta a terrorist of a freedom fighter?

..umm freedom fighter? there i answered what do i win :original:
i don't really consider him of anything to me he's some guy thats kickes alot of ass.

Terrorist, but only for one reason.


When he hijacked the TV station, he put the lives of all the employees severley on the line to make his escape, he also killed several Police officers who did nothing to warrant their deaths (not the gestapo guys, the uniformed cops).

I also didn't like the fact that he would encourage a revolution that would put children on the front lines (one being shot by fingermen or whatever they're called)

Originally Posted by Corporal_Hicks

Terrorist, but only for one reason.


When he hijacked the TV station, he put the lives of all the employees severley on the line to make his escape, he also killed several Police officers who did nothing to warrant their deaths (not the gestapo guys, the uniformed cops).

I also didn't like the fact that he would encourage a revolution that would put children on the front lines (one being shot by fingermen or whatever they're called)

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
-Thomas Jefferson

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
-Thomas Jefferson

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.
-Thomas Jefferson

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt

I can go on. Perhaps in our complacency we have forgotten that freedom is more important than anything else in the world. More important than any god or any other material item.

Common misconception, he is both.

Terrorist is someone who uses terror to acheive their objectives. Meaning they will damage civilians and civlian property.

A freedom fighter is someone who fights for the freedom of a group or ideal.

Now one can be a terrorist, freedom fighter, or both. They are not two ends of a spectrum, they are simply two words with unrelated meanings that are often confused as opposites.

Wasn't he supposed to be the anti-hero of the movie? Why did he destroy the Parliament building anyways? Yeah, it's a symbol, but a symbol of democracy, not the dictatorship....

Becuase he followed Guy Fawkes

I thought he used Guy Fawkes masks as a symbol, not as the sole motivator of his movement....

Becuase Parliament had become a corrupted, bastardized symbol of the "freedom" offered to the people by the chancellor.

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a desperate but failed attempt by a group of provincial English Catholics to kill King James I of England, his family, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in one attack by blowing up the Houses of Parliament during the State Opening. The conspirators had then planned to abduct the royal children, not present in Parliament, and incite a revolt in the Midlands.

This of course, what Fawkes was famous for. The parliment was simply furthering V's use of symbolism. The Parliment in both cases was a represenative of the government which was seens as corrupt.

Originally Posted by internationalist

Becuase Parliament had become a corrupted, bastardized symbol of the "freedom" offered to the people by the chancellor.

I don't believe the movie ever mentioned that the chancellor used parliament as a symbol of his government.

Originally Posted by trackjacket

I don't believe the movie ever mentioned that the chancellor used parliament as a symbol of his government.

Regardless the parliament was a symbol of the government in England.

Originally Posted by amiliusbrutus

would you consider v from v for vendetta a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

Both. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the saying goes.

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Both. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as the saying goes.

nope. That statement is completly false as I hoped my initial post would reveal. Altough you are correct about the both part.

Common misconception, he is both.

Terrorist is someone who uses terror to acheive their objectives. Meaning they will damage civilians and civlian property.

A freedom fighter is someone who fights for the freedom of a group or ideal.

Now one can be a terrorist, freedom fighter, or both. They are not two ends of a spectrum, they are simply two words with unrelated meanings that are often confused as opposites.

Depending on your perspective, he could be either or. If you are the ones in power, he's a terrorist. If you are one of the revolutionaries, he's freedom fighter. It's all subjective.

Personally, I'd consider him a terrorist, just like how I consider the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars to be terrorists, but then again, I'm not going to make this personal, so...

No. A freedom fighter simply refers to the cause one is fighting for, which is freedom.

A terrorist refers to someone who intentially attacks civilians and civilian property. The terrorist could be fighting for freedom or he could be fighting for cool-aid, its irrelevant. Terrorism does not have anything to do wiht ones cause, simply the means one uses to acheive it.

Im not sure I can word it differently, I hope you will see your definition of the words are wrong. They arent for example good/bad/ Two sides of a coin. They do not have related definitions. One implies cause, the other means. I fail to see how any perspective is involved.

Originally Posted by Kscott

A terrorist refers to someone who intentially attacks civilians and civilian property.

Not always. Terrorism is defined as the usage of terror tactics to induce fear in your opponent in order to bend them to your will. This could, and usually does, entail attacks on civilians and property, but also can simply mean attacking vital logistical and military installations using certain tactics.

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Not always. Terrorism is defined as the usage of terror tactics to induce fear in your opponent in order to bend them to your will. This could, and usually does, entail attacks on civilians and property, but also can simply mean attacking vital logistical and military installations using certain tactics.

still has nothing to do with the term freedom fighter.

Attacking military targets is not terrorism.

To use a real example, The more moderate insurgents in Iraq, the ones that plant roadside anti-tank mines and shell US and Iraqi Authority bases, but don't blow up car bombs in front of restaurants or behead people, they are purely freedom fighters. Nothing they do can be considered terrorism. Don't get me wrong, they are still the enemy, I just don't like mislabeling things.

Originally Posted by Hapsburg

Depending on your perspective, he could be either or. If you are the ones in power, he's a terrorist. If you are one of the revolutionaries, he's freedom fighter. It's all subjective.

Personally, I'd consider him a terrorist, just like how I consider the Rebel Alliance from Star Wars to be terrorists, but then again, I'm not going to make this personal, so...

Noooo Chewee is a nice guy!! The Calmar Republic has declared war on the C.G.U. :laughing:

Back on topic.. as many has said he is a bit of both.. fighting evil with evil will be good.. why?
Because: - + - = +....