Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on February 15, 2013, 03:07:46 pm
-
...this is why:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/Taylor+says+documentary+provide+more+balanced+picture/7967636/story.html
-
Old news. I also hope this, and I wish Ben Affleck would be slapped many times in his face. He should have known better.
-
Controversially switching characters' nationalities or roles or whatever they did might lead to a lot more people watching the documentary and learning the actual story than would have happened if they hadn't pissed off Canada. It's a pretty good strategy for getting the buzz restarted, IMO. I heard Ben Affleck was totally oblivious about the issue when making the movie, but it might indirectly end up being the reason they win. Probably not, but it is publicity.
-
will people ever stop getting upset about hollywood movies being historically inaccurate?
-
Only if we destroy Hollywood.
Seriously though it is rather silly to ask at what point people will stop getting angry about being insulted.
-
will people ever stop getting upset about hollywood movies being historically inaccurate?
This is a bad question. You might as well ask when people will stop being offended when told lies.
-
Hey everyone knows the u.s did everything good single handedly like win world war 2 and capture the enigma machine
just like it was told in that famous documentary Churchill: The Hollywood Years
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0359078/
-
Nothing spoils a good story more than the truth, so avoid it as much as possible.
And I'm quite contend that the Canadian Ambassador is right about Persian hospitality, didn't tell the hostages the same about their captors ? ;)
-
Tricky one.
I hate people messing with history. So I'll also take the "hope it crashes and burns" mentality as an initial reaction in cases like this. On the other hand, what if someone turns in a stunning individual performance? Or the effects crew wows with their work? Should they be screwed out of their accolade just because the film they were in is questionable?
As long as you don't portray something as factual, it's okay. Weave a story that was inspired by actual history, but don't let it be known what that inspiration was, make it a completely different story. Or make a straight up alternate history story that doesn't make ay pretenses about being a true stroy. I like alternate history stories a lot myself, change one little thing and open up a huge can of worms.
I can also get annoyed when they leave out "inconvenient" things. You know, like you'll have this great hero, but let's not mention that time he beat his daughter half to death in a drunken rage one night, and let's gloss over where he executed that prisoner just because he spat on his shoe. Let's keep his image squeaky clean. Just made that stuff up, but you get the idea I'm sure.
-
Why oh why am I suddenly reminded of "U-571"... :)
-
Why oh why am I suddenly reminded of "U-571"... :)
Yeah, that was awful too.
-
Ewan MacGregor's character in Black Hawk Down conducted the same actions as a real person present at Bakara, but wasn't actually that person - he was a fictional composite slapped in as a replacement because the real guy, despite his combat heroism, turned out to be a pedophile a few years later.
-
Ewan MacGregor's character in Black Hawk Down conducted the same actions as a real person present at Bakara, but wasn't actually that person - he was a fictional composite slapped in as a replacement because the real guy, despite his combat heroism, turned out to be a pedophile a few years later.
That's kind of a minor thing compared to the way the whole fight was portrayed; American shooting gallery and all. Parvez Musharraf for example complained about how the movie minimized the role of Pakistani soldiers, likewise did the then-commander of the Malaysian forces in regard to the Malaysian forces.
Ultimately, I think movies like this are good, because while they contain glaring inaccuracies, they still manage to inform. I remember watching Blackhawk Down when I was younger, and how that led to me actually reading about Somalia and its bloody history from the Italian occupation up to Siad Barre's dictatorship.
-
Public opinion is turning against the non-fiction nominees! Maybe the history buff vote will turn to Django?!?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-oscar-for-best-fabrication.html?hp&_r=1& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-oscar-for-best-fabrication.html?hp&_r=1&)
-
the oscars is an arts award. not an acedemic award, so i kinda disagree with the thread title. its a movie ive yet to see, and the fact that it embellishes the facts, doesn't dissuade me from wanting to see it. if i wanted the facts id watch a documentary and not a movie, even then i would question those facts.
-
"Qu'est-ce que l'Histoire, sinon une fable sur laquelle tout le monde est d' accord?"
-
lol
-
Bam.
-
So NBC news recently had a story on the "historical" movies not matching reality. I figured they might be acknowledging that Argo shafted the contributions of our hockey playing northern brethren. "For example this car chase on the airfield from Argo didn't occur."
...
The car chase didn't occur.
/me face palmed
-
I was eating my tea and watching the news, and saw this won Best Picture. Now that's somewhat old news, but what gave me a little chuckle was the analyst saying words to the effect of how it won because there was something for everyone and there was nothing offensive about the film, how everyone could like it and did like it. He didn't read this thread! :D
-
the oscars is an arts award. not an acedemic award, so i kinda disagree with the thread title. its a movie ive yet to see, and the fact that it embellishes the facts, doesn't dissuade me from wanting to see it. if i wanted the facts id watch a documentary and not a movie, even then i would question those facts.
Indeed. Whenever some movie like this creates some sort of drama... I always expect it's some guy jumping on a popular item to push his own agenda, for better or worse. Like the Canadian Ex-Ambassador. I was reading his comments in an article, and all his complaints... then suddenly, "oh by the way, we are making a documentary that should be more accurate than Argo. You should see it." Right, ok. So, are you complaining because Argo was inaccurate or because it gets you press... or both?
I don't know the answer, but I typically just watch movies cause they are movies. They are written to be dramatic and entertaining long before they are written to be informative.
-
Aye, unless it's a documentary, I generally expect films to be produced to be entertaining 1st, and accurate... probably 4th or 5th after a few other things.
-
Even as an arts award, I'm still not sure what they're talking about with Life of Pi.
-
Here's the thing though, is there actually any reason why not ****ing over the Canadians would have made the movie less entertaining?
-
Cuz 'Murica wouln't save teh wurld from 'slamic Commee Natzis den! :doubt: *Typing this post was a source of physical and mental pain.
Basically the same reason all HMovies do that crap: If they show 'MURICA 'saving the world' the US military gives them access to military equipment for filming. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/21/entertainment/la-ca-military-movies-20110821)
-
Cuz 'Murica wouln't save teh wurld from 'slamic Commee Natzis den! :doubt: *Typing this post was a source of physical and mental pain.
Basically the same reason all HMovies do that crap: If they show 'MURICA 'saving the world' the US military gives them access to military equipment for filming. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/21/entertainment/la-ca-military-movies-20110821)
This is a pretty facile argument, Zero Dark Thirty had a load of military equipment and was profoundly anti-American.
-
Cuz 'Murica wouln't save teh wurld from 'slamic Commee Natzis den! :doubt: *Typing this post was a source of physical and mental pain.
Basically the same reason all HMovies do that crap: If they show 'MURICA 'saving the world' the US military gives them access to military equipment for filming. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/21/entertainment/la-ca-military-movies-20110821)
This is a pretty facile argument, Zero Dark Thirty had a load of military equipment and was profoundly anti-American.
And that's a rare outlier in the face of masses of data supporting the "**** Yeah!" hypothesis.
-
Cuz 'Murica wouln't save teh wurld from 'slamic Commee Natzis den! :doubt: *Typing this post was a source of physical and mental pain.
Basically the same reason all HMovies do that crap: If they show 'MURICA 'saving the world' the US military gives them access to military equipment for filming. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/21/entertainment/la-ca-military-movies-20110821)
This is a pretty facile argument, Zero Dark Thirty had a load of military equipment and was profoundly anti-American.
And that's a rare outlier in the face of masses of data supporting the "**** Yeah!" hypothesis.
It is neither an outlier (a technical term from statistics which should not be misapplied) nor a data point in a mass of data. The fact that the United States military only wants to give support to movies that make it look good is perfectly true, but it doesn't have much to do with Argo, or why Argo is bad. It was just a cheap shot, played poorly.
e: I actually have no idea if ZDT got equipment straight from the military, my point is more that it is possible to make a movie that has both loads of military gear and something to say beyond Pentagon talking points
-
Besides, the argument is yet more facile in comparison to the likelihood of large military equipment being CGI'd instead.
-
What pisses me off most - more than the "America! **** yeah!" phenomenon common to so many "historical" films, is the fact that in this case there are no less than THREE of the major, prominent players who were still alive and regularly talk about the 'Canadian Caper' who the screenwriter could have interviewed for minute details, including Ken Taylor (the Canadian Ambassador), Jimmy Carter (the US President, who publicly acknowledged Canada's role), and Tony Mendez, the CIA agent who wrote the book the screenplay is based on.
As Taylor said - the screenwriter didn't have a clue what he was talking about, despite the fact that the details are now public, unclassified knowledge and he had resources available to him to get the facts straight. Apparently, the original screenplay from TIFF went to far as to include a postscript that directly implied Taylor should never have received any credit because it was all a CIA-contrived-and-executed-operation. The backlash over that prompted Affleck to invite Taylor to help re-write those lines.
Ordinarily I expect some historical inaccuracy in film, but when the people involved are (mostly) still alive and this could have been easily fact-checked, and it does a total disservice to the people who actually risked their lives with their feet on the ground in Iran all for the sake of "rah rah 'MERICA!" I get more than a little pissed off. I guess it's my Canadian complex coming through where - as usual, and despite having the information at their fingertips - a bunch of ignorant assholes in the US manage to ignore the contributions of their allies.
/rant.
-
Come on MP it was done totally for Canada's benefit. We only had maintaining your standing as least disliked nation at heart. Seriously what's one more CIA Op going to do for our rep? Everybody hates the US anyway. On the other hand if the rest of the world were aware of the extent of your nation's skill at subterfuge it would only hurt your cred.
-
I understand there is a great deal of confusion and anger surrounding this issue, but there is some very good news also. You see, whenever a foreigner reaches a certain threshold of greatness, they miraculously transform into an American! So don't fret, ugly ducklings of the world; if you only let your inner American shine, then maybe one day...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7kos8SN52n8/T5xf0F0BZrI/AAAAAAAAAYU/OlAZoe-p7uo/s640/funny+swan+photographer.jpeg)
-
I don't really care about the historical inaccuracies of Hollywood movies. Has soon as you start caring about what comes out of those studios, that's when your heart will break.
-
I don't really care about the historical inaccuracies of Hollywood movies. Has soon as you start caring about what comes out of those studios, that's when your heart will break.
Again, there are lots of movies that really do quite a good job at being smart and entertaining, and they even come from Hollywood!
-
The point that if you get upset when they produce ****ty movies, you'll always be upset is nonetheless accurate.
-
There are better ways to approach Hollywood's ups and downs than default cynicism, though. A lot of very good criticism has been written about movies that seem superficially very bad. I've spoken up here because I think people are resorting to lazy cliches and stereotypes in understanding movies and how they're made.
To pick three examples from last summer's basket, Battleship and Prometheus (and Transformers 3 but I don't remember when that came out) all produced some excellent and at least partially redemptive readings. To the average moviegoer they're probably not worth the time of day, but anyone interested in more than passive entertainment can find a lot more to think about than 'oh Hollywood is not very good'. Conversely, a lot of the more depressingly bad material to come out of Hollywood recently wasn't looked at closely enough and got a free pass - the banal and slack Avengers is a good example.
I guess my point is that 'upset' and 'not upset' about '****ty' or 'not ****ty' is a pretty meaningless way to evaluate film. I guess I'd extend that to the whole culture of 'what do you expect, XYZ is always terrible/corrupt/a failure', whether you're talking about arts or politics or video games or the state of world events - it's a myopic, acontextual perspective and an easy out.
-
You just said that Transformers 3 is a more interesting movie than Avengers.
/Thread
-
Heh, Battleship. Man, that movie...
Despite the widespread and well-founded criticism, I did find a very interesting theme and message there. The problem with finding meaning in movies like that one with so many problems, is that you can't be sure if the meaning was put there intentionally or not.
-
You just said that Transformers 3 is a more interesting movie than Avengers.
Avengers is actually a pretty bad movie about letting the heroes be...well, heroes. It always felt it had to up the stakes and have them fall and come back again, and that got pretty formulaic and boring. Hell, the whole thing would have fallen apart but for a "stupid-ass decision".
Basically, in a movie about the Avengers, the Avengers did not win on their own merits.
That's kind of ****ed up.
-
No one was speaking in absolute terms, but in relativistic. Battleship and Transformers better than Avengers.
Prometheus, I'll leave that one alone. It sure does have traces of there having been an attempt to create an interesting something, and if we behave more like scavengers (ah), then yeah, it does have a thousand times more stuff than Avengers to indulge and think about.
But that's an incorrect way of assessing things. It's like blaming Doom for a lack of narrative depth, and dismissing it because it has nothing interesting to say. And then say that Daikatana (for instance) had "excellent and at least partially redemptive readings". Well...
-
No one was speaking in absolute terms, but in relativistic. Battleship and Transformers better than Avengers.
Where did the term 'better' get used?
-
My paraphrasing isn't that out of sync with your words up there. I do understand that if one becomes like an archaeologist of interesting, queer, untested, original ideas, Avengers is perhaps the last place one should go.
But in that sense, so was Casablanca.
-
There's some interesting stuff to read out of Avengers, particularly in the way the movie takes big ideas from other superhero films and goes all 'no big deal' about them - The Dark Knight made a huge melodramatic fuss about cell phone surveillance, so Avengers builds some of its casually fascist subtext by just dropping the line that they're tapping every cell phone on the planet, no big.
But most of what the Avengers has to say speaks to failures of directorial vision. The whole helicarrier crash jeopardy sequence in particular is an exercise in brainless visual framing - picking apart the shot blocking is an exercise in frustration because it's so obvious how easy it would've been to do it better.
-
Just for curiosity, how would you depict it, given that it is so obvious? (I am *not* being sarcastic, although the phrasing does seem like it)
-
Well - and this is going to sound so obvious people will probably argue with it, but I'll hold to it - what's the most important thing to establish visually in an action sequence where the jeopardy is 'a huge aircraft is falling out of the sky?'
You do a top down shot of whatever the aircraft is over, right? You want the audience to know (at least a little) what it's going to crash into when it falls, both so we're aware of the reality of The Ground as an approaching deadline, and so we can worry about the helicarrier crushing little houses/people/fishes/whatever. You only need one quick shot to do this. But instead the shots we get during this sequence generally depict CGI cloudscape; there's not even a ticking altimeter shot to build tension.
These are cliches, of course, but they work! Film uses visual language to tell stories!
From a script standpoint I'd also question the necessity of saving the helicarrier at all - I think the heroes need to fail as punishment for their disunity and proof of Loki's menace, and SHIELD needs to be taken mostly out of the story for the remainder of the movie (they are anyway, but with much less justification). But that's a separate class of issue.
-
Heh, Battleship. Man, that movie...
Despite the widespread and well-founded criticism, I did find a very interesting theme and message there. The problem with finding meaning in movies like that one with so many problems, is that you can't be sure if the meaning was put there intentionally or not.
dumbest aliens ever!
-
Heh, Battleship. Man, that movie...
Despite the widespread and well-founded criticism, I did find a very interesting theme and message there. The problem with finding meaning in movies like that one with so many problems, is that you can't be sure if the meaning was put there intentionally or not.
That's not actually a problem at all
-
I assume that is related to the death of the author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author).
-
That's not actually a problem at all
Eh, I suppose you're technically correct (the best kind of correct) that the meaning found is unrelated to whether it was intended or not.
But I can't help wondering and finding additional meaning in the possible difference between "subtext cleverly hidden by skilled writer/director in generic action film" and "subtext accidentally inserted by generic writer/director in generic action film".
-
I have different reasons to see a film.
Some films I just watch because I get hooked up by the look of the film. (For example Sucker Punch or Iron Sky).
Some films I just watch because I find the Story interesting. That story doesn't have to be 100% correct if the film isn't a documentation ( and Argo doesn't claim to be one ), the story has just to be told in a good and solid way.
And some films I just watch because I liked an actor and his play. I liked the Ironman Films, and I liked Captain America. And by the acting of the cast of The Avengers I can't complain about that movie.
-
I watch movies because I've nothing better to do
Also Bat, I never noticed that in The Avengers. Crazy (the whole lack of a doom, DOOM tension thing)
-
That's not actually a problem at all
Eh, I suppose you're technically correct (the best kind of correct) that the meaning found is unrelated to whether it was intended or not.
But I can't help wondering and finding additional meaning in the possible difference between "subtext cleverly hidden by skilled writer/director in generic action film" and "subtext accidentally inserted by generic writer/director in generic action film".
well the convenient thing about authorial intent is that you can deny its relevance whilst still conflating your own, subjective analysis of the work with authorial intent
-
subtext
The thing about subtext is that it's in the mind of the reader, not the text itself. Denotation is universal. Connotations are personal.
-
Reminds me of the U571 fiasco. Hollywood made a movie about how they captured an Enigma device and made it look like the US were the first to do it. When the UK complained about this they said 'If you care so much, why didn't you make a movie about it?'. In response a bunch of British comedians stated they would make a movie about how the UK were the first people on the Moon. Hollywood got angry. Guess what the response was? ;)
-
Reminds me of the U571 fiasco. Hollywood made a movie about how they captured an Enigma device and made it look like the US were the first to do it. When the UK complained about this they said 'If you care so much, why didn't you make a movie about it?'. In response a bunch of British comedians stated they would make a movie about how the UK were the first people on the Moon. Hollywood got angry. Guess what the response was? ;)
U-571 was hilarious. I didn't read anything about it in advance and just went to see it with a bunch of friends in theatre. It was only after about 3/4 of the way through that I actually realized the movie was about the original capture of Enigma and totally butchered history.
-
There is and always will be only one film about U Boats... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfbAc-H44Uw)
-
Reminds me of the U571 fiasco. Hollywood made a movie about how they captured an Enigma device and made it look like the US were the first to do it. When the UK complained about this they said 'If you care so much, why didn't you make a movie about it?'. In response a bunch of British comedians stated they would make a movie about how the UK were the first people on the Moon. Hollywood got angry. Guess what the response was? ;)
Oh yes! Here's your movie poster, and the star of your show! :D
http://piratesportal.cbm8bit.com/a/s/starpaws/c64/main.html
-
u-571 closed with a list of the ACTUAL missions to break the enigma code and who carried them out. it wasn't claiming american credit, it was a movie for entertainment. and for right now, not having seen argo, i'm assuming likewise.
-
u-571 closed with a list of the ACTUAL missions to break the enigma code and who carried them out. it wasn't claiming american credit, it was a movie for entertainment. and for right now, not having seen argo, i'm assuming likewise.
Where though? At the end of the movie, or in the credits? (Haven't seen it). If it's in the credits, I bet very few people will see it.
-
Reminds me of the U571 fiasco. Hollywood made a movie about how they captured an Enigma device and made it look like the US were the first to do it. When the UK complained about this they said 'If you care so much, why didn't you make a movie about it?'. In response a bunch of British comedians stated they would make a movie about how the UK were the first people on the Moon. Hollywood got angry. Guess what the response was? ;)
I'd pay good money to see that movie, honestly. :D
-
u-571 closed with a list of the ACTUAL missions to break the enigma code and who carried them out. it wasn't claiming american credit, it was a movie for entertainment. and for right now, not having seen argo, i'm assuming likewise.
Where though? At the end of the movie, or in the credits? (Haven't seen it). If it's in the credits, I bet very few people will see it.
before the credits, like in other "based on a true story" movies where they give brief descriptions of the actual events/how the characters ended up.
-
To be fair to the screenwriter, he did apologize about it later saying that the film had been deliberately targeted to an American audience and that it was not something he would do again. There were other complaints made about the film as well (such as it depicting U-Boat crew firing on the survivors, something that actually only happened once in the U-Boat ranks) but, in fairness to those, that's no worse than how many British movies depicted them for years.
I think this might be part of the problem, some movies are being made about 'movies', for example, it will be interesting to see how Peter Jackson deals with the double-legacy of Dambusters, which has a history not only as a factual event, but also as a far more fictional one as depicted in the movie of the same name. Apparently every effort is being made to be historically accurate, so it will be interesting to see how it is received.
-
Reminds me of the U571 fiasco. Hollywood made a movie about how they captured an Enigma device and made it look like the US were the first to do it. When the UK complained about this they said 'If you care so much, why didn't you make a movie about it?'. In response a bunch of British comedians stated they would make a movie about how the UK were the first people on the Moon. Hollywood got angry. Guess what the response was? ;)
I'd pay good money to see that movie, honestly. :D
It's all fun until the moon landing hoax twats use it as proof of their tinfoil hat ravings.
-
I think this might be part of the problem, some movies are being made about 'movies', for example, it will be interesting to see how Peter Jackson deals with the double-legacy of Dambusters, which has a history not only as a factual event, but also as a far more fictional one as depicted in the movie of the same name. Apparently every effort is being made to be historically accurate, so it will be interesting to see how it is received.
Heh, now you have me in a Wiki hole reading about this. Barnes Wallis sounds like he was a real genius of an engineer.
-
The Dambusters was one of those funny things where, whilst considered one of the greatest missions flown by the RAF during WW2, it would in modern day terms be a War Crime on a massive scale. Obviously, different rules applied back then, but it is an interesting reflection on the relationship between how desperate a person or country feels and what they are prepared to do in order to survive.
Barnes Wallis himself is sort of looked upon like an 'Engineering Einstein' in UK War History, in many ways he defined the common view of UK Invention being powered by amiable old pipe-smoking men in sheds ;)
-
u-571 closed with a list of the ACTUAL missions to break the enigma code and who carried them out. it wasn't claiming american credit, it was a movie for entertainment. and for right now, not having seen argo, i'm assuming likewise.
That was only added after complaints from the UK. They'd have been quite happy to have missed it out if no one had commented.
-
The Dambusters was one of those funny things where, whilst considered one of the greatest missions flown by the RAF during WW2, it would in modern day terms be a War Crime on a massive scale. Obviously, different rules applied back then, but it is an interesting reflection on the relationship between how desperate a person or country feels and what they are prepared to do in order to survive.
Barnes Wallis himself is sort of looked upon like an 'Engineering Einstein' in UK War History, in many ways he defined the common view of UK Invention being powered by amiable old pipe-smoking men in sheds ;)
Well as far as I'm concerned, when you're fighting a whole country's population, when the whole population is either called up to the military or put into service actively striving to contribute to the war effort, anything goes. Civillians are as legitamate a target as soldiers, and exterminating the whole population should be an actively pursued goal until they surrender. Every person killed, soldier, civillian, man, woman or child takes you a step closer to victory. This would have happened to the Japanese if they had not surrendered. But Hitler gave the order to bomb civillians in Britain anyway, with the express goal of pounding the civillian population into capitulation, so they brought it on themselves.
Survival was exactly all it was about. There was no grand vision in WWII, it was simply a fight for survival. I'm sure if the A-bomb had been developed earlier, it would have been dropped on Berlin. And you can be sure Hitler would have used it if he had it.
-
Agreed, which is why it serves to enlighten the situation where now we have the luxury of 'rules' and are horrified to find out that some people aren't interested in keeping to them very tightly.
-
Agreed, which is why it serves to enlighten the situation where now we have the luxury of 'rules' and are horrified to find out that some people aren't interested in keeping to them very tightly.
The West hasn't been in any wars lately where they have been opposed by the civillian population.
Although in today's information age, I would be surprised if two first World countries would engage in total war, short of if one's whole populaton was completely enslaved by some madman.
EDIT: Or if in the future resources were ever so scarce that they needed to destroy another country and take their resources in order to survive.
-
The West hasn't been in any wars lately where they have been opposed by the civillian population.
*Cough* Yes, it has. Ever heard of a place called Afghanistan? As I recall, the Taliban were not classified as an official governmental force, making them just civilians with a few weapons.
Although in today's information age, I would be surprised if two first World countries would engage in total war, short of if one's whole populaton was completely enslaved by some madman.
Lolno. The reason why first world countries do not wage open war amongst themselves is because war, simply put, doesn't pay anymore. There is nothing to be gained by invading a country, deposing its government and installing a new regime, as the US found out when they took over Iraq.
In addition, you would not believe the amount of crap that can happen before other countries feel the need to intervene. See for example: Ukraine. Or Saudi-Arabia.
EDIT: Or if in the future resources were ever so scarce that they needed to destroy another country and take their resources in order to survive.
The thing is, industrialized countries are generally short on ressources to take (Or rather, the ressources they do have tend to react badly to armed conflicts in their cities).
-
The West hasn't been in any wars lately where they have been opposed by the civillian population.
*Cough* Yes, it has. Ever heard of a place called Afghanistan? As I recall, the Taliban were not classified as an official governmental force, making them just civilians with a few weapons.
Although in today's information age, I would be surprised if two first World countries would engage in total war, short of if one's whole populaton was completely enslaved by some madman.
Lolno. The reason why first world countries do not wage open war amongst themselves is because war, simply put, doesn't pay anymore. There is nothing to be gained by invading a country, deposing its government and installing a new regime, as the US found out when they took over Iraq.
In addition, you would not believe the amount of crap that can happen before other countries feel the need to intervene. See for example: Ukraine. Or Saudi-Arabia.
EDIT: Or if in the future resources were ever so scarce that they needed to destroy another country and take their resources in order to survive.
The thing is, industrialized countries are generally short on ressources to take (Or rather, the ressources they do have tend to react badly to armed conflicts in their cities).
Oh come on, that's a technicality with the Taliban. Would mercenaries be classed as civilians? And anyway, they're far from the majority of the population, that's what I mean.
The only way war would pay would be to sack a country. In, grab everything worth taking, out. And of course without attracting the ire of other countries. War even throughout history often is a drain even on the victor. Especially once the option of taking slaves was taken out of the equation.
Then I guess they'd just pick whoever they could take from. If there was ever a global crisis though, I guess everyone would just be fighting over whatever scraps they could find.
-
Thing is, the war against infrastructure is also fought on far more fronts than it used to be. Once upon a time, carpet-bombing factories was the most effective route considering you were using primitive targeting, limited intelligence and couldn't count on air superiority or, frequently, even basic fighter support.
The reason that Fundamentalist groups tend to ignore Western 'rules of War' is because they are pretty much in a similar situation psychologically.
-
And anyway, they're far from the majority of the population, that's what I mean.
There has never been a war where the majority of the population was combatant. It is neither economically nor militarily feasible to do. Being able to place ten percent of the population under arms is historically a great achievement.
-
And anyway, they're far from the majority of the population, that's what I mean.
There has never been a war where the majority of the population was combatant. It is neither economically nor militarily feasible to do. Being able to place ten percent of the population under arms is historically a great achievement.
Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.
-
Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.
A nebulous, useless definition. What is "supporting the war effort"? Directly war-related industries? Now we're up to twenty-five percent of the population being historically very high!
Society goes on when the war happens. The roads gotta be maintained, the crops gotta be tended, the electricity has to keep flowing. Most of a society's able-bodied will already be employed in tending to society. Only a limited amount of diversion is possible. This number has shrunk down the years.
-
Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.
A nebulous, useless definition. What is "supporting the war effort"? Directly war-related industries? Now we're up to twenty-five percent of the population being historically very high!
Society goes on when the war happens. The roads gotta be maintained, the crops gotta be tended, the electricity has to keep flowing. Most of a society's able-bodied will already be employed in tending to society. Only a limited amount of diversion is possible. This number has shrunk down the years.
When the society supports the war. Simple as. If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.
-
If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.
Lorric: Future Dictator
-
Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.
A nebulous, useless definition. What is "supporting the war effort"? Directly war-related industries? Now we're up to twenty-five percent of the population being historically very high!
Society goes on when the war happens. The roads gotta be maintained, the crops gotta be tended, the electricity has to keep flowing. Most of a society's able-bodied will already be employed in tending to society. Only a limited amount of diversion is possible. This number has shrunk down the years.
When the society supports the war. Simple as. If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.
It's generally accepted practice to beat your opponents' will to fight then to think you're going to genocide an entire people. Beating them into submission is almost always the main drive of military action. While the scale of warfare typically ebs and flows by including civilian targets and infrastructure to accomplish this it typically is done still with the goal of causing them to capitulate. It's a means to an end. Actually purposefully trying to annihilate a people is well, a different can of crazy entirely. Not to mention not all societies have then benefit of being able to decide their fates when it comes to leadership and foreign policy. Some societies are near completely cut of from foreign stimuli and are conditioned from a young age to follow the powers that be. Brazenly decimating those people is without a modicum of concern is ignorant and callous to the extreme.
Now to prosecute a successful war will sometimes will require "total conflict" to achieve victory, but thinking its the first option on the list and gleefully pursuing it as a strategy even beyond attaining the capitulation of the enemy is not acceptable decision making.
-
If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.
Lorric: Future Dictator
Do you disapprove, DEATHFUN? :D
I am a peaceful person. But I'm not a pacifist. Live and let live.
Not combatant. Supporting the war effort.
A nebulous, useless definition. What is "supporting the war effort"? Directly war-related industries? Now we're up to twenty-five percent of the population being historically very high!
Society goes on when the war happens. The roads gotta be maintained, the crops gotta be tended, the electricity has to keep flowing. Most of a society's able-bodied will already be employed in tending to society. Only a limited amount of diversion is possible. This number has shrunk down the years.
When the society supports the war. Simple as. If the society is working against you, the society must be destroyed.
It's generally accepted practice to beat your opponents' will to fight then to think you're going to genocide an entire people. Beating them into submission is almost always the main drive of military action. While the scale of warfare typically ebs and flows by including civilian targets and infrastructure to accomplish this it typically is done still with the goal of causing them to capitulate. It's a means to an end. Actually purposefully trying to annihilate a people is well, a different can of crazy entirely. Not to mention not all societies have then benefit of being able to decide their fates when it comes to leadership and foreign policy. Some societies are near completely cut of from foreign stimuli and are conditioned from a young age to follow the powers that be. Brazenly decimating those people is without a modicum of concern is ignorant and callous to the extreme.
Now to prosecute a successful war will sometimes will require "total conflict" to achieve victory, but thinking its the first option on the list and gleefully pursuing it as a strategy even beyond attaining the capitulation of the enemy is not an acceptable decision making.
No, no, no, I have stated further back in the topic until they surrender if you have a look. You have said exactly what I think, your view and mine are exactly the same.
-
"Destroy the society because it opposes you" vs. "wars are won by destroying either the ability or will of the enemy to fight" are perhaps reconcilable views, but saying that you agree with Starslayer following your previous statements, no, that doesn't really follow. You basically tracked the logic behind most terrorist groups and want us to say it follows that behind state use of military force.
-
"Destroy the society because it opposes you" vs. "wars are won by destroying either the ability or will of the enemy to fight" are perhaps reconcilable views, but saying that you agree with Starslayer following your previous statements, no, that doesn't really follow. You basically tracked the logic behind most terrorist groups and want us to say it follows that behind state use of military force.
I actually thought of that, that terrorist groups are doing the same thing.
The difference is, I wouldn't be wanting to fight to impose my ideals upon someone else. Just protect my own. I would not be the aggressor.
-
Quite a few terrorist groups could also make that claim.
-
Quite a few terrorist groups could also make that claim.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
-
you can't use pithy quotes when you clearly don't have the first idea what they actually mean
-
you can't use pithy quotes when you clearly don't have the first idea what they actually mean
Of course I know what it means.
Now pithy, I had to look that up.
Now we just need Legate Damar to show up :lol:
-
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Well in the context of my post, you're basically saying you're a terrorist (or would become one to achieve your goals) but believe you're a freedom fighter. Which is basically why people were coming down on you for advocating total war.
-
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Well in the context of my post, you're basically saying you're a terrorist (or would become one to achieve your goals) but believe you're a freedom fighter. Which is basically why people were coming down on you for advocating total war.
No, you have received the wrong message from that.
What I was trying to say was I don't know what terrorist groups you are referring to, and one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
-
Pick pretty much any terrorist group you like actually. Very few people get up in the morning and say "You know what! I'm going to go out and kill innocent women and children today!"
Pretty much every terrorist acts in the way they do because they feel that they have been oppressed by someone and it's only through acts of terror that they can get that someone to stop and give them what they want. The IRA believe the British started it, Hesbollah* believe that the Israelis started it... the list goes on and on.
*interesting discovery as a result of googling for the spelling of Hesbollah is that they have a Facebook page. I really can't help but think there is a Cracked.com article to be made out of that news. :p
-
Pick pretty much any terrorist group you like actually. Very few people get up in the morning and say "You know what! I'm going to go out and kill innocent women and children today!"
Pretty much every terrorist acts in the way they do because they feel that they have been oppressed by someone and it's only through acts of terror that they can get that someone to stop and give them what they want. The IRA believe the British started it, Hesbollah* believe that the Israelis started it... the list goes on and on.
*interesting discovery as a result of googling for the spelling of Hesbollah is that they have a Facebook page. I really can't help but think there is a Cracked.com article to be made out of that news. :p
I currently don't know of any groups using terrorist tactics who I regard as freedom fighters. But I know I could regard terrorists as freedom fighters under the right circumstances. Could you?
The radical Islamists are trying to impose their way on the whole World though. It's possible if they wiped out Israel they'd be content with that, but I could imagine those terrorists then joining the wider effort to convert the World to Islam.
-
Pick pretty much any terrorist group you like actually. Very few people get up in the morning and say "You know what! I'm going to go out and kill innocent women and children today!"
Pretty much every terrorist acts in the way they do because they feel that they have been oppressed by someone and it's only through acts of terror that they can get that someone to stop and give them what they want. The IRA believe the British started it, Hesbollah* believe that the Israelis started it... the list goes on and on.
*interesting discovery as a result of googling for the spelling of Hesbollah is that they have a Facebook page. I really can't help but think there is a Cracked.com article to be made out of that news. :p
I currently don't know of any groups using terrorist tactics who I regard as freedom fighters. But I know I could regard terrorists as freedom fighters under the right circumstances. Could you?
The radical Islamists are trying to impose their way on the whole World though. It's possible if they wiped out Israel they'd be content with that, but I could imagine those terrorists then joining the wider effort to convert the World to Islam.
Hezbollah is a great example of a group that are a people's freedom fighters and the rest of the worlds terrorists.
EDIT:
In fact put yourself in their position- lets say Iran has invaded your state and has stopped all flow of imports and exports. Isn't your first desire to go all Red Dawn on their ass?
HINT:
They're still wrong.
-
I currently don't know of any groups using terrorist tactics who I regard as freedom fighters.
...
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
-
qed
-
No. Karajorma might have told me of one.
-
Lorric, you kind of miss the point.
The "One man's terrorist..." line is meant to highlight the relativism (and limited usefulness) of the terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". Two people, when evaluating the same third party can come to opposite conclusions about whether that third party is a terrorist or freedom fighter. Not twelve hours after saying that line, though, you make the broad implication that your definition of "terrorist" is somehow free of that relativism.
Which is it? Can one man's terrorist really be another's freedom fighter, or is there some objective definition, to which you are privy, of "terrorist" that precludes a terrorist from being otherwise designated? If the latter, do please provide that definition, so that we might evaluate its objectiveness.
(Apologies, incidentally, if I'm derailing the derail of the derail.)
-
Lorric, you kind of miss the point.
The "One man's terrorist..." line is meant to highlight the relativism (and limited usefulness) of the terms "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". Two people, when evaluating the same third party can come to opposite conclusions about whether that third party is a terrorist or freedom fighter. Not twelve hours after saying that line, though, you make the broad implication that your definition of "terrorist" is somehow free of that relativism.
Which is it? Can one man's terrorist really be another's freedom fighter, or is there some objective definition, to which you are privy, of "terrorist" that precludes a terrorist from being otherwise designated? If the latter, do please provide that definition, so that we might evaluate its objectiveness.
(Apologies, incidentally, if I'm derailing the derail of the derail.)
Yes, I know that. You could just search for a relevant topic on Israel and Palestine, and some would call them terrorists and some would call them freedom fighters.
I don't think you have to be exclusively one or the other. You can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Terrorism is a method of fighting a war. A terrorist is someone who practices this. The freedom fighter part is what they are fighting for. I don't know of any groups conducting terrorism right now though that I would consider freedom fighters, they're the aggressors, not the oppressed. They're not fighting for the people they're fighting for themselves. They're fighting to conquer, not to liberate.
-
lorric are you even arguing a coherent point or are you just responding for the sake of it without the first thought as to what you last said
-
lorric are you even arguing a coherent point or are you just responding for the sake of it without the first thought as to what you last said
I wouldn't be fussed if the topic just stopped here. But I'm not responding just for the sake of it. I want people to know I wouldn't condone terrorism except in the most extreme circumstances. And maybe just stating that will be enough. The original Dambusters stuff seems to be over.
-
Define extreme circumstances
-
Define extreme circumstances
Alright I'll try to invent a scenario where I'd consider a terrorist a freedom fighter.
Country A sits on the border with Country B.
The people of Country A decide they want to carve out an empire for themselves, starting with Country B.
Country A is vastly superior to country B. Country B's military is crushed by Country A in a matter of days, and the country occupied.
Country A's soldiers behave like beasts in Country B. Killing, raping, looting, burning, doing whatever they want, whenever they want. They also start massacring entire towns, and people from Country A start coming over the border and taking possession of these massacred towns.
What's left of Country B's forces know they can't fight Country A. So they slip over the border into Country A. They announce that Country A must leave Country B, and for as long as they don't, people will die. Then they start killing people. The people that supported the invasion. They can't beat the soldiers, but if they kill enough people, they can make the people call the soldiers back.
-
There are no circumstances under which killing civilians to get your point across is justified. That's where I'd call the difference - under the circumstances you outlined, setting a bomb in a military base is taking the fight to the enemy combatants, and I can call these people freedom fighters. Since they can't take on the enemy in an open fight due to being vastly outnumbered and outgunned, they need to resort to guerrilla tactics. But my sympathies stop the moment they put a dirty bomb in a movie theater full of kids, parents, etc. It's monstrous, and such methods will only serve to enrage the enemy country's public, enabling their leaders to treat your own country even more harshly without too much public opposition. They can blow up buses, schools, whatever they like, the other country is never just going to say "you know what, this is too much trouble, let's just pack up and leave". And terrorism isn't about that - that's just an excuse to go vent on innocents. But honestly, this was your main mistake:
Alright I'll try to invent a scenario where I'd consider a terrorist a freedom fighter.
There isn't one. Terrorists try to get their points across by targeting innocents, which renders anything they say irrelevant. It's that simple in my book.
-
There are no circumstances under which killing civilians to get your point across is justified. That's where I'd call the difference - under the circumstances you outlined, setting a bomb in a military base is taking the fight to the enemy combatants, and I can call these people freedom fighters. Since they can't take on the enemy in an open fight due to being vastly outnumbered and outgunned, they need to resort to guerrilla tactics. But my sympathies stop the moment they put a dirty bomb in a movie theater full of kids, parents, etc. It's monstrous, and such methods will only serve to enrage the enemy country's public, enabling their leaders to treat your own country even more harshly without too much public opposition. They can blow up buses, schools, whatever they like, the other country is never just going to say "you know what, this is too much trouble, let's just pack up and leave". And terrorism isn't about that - that's just an excuse to go vent on innocents. But honestly, this was your main mistake:
Alright I'll try to invent a scenario where I'd consider a terrorist a freedom fighter.
There isn't one. Terrorists try to get their points across by targeting innocents, which renders anything they say irrelevant. It's that simple in my book.
Even when those civillians are the enemy? They're happy to send their army butchering it's way through your country and then directly benefit from the spoils? They are not innocents then.
If they truly were innocents, and had nothing to do with the conquering army, then it would be wrong to target them. The children would of course be innocents.
For terrorism to work, it needs to create fear, not rage. The average man in the street needs to genuinely fear for their life. There is only one instance I know of where I have noticed this fear: The Washington Sniper. That whole city was living in fear, and the behaviour of the people changed. I remember the footage of people cringing in fear ducking and diving around petrol stations. The hysteria as the death toll rose. Now imagine such a sniper in every major city in a country, bodies piling up every day. And no children being sniped, just adults. How long could you live with the paranoia eating away at you before you couldn't stand it anymore and would just beg them to stop?
-
People don't think that way. If your friends start to get killed, you're not going to cry for your government to stop and give in to the terrorists, you're going to cry for somebody to kill the guys killing your friends, so that they won't be able to keep going. It's part of human nature that has been well documented again and again, and glorified in more popular media than I can count.
Besides, how often is 100% of the adult populace in favor of an evil war, like in your scenario? Maybe some are, but I guarantee that many will be against it, but powerless to do anything but stand by. How will your freedom fighters differentiate their civilian targets?
-
People don't think that way. If your friends start to get killed, you're not going to cry for your government to stop and give in to the terrorists, you're going to cry for somebody to kill the guys killing your friends, so that they won't be able to keep going. It's part of human nature that has been well documented again and again, and glorified in more popular media than I can count.
Besides, how often is 100% of the adult populace in favor of an evil war, like in your scenario? Maybe some are, but I guarantee that many will be against it, but powerless to do anything but stand by. How will your freedom fighters differentiate their civilian targets?
Possibly. But in the scenario I described, the majority of people won't lose a friend or loved one. But there'll be the constant fear. A suicide bomber, you know what targets they prefer, you only need to worry if you're in such an area, the sniper, you could get shot in the head in your own home. You could be targetted at any moment. And they won't keep going if you do what they want.
This would be a case I've never heard of. Normally, people who go around killing civillians are bad people. And their demands are equally bad. Everything encourages you to fight them. In this case, their demands don't impact your life at all.
The majority would have to be in favour. Those poor innocents who would die would be no different to the innocents who die in the course of warfare.
-
I don't think you have to be exclusively one or the other. You can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Terrorism is a method of fighting a war. A terrorist is someone who practices this. The freedom fighter part is what they are fighting for. I don't know of any groups conducting terrorism right now though that I would consider freedom fighters, they're the aggressors, not the oppressed. They're not fighting for the people they're fighting for themselves. They're fighting to conquer, not to liberate.
The people who you consider terrorists might disagree with your characterization of their cause. Moreover, when you espouse a platitude about the relativity of the definitions of "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" you forfeit your ability to define someone else's cause and the legitimacy of their methods.
To be a little more explicit about why I popped into the thread, when I did, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. When you get criticized about your ideas regarding total war, you try to shield yourself with the notion of a target's legitimacy being the eyes of the beholder. When you then turn around and look at organizations currently engaging in total war, with similar rationales, you implicitly contend that there is no such relativity, proclaiming, "I don't know of any groups conducting terrorism right now though that I would consider freedom fighters, they're the aggressors, not the oppressed."
If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, then what makes your proclamation that some state/organization is an aggressor any more legitimate or meaningful than that state/organization's claim that they are fighting against an oppressor?