re: Glorifying terrorism - a bit, I suppose, but is slightly nonsensical. The whole treatise about symbols and attacking symbols is one that pro-'GWOT' folks would actually agree. Also, a key point about V that is difficult to transcribe to today's political situation is this: his was a personal vendetta against those who directly injured him - and it was clear that it was they, not he, who acted first (and they essentially agree with this point by their attempts to hide the Lark Hill history).
One issue worth arguing about: his low/non-existant innocent collateral deathcount - that could qualify as glorifying his brand of terrorism.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: March 27th, 2006 03:30 am (UTC)From:re: Glorifying terrorism - a bit, I suppose, but is slightly nonsensical. The whole treatise about symbols and attacking symbols is one that pro-'GWOT' folks would actually agree. Also, a key point about V that is difficult to transcribe to today's political situation is this: his was a personal vendetta against those who directly injured him - and it was clear that it was they, not he, who acted first (and they essentially agree with this point by their attempts to hide the Lark Hill history).
One issue worth arguing about: his low/non-existant innocent collateral deathcount - that could qualify as glorifying his brand of terrorism.