2006-09-03 13:20:26 · 10 answers · asked by HEY boo boo 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It was definitely pro-terrorist within a Orwellian type society, and liberals are always going on about how they think America has become that way.
Interesting note about the movie though, at one point the main female character says "artists lie to tell the truth". I wonder if that was a subtle rationalization for what Michale Moore does - he lies, but even when you point the lies out, liberals will say it's for a "higher" truth. In my view, that's the definition of Orwellian.
2006-09-03 13:35:48 · answer #1 · answered by Will 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
particular I even have considered it. dude, i in simple terms watch video clips for entertainment. particular our gov controls whats on television, and how that's portrayed. particular our gov lies. particular our gov is corrupt. So in line with probability I ought to coach with knives, get a masks and initiate a revolution? Nah, It wasn't that super of a action picture, and that i could particularly stay domicile and watch different video clips. Very puffed up!!!! did you be responsive to that financial disaster thirteen interior the "offical Firemans instruction manual to disaster administration" is all approximately alien deliver's? each and every hearth domicile in united states of america has a replica, tell me why there is an entire financial disaster on the thank you to handle UFOs if the gov did not be responsive to they excisted? answer: they be responsive to how the frequently used public reacts to this kindof information... occasion: the analyzing of "conflict of the worlds" on the radio by making use of orson wells
2016-12-14 17:36:18 · answer #2 · answered by sory 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was more a politically motivated poorly made movie at best. The evil characters were wealthy right wing christians, the "heroes" were mainly proletarian atheists. The makers decided to add several pseudo-emotional scenes about homosexuals which were in no way necessary to the overall plot.
2006-09-03 13:30:58 · answer #3 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Definitely, sort of pro-terrorist, but sometimes exaggerating is the only way some people open their eyes to reality.
2006-09-03 13:25:02 · answer #4 · answered by oblivionpr 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, it wasn't. If you had paid attention, it was a pro-freedom movie. The movie attack the high security state that the world is seeing more of these days. The hero was looking to destroy the dictatorial regime that his country had fallen under and that nearly destroyed him. You should go back and see it again.
2006-09-03 13:26:10 · answer #5 · answered by t_raudenbush 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is all in how you interpret terrorism...
In that movie, he was rebuking the all powerful 'system' the only way he could. In today's times, that would be considered terrorism. In my mind, it isn't. It is a brave man with courage to stand up against all odds for what he believes in.
2006-09-03 13:49:09 · answer #6 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually it was anti-terrorist. The government was the terrorist in the movie and the "terrorist" (v) was actually the hand of justice.
But I suppose you have to be able to watch the movie with more than your eyes to catch that.
2006-09-03 13:33:31 · answer #7 · answered by cat_Rett_98 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It would have been as terrorist as the British calling our forefathers terrorist.
2006-09-03 14:13:28 · answer #8 · answered by choyryu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course not. a movie can't MAKE you do anything. you only become a terrorist if you CHOOSE to become a terrorist!
2006-09-03 13:24:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It has turned out to be remarkably prophetic.
2006-09-03 13:32:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋