Iron Man's New Villain — an Open Source Terrorist 361
An anonymous reader writes "In a recent interview on Comic Book Resources about his new continuation of the Marvel comic-book series 'Invincible Iron Man,' Matt Faction provides information about the the new series (debut will be May 7). The villain is Ezekiel Stane, son of Obadiah Stane (the villain of the new Iron Man movie opening on May 2). Whereas Obadiah was a ruthless billionaire who fought as the Iron Monger, Zeke 'rejects the strategies of his father as being the crude tactics of Attila the Hun.' Instead, he will be 'a post-national business man and kind of an open source ideological terrorist.' As the author puts it, 'Windows wants to be on every computer desktop in the world, but Linux and Stane want to destroy the desktop.' The concept has gone over well on the CBR forums."
People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Insightful)
No! It's not! There are proper terms here, and by calling any crime terrorism you insinuate that the crimes are perpetrated by terrorists. That's giving a whole lot of credit to idiot criminals.
Installing Linux on the computers of unwitting Windows users may be a dumb plot, but it's hardly terrorism. If it were, every goddamned user on Slashdot would be a terrorist for trying to wrest Windows from Granny's warm, wet hands.
I'd like to see this OSS terrorist face the CEO of Nerv (from that other forgettable hacker movie a few years back). Geek Terrorist. Coming soon to a basement near you!
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
BTW:
"Drink someone's milkshake? Terrorism."
You're my new hero for that one.
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent down (Score:3, Funny)
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you remember? 9/11 changed everything! If you break the law you are a terrorist because using the police to respond to your crime takes manpower and resources away from fighting terrorism. And if that doesn't convince you then it is obvious that *you* are trying to obstruct the fight against terrorism by not fully supporting every policy of the government.
So stop hating freedom, terrorist.
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Funny)
His response was "Because 9/11 changed everything"
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait for large terrorist act that scares the crap out of the nation
The Burning of the Reichstag?
Pass draconian terror laws suspending civil rights and allowing torture ("But just for terrorists!")
The protection of the state laws voted by Germany in 1934, Bulgaria, Hungary and other German allies in the 1934-1939 interval?
Extend definition of terrorism to include any activity you want to persecute; if met with complaint, answer "Why do you hate Freedom so much?"
Yavol, mein Fuhrer!!!
...
Dictatorship!
Zich Heil!!!
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Informative)
-Jawohl mein Führer (with an Umlaut)
-Sieg Heil
Disclaimer: I'm not German, I'm Dutch.
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What a (sic) joke!
--
Toro
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Funny)
That does sound like something that an over-zealous open source activist might say.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I drink your milkshake! I DRINK IT UP!! For great justice!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ava?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Delta Force came before those, while Harrison Ford was between jobs galaxy hopping as a smuggler and finding lost biblical icons. Bruce Willis was just a petty Private Eye.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:4, Insightful)
Was it really the *terrorists* who had that goal?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The following decade of comics will be known as the Bomb The Shit Out Of Third-World Countries Era.
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Interesting)
Incidentally, i find it very interesting that in a country like Sweden where there is practically no threat of terrorism, the government is redefining the crime of rape.
Before 2005 (or 06, 07 i'm not sure exactly which of those years it came into place), we had a law that basically said that sex with a minor is "abuse of minor". Now a later law rewrote that so sex with a minor is no longer "abuse of minor" but plain "rape". That is, even if the sex is consentual, there is no legal difference. There's a dillution of terms. Sure it's abuse, but is it rape? No. Rape is forcefully having sex with someone. Abuse of minor is abuse of minor and not rape. They've now changed the definition of rape to be "forcefully having sex with someone, OR having sex with someone who's younger than ".
From what can be discerned in current debates, the next step is widening the definition further by defaulting that sex without proven consent is rape too. The idea is to put part of the burden of proof on the "criminal" by forcing him to prove that the "victim" wanted to have sex and did not protest. The excuse is that too many rapists go free. (If the girl gets plastered, then gets fucked, and then regrets it, was it rape?
They've already widened the definition of child porn to encompass drawings and something that's being debated is the possibility of writing in another exception in the child porn law that would
1: Set a definite 18 year old limit on porn (currently the definition is "if she looks sexually mature, the porn is legal")
2: Set a secondary limit defined by her looks that goes beyond point 1. That is, "if she does not look sexually mature the porn is illegal even if the girl is proven to be over 18".
The widened definition of child porn is, not entirely surprisingly, supported by the man who is also one of sweden's most vocal opponents of filesharing (Thomas Bodström). The same person is also a supporter of the swedish child porn filter which has previously been used to block The Pirate Bay (and some site about bonsai trees). Coincidence?
My personal belief is that the US fight on terrorism is inspiring those with a desire for more power into finding scapegoats. In order to create more scapegoats that can be used in order to expand oppressive laws, they widen the definitions of existing crimes. After all, if drawings are child porn, then surely the amount of child porn has suddenly seen an increase and then the supporters can come out and say "Well look even if we're fighting THIS HARD against child porn it's not doing anything good so we must fight even HARDER". And as mentioned before, this also works wonders as they can use the same weapons they use against child porn against file sharing.
Re:People! Not everything is terrorism! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's no hypothethical. That's actually what happened under Ireland's statutory rape laws [www.rte.ie] (age<16 == rape). So, sorry, but I have nothing but contempt for your mindless "you must not be a parent" drivel that results in politicians placating you and your ilk with "statutory X" and "minimum sentence" laws. You make this world a *worse* place for your children and mine.
Thankfully, the Irish law was eventually ruled unconstitutional, but not before the young man concerned had, wrongfully, spent 6 years in jail.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
NetBSD... just like my toaster [wikipedia.org].
In related news (Score:5, Funny)
and in other news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick... (Score:5, Funny)
He will share global economy to it's knees!
His nefarious plan of... sharing stuff, has to be stopped!
Re: (Score:2)
Btw this would be accurate if they made the open source guy an elitist, self important, condescending, arrogant jackass like way too many Linux experts but I think Microsoft forcing everyone to use a horrible operating system is eviler.
Re:OpenSourceTerroristMan and his sidekick... (Score:5, Funny)
The Open Sourceror: Wants the whole world to be covered by the GPL. Has a Shield of Arrogance labeled "RTFM" that can absorb the damage of any attack and turn it into a blast of pure rejection. Can use his package manager to quickly construct mostly-working devices for everything. Thinks the Free Initiative are his best friends.
The Free Initiative: Don't want to be called "Freedom Initiative" because they don't want freedom, they want Free-as-in-freedom. Insist that there's a big difference. Hate the Open Sourceror, the non-Free world and each other, because they can't agree which variant of the BSD licence they want to put the world under.
The Consultant: Sent by IBM manufacturer, the Consultant wears a heavy mechanized armor called the Z System. His goal is to destroy the world (except for IBM) and replace it with a virtual clone running on IBM mainframes. Attacks by throwing blade servers with deadly precision. Has the mysterious ability to drain cash from people's wallets at frightening speed.
Sunray: Sent by Sun, this combatant lugs around a 500 liter canister of Java on his back, which e constantly drinks from by means of a straw. Insists that the caffeine in the Java makes him slower, despite the fact that he can barely move with the canister on his back. Has a on-again-off-again alliance with the Open Sourceror.
Emmessdeeann: This mysterious alien was hired by Microsoft to ensure that every single person on the planet has a valid licence for every product Microsoft manufactures, plans to manufacture at some point or doesn't manufacture but wish they did. Has a Cash Launcher, which suffocates his enemies under wads of Dollar bills, then sets them alight. Also has a Crash Launcher, which causes his power armor to shut down until a service techician can fix it. Unfortunately, both are built into the same weapon. Insists on ending each sentence with ".NET" instead of a full stop. Has a son and a daughter, both called "hWnd".
Google: Omnipresent and omniscient. Insist they aren't doing actual evil while using thir vast archive of footage of illegal activities to blackmail everyone into looking at their context-sensitive ads. Even though they are targetting the entire population of the planet, nobody could yet topple their "we only target evil people" argument.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Juh? (Score:5, Funny)
What part of that sentence did I understand?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting DVD and audio to work? My media player asked if I wanted it to work, and behold, after I ticked and clicked, it did.
Printer? A little research on http://linuxprinting.org/ [linuxprinting.org] another tick'n'click, and a setup wizard, and I was printing too.
Perhaps Tony Stark sponsors Ubuntu?
(oh, and any corporation mad enough to allow it's users to watch movies at work has more productivity worries than whether they have the right codecs installed or not).
Re:Juh? (Score:5, Interesting)
What DVD work?
I have 400+ movies on my Linux file server with any computer around the house being able to work as a proper media player (with a proper IR remote and everything). You also can use a bog standard fanless and diskless thin client for this. No noise, nothing.
Wanna try this with Microcrap Media Center Edition? Dream on...
DVD is actually an area where Linux reigns supreme. I have tried many HD upscalers and I actually play my movies on a Linux box using VLC and Nvidia (with Nvidia drivers). It simply works better than any commercial upscaler I have seen so far. In fact it works so good that I do not see the point of buying and HD media for at least the next few years.
You simply need to chose the _RIGHT_ drive or play off the hard drive. The problems with playing DVDs are usually not with Linux, they are with the DVDs being massively bastardised by Macrovision. As a result if you got the "wrong" DVD drive it will fail to read under anything - Windows, Linux, MacOS, etc.
If you rip it all problems disappear. All my DVDs are actually stored on a file server in the loft. I got tired of dealing with scratches, dirt, Macrovision or simply trying to find the right DVD to watch.
Heh! (Score:2)
As I said on my LUG mailinglist (Score:3, Insightful)
meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the Marvel formula, of course, is the neurotic, conflicted hero. Following the principle of heroic disadvantage, it follows that it helps to give the villain clarity. And there is nothing that promotes clarity like a mad, Utopian vision. What makes the vision mad is not its lack of feasibility; what makes it mad is that getting there requires subverting the things the vision is supposed to accomplish. Dr. Doom is certain that if he makes decisions for people, they'll be better of in the end. In practice that means enslaving them. Real life examples include right wing terror groups who rob banks in the cause of non-interference with individual liberty, or left wing extremists who run kidnapping and extortion rackets in the name of human dignity.
Heroes in comic book universes tend to be conservative. Not necessarily politically so, but they always act to preserve the status quo. In part, this is determined by the need to reset the universe story after story after story. The superhero might not know what he wants, but whatever it is, it does not involve change. Superman does not fight to make America a better place, he fights to preserve the "American way". Batman crusades against crime, but in his wealthy playboy alter ego he does not crusade for education, which would ultimately be more effective.
Tony Stark, arguably, has the worst plan for using his super abilities of any comic book hero.
Stark's super-ability is engineering. A physically super-powered character like Spider-man can only accomplish things that require him to be on the spot; Stark's potential super-deeds can be mass produced. Even a moderately talented engineer could do hundreds of times more for humanity than Spider-man, and Stark is not an ordinary engineer; he is prodigiously talented. He could use his unique engineering prowess to cure heart disease, or to provide mobility to paralysis victims. Instead he chooses to pursue a quixotic crusade against villainy which could be left to dozens, if not hundreds of other costumed superheroes. He's brought himself down from the level of engineering genius to the level of a mere superhero. Instead of designing mass producible solutions to humanity's problems, he designs combat technologies that threaten humanity when they are reproduced. Indeed he spends a great deal of superhero energy trying to put the technology transfer genie back in the bottle.
In short, in the comic book universe it is never the superheroes who have a vision of a better world. It is the supervillains who are agents of change. Their vision, of course, is insane, otherwise they'd be super-philanthropists, not super-villains. But if it weren't for supervillains, superheroes wouldn't have the imagination to put their powers to any productive uses. Superman, by spending an hour a day or so on a super-treadmill, could provide enough power for Metropolis to shut down all it's coal fired power plants, improving the economic life and health of everybody in the city. Instead he wastes his out of costume time playing absurd games with secret identities.
Iron Man is interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Marvel recently had a big crossover plot line called "Civil War," in which it was decided that superheroes were too dangerous to have running around without government oversight. They were all required to register with the Federal government. If they failed to do so, they were subject to imprisonment in one of SHIELD's top-security prisons designed for supervillains.
Who was the main man responsible for hunting down his fellow heroes and former comrades? Tony Stark, the invincible Iron Man.
In fact, Tony went on to become the head of SHIELD, the government's most ultra-secret spy organization (think more oversight than the FBI, more freedom than the CIA). In most respects, they've taken the "Tony is a billionaire industrialist" angle and spun it into "Tony is an arch-conservative storm trooper of the old guard of manufacturing wealth, using the power of the government to enforce a neo-facist agenda that goes contrary to 50 years of Marvel Comics philosophy."
It's interesting that they are portraying the latest villain as an "open source" one
Re:Iron Man is interesting (Score:5, Informative)
The evil twin theme is very common in comic books, whether the twin is in a parallel universe, or is a pretender, or just somebody who is awfully like the hero. The quest for more complexity and realism in recent stories means there is no better candidate for evil twin than the hero himself. It's an even match, no kryptonite needed.
It's a very plausible and useful theme. What is a supervillain, but a superhero with a plan to drag the world, against its will if need be, into a better future? He starts by acting as if his undeniable superiority gives him the right to make decisions for others. In the end he finds himself using lesser people as expendable means to his ends. What I've argued is that the classic comic book hero is really not all that heroic. The villains are arguably more heroic, but only from the perspective of their severe moral short sightedness.
If you want to take a superhero on a journey from being a muscle-bound enforcer of the status quo to being real hero, the straightest path cuts right across supervillain territory.
Is Tony Stark really any different from Dr. Doom? They're both vain, armor wearing geniuses with a serious authoritarian streak. As bona-fide geniuses they have more reason than most to believe themselves qualified to decide what is in the best interest of others. However, Dr. Doom will never be a hero, because there is no end to his self-delusion of omniscience; there are no limits to what he will destroy today to build a better tomorrow.
Sacrifice is essential to heroism. A hero has to give something up for the greater good. In the DC universe, Batman is a kind of neurotic fixation of Bruce Wayne; Wayne fights crime, but in a way that precludes him having normally satisfying relationships with other people.
Clearly, the easiest way to make Tony Stark into a hero is to give him something he has to give up; you can't take away his genius, which makes taking away his money futile. So you have to give him something, namely the power and authority he not-so-secretly craves. The best way to show that Tony Stark is different from Dr. Doom in an essential way is for him to become Dr. Doom. Then turn back. And, since this is Marvel, he'll return from the trip with enough personal demons to flummox Dr. Strange.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Man, and I though piracy was bad (Score:2)
Re:Man, and I though piracy was bad (Score:4, Informative)
We already have that (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We already have that (Score:5, Funny)
In a theoretically infinite universe, there are theoretically infinite objects that could be considered brains. If I only didn't have one brain, then that means I have all but one of the infinite brains out there, which would imply, at the very least, that I would be much, much smarter than you.
Where did you get that sig anyway? Some insult from some online forum?
(Mods, this is the entertainment section. There's no great need to be strictly on-topic, right?
Epiphany and Switcheroo (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, his character is a raging, womanizing alcoholic who regularly gets blackmailed for things he's actually done.. Hold on.. which one is the good guy again?
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason he's a hero at all is because he has his own comic book. Besides, I never liked Iron Man anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Some Villain (Score:5, Funny)
"We're going to provide Linux free of charge to anyone! MUHAHAHAHA!"
"Beware my open source laser! Powered by the distilled tears of Microsoft execs, it will cut you out of vendor lock-in!"
Or better, Stark teams up with Microsoft to combat the 'threat', then, during a battle as Iron Man powers up his blaster, the HUD flashes..
WinIRON.sys
The driver is attempting to access memory beyond the end of the
allocation.
Stop: 0x000000D6
(0x89781000, 0x00000000, 0xBF82683F, 0x00000000)
WinIRON.sys address BF82683F base at BF80000
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for ruining Iron Man even more (Score:5, Informative)
Iron Man was my fave character (A smooth but smart dude), but he's gone to shit in the past few years.
Thanks, Marvel.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, he was a lot more of a good guy when he went around forcefully disabling other super heroes' suits because they maybe might have some sort of Stark-designed equipment in them, especially when he accidentally kills someone in the process. Or that time he decided to kill the Supreme Intelligence even after the Avengers as a team agreed not to. When you have to pretend you're not your regular guy alter-ego just to stay on your super
In (still) other news (Score:5, Interesting)
I will be smelling stale milk for weeks after putting it out my nose laughing. I guess the "Heroes Happen Here" stuff isn't taking off?
--
Toro
(Note: I believe this article was about a new comic book, not the movie [imdb.com], which features "Iron Monger" (Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane) as the enemy.)
[[UAC warning: Someone is making a schizoid post! mod Funny or Informative? Yeah, you should probably just click "ignore"
Carefully choosing words (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait Wait... (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really this the world of entertainment really gives a fuck about the tensions between open and closed source?
Slashdot - News for nerds detached from reality.
Sounds like MS "Evangelism" to me. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironic, really. One would think Steve Ballmer [wikimedia.org] would be the ideal anti-hero.
Don't let your children watch or read crap (Score:3, Funny)
I'm speechless (Score:3, Insightful)
Read TFForumPost: Wow... I thought I got nerdy with my fandoms...
Read more: Damn, they moved on quickly. lol @ suggestion of hero/villain alignment switch
Read the
I got nothin'.
Fact check on aisle 4. Fact check on aisle 4. (Score:3, Informative)
Fights over shared source and free open source ter (Score:3, Funny)
Blueprints are available on how to setup your own organization. Crash courses in setting up your own cell, free formats to document the cell meeting minutes, open and verifiable systems to elect cell and organization leaders, recommended lingo to hide intentions (although open, the message encryption works but people are left guessing as to what you are conspiring about.)
However, a small but significant part is missing. There's no plan for the rocket. The base is there, the logistics, the whole organization, but no rocket. So reluctantly UNA uses rockets manufactured by evil corporations that do not allow you to modify them and only ause death and destruction with a very inferior sense of style.
Until one day a youngster from South-Jemen comes that desperately needs a rocket but is highly disappointed by the commodity but closed source rockets. So he boldly builds one himself and calls it Afred (he himself is called Alfred.) And he starts deploying it for his own purpose but uses the available UNA blueprints.
Before you know everyone is using Afred for the daily terrorism fix.
Then the FTF founder quite rightly points out that a missile launching compound consists of many more things than a missile. The missile is a vital part and without it no devastation takes place. However, one should not underestimate the infrastructure provided by UNA.
Compounds should not be referred to as Afred because that would not give sufficient credit to the FTF. Instead a more appropriate name is UNA/Afred. AT least so says the Saint of the Church of UNA, St. Ignitius (I bless thee missile.)
Editors! (Score:3, Funny)
Open source man! (Score:3, Funny)
Doin' the things that copyleft can,
What's he like? It's not important.
open source man.
Is he a geek, or is he a terrorist?
When he's on the internet does he distribute himself?
Or does the internet distribute him instead?
Nobody knows, open source man.
Iron man, Iron man.
Iron man hates open source man.
They have a fight, iron wins.
Iron man.
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming those binary blobs even work on your chosen operating system and processor, or the versions thereof.
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Funny)
Mods on crack (Score:4, Insightful)
How is the parent a troll? Sigh. The moderators must be smoking up again.
Linux would never have become what it is today if it hadn't been for widespread documentation of hardware-software interfaces. "The next Linux" will need the same. It boggles the mind how many Linux users refuse to understand that.
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
A working closed driver is nice when it supports your system. An open driver means that if more than four or five hardcore geeks out there run a similar system as you, you WILL have a driver.
So no, for day to day use on current consumer desktops that are free to update and reinstall whenever, closed drivers aren't a big deal. That isn't the only type of system out there.
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)
The ANC anti-Apartheid movement [wikipedia.org] under the white South African government was labelled a terrorism. Nelson Mandela was public enemy number 1, the Osama Bin Laden of his time and place. White South Africa bought into their government's propaganda.
The White Rose [wikipedia.org] organisation was labelled terrorist, and its leaders beheaded. for their non-violent anti-Nazi position in pre-WWII Nazi Germany. The German body politic bought into their government's propaganda.
Today, the word terrorism gets thrown around like some Muslim / Arab / Islamist (whatever that means) is hiding in the bushes outside your house with his AK-47 pointed at your door just waiting for you and your kids to step out so he can vent his hatred of your freedoms. The American people buy into their government's propaganda.
When you hear the label "terrorist" used, you should think about who is doing the labelling, and what exactly their agenda is rather than just taking their word for it that you are in danger and need their protection.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For a stupid and corrupt movie script writer to do this really is only the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm assuming you mean the groups need to be wiped off the face of the earth, since after all it is presumed that the people in the groups still have their human rights and deserve fair trials, right?
So if you mean an entire ideology should die out, then doesn't that require a form of thought police?
Actions should be punished, not beliefs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apartheid is always going to be a touchy subject, so I have to watch my words here, but... Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. That his cause was noble is beyond doubt, and his leadership of the post-Apartheid South Africa was magnificent, but the fact remains that he was the leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe [wikipedia.org], which carried out bombings of civilian targets and which was therefore a terrorist organisation.
They say that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, and I agree with the parent post that we have to be very sceptical whenever somebody uses the term "terrorist" because they usually have an agenda in doing so. But we also have to be careful not to condone acts that are genuinely terrorism just because we don't think the perpetrators are bad people. The world isn't made up of saints and sinners, and sometimes even good people cross a line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If bombing civilians makes an organization terrorist, then any government which has engaged in mass aerial bombardment or artillery strikes is a terrorist.
Not that I disagree with that conclusion. It's all about who writes the history.
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)
-mcgrew
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Terrorism" was originally defined as violence against civilians to affect politics. How are actions against soldiers in any way considered "terrorism"? Yet the American government called the barracks bombing (pre-911, under Clinton IIRC) "terrorism" and the present terrorist-in-chief (if military actions against soldiers is terrorism then?) considers roadside bombs to be "terrorism", then as you say, the word has lost all meaning.
It is now just a propaganda ploy.
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of like when civilians fired on British troops during the US Revolution? The winning side's "freedom fighters" are the losing side's "terrorists".
If you target civilians for political purposes it's terrorism. Calling anything else "terrorism" is propaganda, and a lie to boot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The original post's line "No ambiguity in the term" reference was to Islamist, not terrorism. I'm not sure how that was confusing. But since you bring it up....
Do you think most people could go out on a limb and agree that suicide vest attacks at funerals [mnf-iraq.com], car bombings of schools [mnf-iraq.com], mass kidnappings [mnf-iraq.com] (where the victims are likely to end up in mass graves [mnf-iraq.com] ), and roadside bombs targeting c [mnf-iraq.com]
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you do this, then explain how the US would not be a state sponsor of terror, based on our confirmed historical support of right-wing paramilitaries in Nicaragua, and our more recent involvement funding warlords in Somalia, and violent separatist groups in Iran.
For extra-credit, justify the US's refusal to prosecute perpetrators the My Lai massacre, or our WW2 era concepts of total war, or even better, the African National Congress's tendency to or Irgun.
After you finish with the mental acrobatics necessary to do such a thing, then apply these new and broad standards to Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Mahdi army.
The point? Things are not black and white, and we do not possess any moral high-ground upon which to condemn others. Terrorism is just a tactic, one used for good and bad. And at the same time, a tactic that kills far less people then organized war.
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:4, Funny)
Oohhh you meant "instructions for making" rather than "ingredients. Never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open Source Terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
Serious citation needed here. You can't make such a sweeping statement (*often*?!?) without giving at least some proof. I paid quite a lot of attention to the hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission [wikipedia.org], and I don't remember hearing any such thing.
That's a gross exaggeration. The average white South African was more or less indifferent. They played no part in actively oppressing blacks, but were happy to accept the advantages that the systemic oppression brought them, so long as it didn't cause too much trouble. It's hard to get people to stand up when other people's rights are being trampled, isn't it? Not a lot of Americans complained about the Trail of Tears [wikipedia.org] either.
The trouble with politics is that it's the extremists who are most likely to be politically active. Decisions are made by those who show up, and those tend to be the people with strong views. Very few Russians in 1916 were enthusiastic communists; the rest were just prepared to go along with it. And very few South Africans in 1948 were hardcore racists; but they were OK with the fact that their government was made up of scumbags and that is their guilt.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Informative)
Tony Stark is a closed source old school military industrial complex type. The new enemy is a diffuse open source agile terrorist type. Tony Stark finds that he and his closed source ways are having trouble keeping up with the open source stylings of his enemy.
P.S. It has NOTHING to do with the movie. Take off the tinfoil, this is an article about the new story arc in the comic book and is not part of a MIAA plot to take away your Linux.
Who's the terrorist? (Score:2, Insightful)
But what else could you expect from stereotyped cartoons from the United Corporation of America?
Re:Who's the terrorist? (Score:5, Insightful)
</pedantic>
Re:Muhahahaha (Score:5, Funny)