Death Of A President

Visage · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:13

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5302598.stm

Sounds interesting.

Had to laugh at this though:

John Beyer of UK TV pressure group MediaWatch said the film was "irresponsible".

He said it could even trigger a real assassination attempt and told the Daily Mirror: "There's a lot of feeling against President Bush and this may well put ideas into people's heads."

I can just imagine a load of frustrated malcontents watching the program and then, as the credits roll, turning to one another and saying 'Are you thinking what I'm thinking?....'

Borris · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:16

A White House Spokeswoman said:
We are not going to comment, because it does not dignify a response.

Mainstream US networks have films of presidents being assassinated all the time. Is it just because C4 has made this more realistic?

[Edit for spelling]

cleanbluesky · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:17

Innapropriate, left-wing masturbation material that legitimises the terrorist rhetoric of the West being a legitimate target.

PinkFloyd · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:17

Lol, I'd watch it.
Sounds interesting. Not a fan of Bush myself either...

Borris · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:18

cleanbluesky said:
Innapropriate, left-wing masturbation material that legitimises the terrorist rhetoric of the West being a legitimate target.

How so?

Visage · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:19

Borris said:
How so?

Its the work of the Politically Correct Liberal Elite, innit?

scorza · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:21

Borris said:
Mainstream US networks have films of presidents being assassinated all the time. Is it just because C4 has made this more realistic?

I guess its because its the current president. Yes there have been plenty of assasination films in the past, but as far as I'm aware they've always been either fictional presidents or past presidents such as Abe Lincoln or JFK.

I agree with CBS - but sadly that stuff gets the ratings these days

@if ®afiq · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:23

cleanbluesky said:
Innapropriate, left-wing masturbation material that legitimises the terrorist rhetoric of the West being a legitimate target.

Don't you think Bush is a legit target? And does Bush equate the West?

@if ®afiq · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:24

scorza said:
I guess its because its the current president. Yes there have been plenty of assasination films in the past, but as far as I'm aware they've always been either fictional presidents or past presidents such as Abe Lincoln or JFK.

I agree with CBS - but sadly that stuff gets the ratings these days

What if it is current presidents/rulers of other countries?

tbz_ck · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:26

Nobody is a legit target. Murder is murder is murder. Murdering a murderer is still not right.

The people of America have the democratic means to make him powerless. Till then they have to suck it up (and the rest of the world with them sadly)

Borris · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:27

scorza said:
I guess its because its the current president. Yes there have been plenty of assasination films in the past, but as far as I'm aware they've always been either fictional presidents or past presidents such as Abe Lincoln or JFK.(

They have fictionalisations of the current president, they have actors playing the current president.

It seems that it's perfectly acceptable to have the president as a hero, yet unthinkable to have him as a victim, or, heaven forbid, a villain.

Is it the realism that's upsetting?

cleanbluesky · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:30

Borris said:
How so?

1) It helps legitimise the left-wing anti-war construction that Bush would be a legitimate military target for an Islamic extremist, which in turn legitimises the construction of Islamic Nationalism

2) Shows a deep disrespect for the leader of one of one of the most significant countries in the Western world. You wouldn't see an Iranian documentary of their president being killed, if only because pride is more endemic.

3) Chooses a very perculiar way to 'examine' the war on terror

Visage · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:32

cleanbluesky said:
1) It helps legitimise the left-wing anti-war construction that Bush would be a legitimate military target for an Islamic extremist, which in turn legitimises the construction of Islamic Nationalism

Do you not agree that, in a conflict, your enemy's leader is a legitimate target?

2) Shows a deep disrespect for the leader of one of one of the most significant countries in the Western world. You wouldn't see an Iranian documentary of their president being killed, if only because pride is more endemic.

Respect is earned. It is not a right, and it can only be granted by an individual.

3) Chooses a very perculiar way to 'examine' the war on terror

What are the 'approved' ways to examine the War on Terror?

cleanbluesky · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:34

@if ®afiq said:
Don't you think Bush is a legit target?

Any terrorism is full-stop illegitimate.

scorza · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:35

@if ®afiq said:
What if it is current presidents/rulers of other countries?

Then I would expect that president/ruler of the other country wouldn't be too happy.

Visage · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:36

cleanbluesky said:
Any terrorism is full-stop illegitimate.

Your sentence is meaningless without an accepted definition of 'terrorism'.

cleanbluesky · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:37

Visage said:
Do you not agree that, in a conflict, your enemy's leader is a legitimate target?

Pikcing up an AK47 does not mean you represent anything, nor does it automatically make you a soldier.

Respect is earned. It is not a right, and it can only be granted by an individual.

And publicly disrespecting a representative of something you are a part of shows self-hatred. That is not to say we cannot be critical, it is to say that some ways of being critical are appropriate and some are not.

What are the 'approved' ways to examine the War on Terror?

In a balalnced and critical, reasoned manner rather than an sensationalist drama.

Borris · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:38

cleanbluesky said:
Any terrorism is full-stop illegitimate.

Does that include state sponsored assassinations?

cleanbluesky · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:38

Visage said:
Your sentence is meaningless without an accepted definition of 'terrorism'.

Feel free to visit the dictionary.

Visage · 1 Sep 2006 at 11:43

cleanbluesky said:
Feel free to visit the dictionary.

http://www.answers.com/terrorism&r=67

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

By that definition the Iraq war is terrorism:

Unlawful: No UN resolution was passed authorizing force.
A person or organized group: The 'Coalition of the Willing'....
Against people or property: I think we can take this as read...
With the intention of coercing societies or governments: 'You *WILL* become domocratic'
For ideological or political reasons: Self evident.