Slate: BSG Supports Terrorism
If you haven't seen the season 3 premier of Battlestar Galactica, this is your warning that major spoilers follow.
From Slate.com:
Season 3 finds that hope can be reconstituted through resistance: that is, through insurgency. The American public may be anti-war, but now BSG is going way beyond public sentiment. In unmistakable terms, Battlestar: Galactica is telling viewers that insurgency (like, say, the one in Iraq) might have some moral flaws, such as the whole suicide bombing thing, but is ultimately virtuous and worthy of support. Wow.
Wow is right. Author Spencer Ackerman has chosen to make an incredible death-defying snake-river canyon leap of logic in order to make a ridiculous point. If you've seen the season 3 premier, you simply could not have walked away with the idea that tactics involving suicide bombing are "ultimately virtuous and worthy of support." As I recall, only Tigh supported the tactic without reservation, and in fact may even face charges once the fleet's back together again. But it does make for a good headline.
It often seems as if the whole motive of the creative talent behind BSG is to make you feel uncomfortable about being an American during the occupation of Iraq.
Wrong wrong wrong. If there is a message, it's to get Americans to think about Iraq. So many of us wave the flag or shake our fists, but we rarely stop to actually think about uncomfortable questions like "what drives a person to strap explosives to their body?" You don't have to be on one side of the war or the other to ask that question. In fact, whatever side of the war you fall on, you owe it to yourself to ask that question.
Like it's predecessors, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, the original Star Trek, and others, Battlestar Galactica doesn't preach a message. Rather, it holds a mirror up to our collective faces and asks us to look critically upon ourselves, warts and all. What you walk away with is yours to keep.
EDIT:
Some others who don't "get it" either: PostWatch, Daily Kos, and then a collection of links from our good friend Jacqueline "I'm too hawt for losers like you" Passey.
It's nice to know that liberals don't get it either.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Faced with an enemy that wants to utterly destroy you, at what point do you say, this is something we would not do to survive?
Yes, we will fight you in space. Yes, we will fight you on the battlefield. But no, now that we are outnumbered and out gunned and no other means is available to strike back at our oppressors, we will not use terror as a last resort. We would rather die as a people.
Genocide is happening. Should the humans walk peacefully to their deaths?
October 16th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Good points Tipa, tho I think Ambers point is that people like the Slate author refuse to even think through it like you and just instead try to point fingers at the galactica writers and say that they are supporting Iraq insurgents. They won’t even let themselves think about anything else other than it criticizes the Iraq war and glorifies insurgents. Maybe they refuse to think because they are scared of what they might start thinking about.
I agree with you Tipa tho. If Americans were faced with an invasion, everything would be on the table to fight back. Everything from suicide bombs to nuclear bombs.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:32 am
It’s clear Moore et al are talking in some way about the Iraq war. It’s the purpose of SF to make us see ourselves as the alien would see us.
The situation in Iraq is different, anyway. The Kurds just want to be left alone (and we are leaving them alone). The Shiites and Sunnis hate each other with a passion and were only kept in check by Saddam’s grip. As soon as we leave, they’ll turn their hatred of each other against each other, more than they do now. Iraq has passed articles of Federation; I can see a time when we’ll be negotiating with a free Kurdistan and calling it a victory while the center and south battle it out.
It’s a mistake to see this as a referendum on the Iraq war, though it was obviously written with the Iraq war as an inspiration. What it is, is a story about people driven to and past their limits. To a place where desperate, last resorts are all that is left. The writers said, how far do you need to be pushed before suicide is an acceptable option?
What they did in desperation, though, will be judged afterward. Colonel Tigh, Jammer, all the insurgents and all the collaborators will have to answer for what they did.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
BSG uses Iraq as visual inspiration (balaclava-wearing collaborationist police, knocks on the door at midnight in night-vision green screen) but the storyline is straight out of Vichy France.
Casting Col. “Heart of Darkness” Tigh as BSG’s moral compass is kind of clueless. Laura Roslin fills that role, and she was the target of Tigh’s Jack Nicholson-esque “You NEED me on that wall! Now go bake me a pie, woman!” speech.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Also, I’d like to note for the record that Jacqueline Marie Antionette Bovary Passey is totally on my Wouldn’t list. Sorry.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Wrong wrong wrong. If there is a message, it’s to get Americans to think about Iraq. So many of us wave the flag or shake our fists, but we rarely stop to actually think about uncomfortable questions like “what drives a person to strap explosives to their body?”
Thank you for this pointer. I’ve posted literally hundreds of items about the Iraq War and Islamist terrorism, and until now, I had never stopped to ask what drives a person to strap explosives to his body.
Which is amazing. I mean I’ve read Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan,
various commentaries by Daniel Pipes and Orianna Fallaci, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by The New Yorker’s Lawrence Wright, and the testimonies of imams justifying suicide bombing. I’ve also watched a variety of martydrom videos. So you’d think somewhere in there I would have stumbled across an explanation as to why someone would strap explosives to his body, and yet, apparently not.
Is there a reducation camp I can attend for those who don’t get it? Or perhaps you offer a correspondence school.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Christopher,
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that you’ve never stopped to consider why someone would strap an explosive to their body? Or are you saying that nothing you have ever read has question this tactic? Because my point wasn’t to say that there are easy answers to this question out there, only that we need to ask and ponder these types of questions if we really hope to understand the motivation behind it. And not just conservatives, but liberals too, and every persuasion in between.
Part of it I believe is what Tipa has touched on, and that is people who believe there is no hope left are driven to horrible ends. We can pass judgement on these people easily, because we have the luxury of watching it happen from the comfort of our own homes. But certainly there has to be a better answer than “those people are just fucking crazy.”
I’m not asking you to “get it,” because I don’t even get it myself. But don’t you think it’s a question worth exploring?
October 16th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
To nobody in particular,
What really drove me to post this, and something I probably should have actually written in the main post is this: I am amused at both the conservatives who are crying treason and the liberals who are screaming that BSG is some kind of referendum on the war. Ron Moore is smarter than all of us, and I have no doubt in my little head that he is cackling wildly somewhere, knowing that in just a few short episodes it’s all going to be turned on its head, and neither side is going to be happy with the results. You only need look back to the last few seasons to see how fast this show swings from right to left. Those who take BSG up as some kind of banner to support their agenda are going to be fracking disappointed.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
And here’s where Amber Night shows her true colors.
“I’m a capitol-L Liberal when I want to stick it to the Republicans, but when I want you to agree with me then I change my stripes and try to be the voice of reason.” Al Franken woudl be proud.
Admit it, you’re on a glee trip over Galactica’s shameful use of the Iraq war to try to get people to watch it. The entire show was a slam on the war and an attempt to generate sympathy for the insurgents. Its right there in front of your face and you know it and your playing political games. Why not at least join in with your other Liberal friends and be honest about it?
October 16th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
BSG is a fictional hour of good television and as such, it is a distillation of life (real or sci-fi). Just as I don’t walk into a play about dysfunctional families and expect to totally understand what it’s like to be in such a family, I don’t watch BSG and expect to “get” what a suicide bomber’s motives may be. Anyone who does or thinks it can be done is unfortunately, wrong. As Amber correctly points out, good fiction makes us ask questions, makes us ponder our reactions to a life not our own and generally challenges us to live our lives more robustly.
I’m surprised and slightly disturbed that the upset critics haven’t given the same weight to the other themes in the show. Most notably, the unlawful detainment, torture and wholesale slaughter of “terrorists”. No, no one talks about that because that we likey.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Haven’t seen BSG (Not that I wouldn’t like to), but if I’m understanding correctly, there was something of a military move that resulted in someone’s death. Umm big freaking deal, don’t most military decisions result in someone dying?
So suicide bombing is a pretty sure fire decision that the person doing it is going to be dead. Wasn’t there a part in U-571 where the “captain” ordered one of his crew to go below some water to fix something, both knowing full well he wouldn’t be able to come back? It’s a little different, but not that much.
You think Paul Revere was pretty sure he was going to get killed when he made that ride?
Extremists are so annoying.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Sweetmeat:/em Wonders WTF Christopher Fotos is and how this became about him personally?
Of course I live under a rock so the Great Christophers Light must not have struck my quivering slimey hide yet. I did sort of toodle around some of the links above but didn’t see his name on any of them.
Stealing Syntax’s lyric thunder:
“Youre so vain. I bet you think this song is about you.”
October 16th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I was pretty confus0rd by Christopher Fotos too. His point seems to be that because he never thought about it, it doesn’t exist. Oh and it looks like he is a right-wing blogger. I wonder if the 2 are connected. I expect this from Hunter (not to be confused with Bughunter who seems a decent fellow
) but maybe Fotos is a closet Hello Kitty Island Adventure fan. Or maybe he just needed to spam someones blog to generate traffic to his own.
Nice lyrics Sweetmeat.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:37 am
I think that Christopher Fotos was attempting sarcasm. However, he should have known that only the most dedicated of the sarcastic should attempt it on the internet, as without proper usage, the sarcasm can get lost in the translation from how you would say it and how you have to type it.
In other words, he’s trying to say that of course he has thought about it and to say he hasn’t thought about it is misguided.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:04 am
pssst, Dave. Thanks for the compliment, but I am one of those conservatives. I wouldn’t associate with me if I were you
These other yahoos are steppin’ on my turf, and they’re doing it poorly. The position of right-wing activist on the Amber Night blog has been filled!
(where is his cool internet name?)
October 17th, 2006 at 8:10 am
That’s cool Sweetmeat, I’ve been slackin’ lately.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Heh Bughunter, I bow to your position as official AN rightwinger. =P I was making the distinction between you and Hunter because your handles are close and you seem to be able to hold an intelligent argument even if you’re wrong.
Unlike Hunter who’s entire bag of tricks seems to consist of personal attacks.
@Jason I guess I can see it where Fotos was trying to be sarcastic but its funny how he reacted like the blog entry was somehow directed straight at him, like it was a personal attack.
Dave (oh yeah someone stole my cool internet name)
October 17th, 2006 at 10:50 am
I had a long answer, but it’s not worth it. Amber’s post was super-patronising, and Chris called her on it. Unfortunately he was so obtuse (not to mention snide) that many people missed the point.
Frankly I think Amber has a much better insight into Snugglezerker class balance than geopolitics, but I don’t think she ever claimed we’d find profound gems of reasoning here
October 17th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Damn, so much for rampant fanboi-ism.
October 17th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
See, I just thought that it was a crummy season opener. You have enlightened me.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:50 am
That’s okay Amber,
Go back in there, chill those posters out,
and wait for the Cogcarrier who will be arriving… directly.