I made a Trek and Terrorism Thread in the General Discussion section http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=252412 I think the showrunners on DS9 used the IRA (Iris Republic Army) and the retaliation of the Jews in 1943 against the Nazi (Warsaw Ghetto Uprising being the most infamous) as their inspiration for the Bajoran terrorists. From a story standpoint, it's the David vs Goliath trope in action. Where people will cheer for the underdog. The Bajorans are empathetic because of 50 years of occupation and murder their people have suffered. On DS9 there is no "mea culpa" though. Kira doesn't feel any remorse of sympathy for any of the lives she took. IMO: Where the sheering of ideologies about Kira's mentality/DS9's stance on terrorism and we the audience's interpreation of terrorism portrayed in the media comes from how we view terrorism is in the real world. You have: ISIL/ISIS in Iraq cutting off heads, killing civilians blowing up buildings, targeting non-Muslims for death if they do not convert. Hamas in Gaza and the kidnap and murder of 3 Israeli teens. Followed by thousands of rockets being fired in to Israel. As well as every ceasefire period being broken by Hamas when they fire more rockets. The Russian Separatists in Ukraine blowing civilian airplanes out of the sky and boasting about it on social media. Boko Haram kidnapping girls and women and forcing them to convert to Islam before selling them into slavery. The Taliban in Afghanistan blowing up buildings, bombing roads and harming civilians (throwing acid in women and girl's faces, shooting children, executing teachers etc) Al Queda insurgents in Iraq pre-ISIS/ISIL doing the same thing mentioned above. The 9/11 attacks in the US. The Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. The London subway bombing in 2005 by Islamic extremists. The 1995 subway gas attack in Japan. The murder of the 1972 Israel Olympic Team by Palestian Terrorists in Munich Germany. The Highjacking of a French airplane in 1994. The list goes on. These acts of terrorism are vile and reprehensible. No one condones them and no one defends them. Our interpretation of what it means to be a terrorist is skewed so that we see it as bad and evil all the time. When DS9, TNG (The High Ground), and BSG (during the New Caprica occupation) frame terrorism as an effective tool/ a means to an end.
Hezbollah was labelled officially a terrrorist group by the EU for the bombing of public bus in Burgas, Bulgaria. Like I said before, someone may push the label in order to discredit their opponents, but what should distinguish them are means, methods and intentions combined. Otherwise the word loses meaning.
ASE: Terrorism is by its very definition a term used to label vile acts that either nobody defends, or that at the very least are controversial. It's an epithet, not a description, and often an epithet that drifts out of use if the acts can be framed as some form of warfare against a genuinely reprehensible opponent. So for example, in the minds of a great many British, most of the acts of the IRA during the Troubles most emphatically belong on your list above and they will tell you so, and the UK still proscribes the IRA under its Terrorism Act. OTOH many Americans have Irish ancestry and sympathy, in some degree, for the IRA and view that conflict differently. Yes. Thirty years after the 1983 attack that put them on the American list. Because there was and is no real agreement or reliable common definition of the term. What it ultimately and most basically means is "irregulars who attacked our side in some way."
Terrorism implies at first sending a message by terror. The first use of this word was for La Terreur during French Revolution. So yeah, it was a state action. Of course, like a lot of word, the meaning changed after years. The problem is that it used too largely. I mean, Afghanistan has been in Civil War for more than 30 years now. I think it's a bit different of terrorist act we're used to see in stable democratic regimes since nearly fifty years. Guys like Carlos or McVeigh tried to start insurrections and they were quite marginal. (Of course, Carlos was into an organized network and McVeigh and his accomplices were isolated.) The Talibans were rebels, than the government and finally rebels again. Terrorism isn't a monolithic reality, so it's hard to conclude how this reality is treated in Star Trek.
I don't see the post as trolling. It was a observation based on my viewing of the show, kind of a obvious one really. Kira today certain wouldn't self-identify as a terrorist, but she likely could to refer to herself as being in the resistance, and being part of a resistance group. Much of Kira story could remain the same, but some details would be changed to make her more acceptable to a modern day American audience. Her resistance group perhaps would be on record as solely attacking Cardassian military targets. No civilians at all, neither Cardassian or Bajorians. The Maquis similar to Kira. Or possibly the opposite, take them down the same road they were on before, domestic terrorists who attack civilians to send a political message. Who attack Starfleet vessels. Who poison planets. (trolling, really?)
What was well done is that part of Odo's transformation was always off camera, but in such a skillful manner that we barely noticed it. Thanks to today's special effects, it could be done entirely on camera. If you look closely you'll note that the perspective keeps shifting and that we see some of it through the eyes of the beholders so to speak.
Good God this is wrong on so many levels. Who does the world seek out for help when there's: Famine Flood Disease Earthquakes the United States... Who has Europe called for help when the forces of Totalitarianism threatened? You know the answer. Ppl bitching about the US should look at our history and how good we have been to the world in the past 200+ years.
Most US interventions are where there is oil or other valuable resources to be had. They couldn't care less about the rest of the world. You'd have to be blind not to see it. They manipulate the powers in place. They skew the nascent democracies, so that the people "elected" are the ones in favor of more US involvement. And the worst part is that the US doesn't even do that for the good of their constituency. It does it for the benefit of a small minority of capitalist that get dollars of free governmental intervention for every penny that they need preserved. Your government is even screwing its own citizens, what does that say about the rest of the world?
Those people truly insulated from the impact and influence of America don't usually have the luxury of casually sharing their anti-American sentiments on a Star Trek forum. I could go on for days about the flaws of my country (U.S.) and I find much of it very disheartening, but for a long while now it has been the only thing between all of us and a global dystopia. All you need to do is look at who our enemies are and the way they regard human life. But if anything should ever compromise America's ability to stave off these forces, I wont be able to say I told you so because there wont be a single history book in existence to help people remember what it meant to be free. "We've always been at war with Eastasia!"
No. America has good to go with the bad and vice versa, and the world is far better off with it as a constructive participant than as a rogue state -- the contrast between its image under Obama as opposed his predecessor shows that clearly -- but this kind of rhetoric was old while the Cold War was still going on and it isn't getting any fresher. Depending on who's wielding its power and influence and how they choose to do so, America is just as capable of impelling "global dystopia" as opposing it, and always has been. Time to be grown-ups about it.
My opinion on this is as firm as any I hold, but I doubt anyone wants to see this thread turn into an ongoing political debate. There are many, many things running through my mind in the way or retort (which is why I avoid politics) but a Star Trek forum doesn't seem the place for it. I mostly come here to laugh at Guy Gardener's posts.
...or Canada...at least they did until our most recent government decided to take a crap all over our reputation as peace keepers and aid givers. On Topic: As an actor myself, I feel physical sets are a must have to some degree. If 75% of the original DS9 sets were ever reconstructed, then I don't think using CGI to fill in or extend those sets would be a huge problem. It was used to great effect in Battlestar Galactica.
I can't recall the episode, but isn't there a moment somewhere in DS9 where they have this debate, and Kira's old buddies decided that the collateral damage (even of innocent civilian lives) was worthy because the Cause was just? That's terrorism IMO. That's where the line is crossed. Kira is a terrorist. Or *was* a terrorist. But as others have said, it's different morals, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Heck, even Islamic State, as abhorrent as their behaviour is, have a fundemantal belief that what they do is correct for their Cause. I'm not saying that *I* agree with their Cause, but it's certainly how *they* feel about it, they wouldn't consider themselves to be terrorists. And I think Kira probably believed that of her Cause as well, albeit perhaps with more optimism about the outcomes than her more pesimisstic former 'freedom fighting' comrades. During the American revolution I have no doubt that the British Empire saw the colonists in terms of being terrorists. During the American Civil War, the secessionists were likewise seen by the Union as being something to be brought down with force. Essentially, if 'terrorism' had been a buzz-word back then, it probably would've been thrown around all the time to describe one side of combatants or another in those conflicts. But we don't tend to look back on history that way.....
One problem is, what else could the Bajorans do? The Federation wasn't going to help them, and the Cardassians weren't just going to go away and stop doing horrible things to them. But I think the big difference in whether Kira could be called a terrorist or freedom fighter was in whether Bajor was forcibly colonized or did they agree to become part of the Cardassian Union.
Well, it is a nicely done video. Given the lighting, lack of NPCs and funky camera angles, is it done on the Foundry? Or using demorecord?
We know very little, but "Emissary" suggests that the Cardassians originally moved into Bajor under the pretext of friendship. Source: So we might infer from that there was at least some kind of mutual bond in the beginning, maybe even a treaty and as you suggest Bajor gaining membership of the union under the pretext of the Cardassians providing some kind of benign aid, before eventually the Cardassians true nature was finally outed, they declared martial law, and the Bajorians realized they'd been used. I still think a terrorist, whatever the ultimate purity of their motives, can only be judged on their actions. Killing civilians would be a line being crossed IMO, and I would suggest that there's definite evidence that Kira and her comrades were a party to exactly that kind of 'retribution'.