Is Batman a 'terrorist'?

Firekitten

DoireNod wrote: »

As I understand it, terrorism is not limited to the use of terror in pursuit of a political or financial agenda. It's the use of terror in itself, mainly as coercion.

Therefore, as I see it, in theory and in definition, Batman is a terrorist.

(Russell Brand?! What terrorist acts has he committed?)

Have you seen his hair? or seen anything with him in? god that man is a crime against humanity! lol

In seriousness... Terrorism is the use of terror to push an agenda generally. Coercing people to follow a set of ideas, or a belief.

We have to really look at the idea of coercion, and fear really...
Batman, is a symbol... He's a 'dreaded' enemy to criminals... hes a force for good... to thier 'evil'
we need to consider that the good and bad of gothem city is quite black and white... baddies are... bad... they are terrified by the idea of being brought to justice.. punishment. Batman embodies that justice and punishment, with the teeth to actually catch them and hold on.

Vigilante yes, but terrorist no. One could possibly define the 'fear' that criminals feel for batman, is 'guilt' whereas the innocent person is protected by and safe from batman... hes fighting 'for' those that follow the law.

Calling him a terrorist is something akin to the uneducated masses that refer to the polive as 'pigs and 'thugs' because they ruin thier fun...

similar infact to the boondock saints... doing the right thing... when the right thing isnt possible through legal means.

Plus, Batman would look crap in a keffiyah and combat jacket.

DoireNod

Firekitten wrote: »

Have you seen his hair? or seen anything with him in? god that man is a crime against humanity! lol

Ha, yeah, he's a bit of a character all right.

In seriousness... Terrorism is the use of terror to push an agenda generally. Coercing people to follow a set of ideas, or a belief.

So it's not terrorism if it's a set of ideas like Law or belief in 'justice'? Can one legitimately use violence, fear and panic to promote pacifism, calm and equilibrium without it being terrorism (understanding terrorism as the use of fear as coercion)? Fysh makes a good point in a previous post.

I don't question Batman's motive (admirable as it may be - I'm a fan of vigilantism), but I do question his actions and what they might be portrayed as. In the world of Gotham, he's a good guy, with good intentions, but still he meets some hostility from the Law, at least initially.

His intent is one thing but his actions are another. He might seek to achieve a noble aim by subjecting criminals to fear, but the noble aim does not negate his use of fear. Indeed, Batman's actions and reputation would strike fear into some normal people, as well as reassure some. I think Batman assumes the position of a 'terrorist' to terrorise other 'terrorists'.
All Batman is, is a 'good' terrorist. Whereas the bad guys are 'bad' terrorists.

Batman is essentially a criminal or thug with a mandate.

Plus, Batman would look crap in a keffiyah and combat jacket.

Good point!

Firekitten

mm, depends what era batman we look at...

DoireNod

Firekitten wrote: »

mm, depends what era batman we look at...

Yeah, Adam West is definitely a terrorist!

jackson2009

one mans terroroist is another mans freedom fighter:pac:

SkullzNfangs

he isn't a terrorist as what we know the as today really...he dosen't target innocents or have a political agenda,he might share some of the traits of one but vigilante is more accurate...so yaaaaaaaaa lol and that's the nerdiest thing i've said since i woke up this morning xD

Overature

ha ha batman is part of the IRA

he is the an "Opposite Terrorist" the good side of the bad kind:D

komodosp

First of all, why ask for the distinction? Is it because you think all terrorists should be sent to Guantanamo Bay? If so, then you should be asking, "Should Batman be sent to Guantanamo Bay?". Or is it because you are writing a dictionary? If so you should be trying to define the word irrespective of the status of different people, real or fictional.

But anyway, would Batman blow up a pub because it contained criminals? I don't think so, and I think this is where vigilantism ends and terrorism begins. A terrorist should strike terror not only into the hearts of his enemies (the criminals) but to the general public as well.

Depending on the Batman you are talking about, I don't think he strikes that much fear into anyone... in some "canons" he works with the police. Gotham is crime-ridden, and the criminals carry on doing what they can in spite of him. The really big baddies just don't seem that afraid of him. Sure he cleans up the criminals, but more show up. There don't seem to be people (including innocent people) afraid of putting a foot wrong in case he shows up.

garyt24

Batman is as much as a terrorist than the ateam is...and the ateam are not terrorists...

Noelieboats

Batman is a vigilante thats it like has been aptly said here. Batman is the omega vigilante that takes down criminals on an absolutely huge scale but broken down the same synopsis stands he's a man who fights criminals but isn't officially recognised and a law enforcement entity.

Fysh

Alright, I reckon this thread has run its course. The actual discussion has stalled, and I think that the "My parents are dead!" 24 hour comic pages are a suitable note on which to close the thread.