Is Batman a 'terrorist'?

DoireNod

Terrorism is the systematic use of fear as coercion.

Batman uses fear as coercion.

Is Batman a terrorist?

Discuss. :pac:

Poor Uncle Tom

Which one?

Osama Bin Batman or Barrack O'Batman?

TheAlmightyZeus

Batman is Bruce Wayne.

BennyLava

AKA Adam West, Mayor of Quahog

Jesus Wept

All terrorists should drive batmobiles.

Banter Joe

Always dresses in black.
Is really complex and thinks nobody understands him.
Very moody.
Can be quite melodramatic, making big entrances and what not.

Sounds more like an emo to me tbh.

chin_grin

Doubt it. I think he's terrorizing the terrorists. So it's a double negative.

the_dark_side

Batman is right wing propeganda.... a rich, arrogant guy by day (high flying city executive), but a super hero who uses his super human powers to fight street level crime by night..... more recently they had him chasing after Al Quada bad guys

heres a good article on the use of Batman as pro Bush propeganda some years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html

DoireNod

the_dark_side wrote: »

Batman is right wing propeganda.... a rich, arrogant guy by day (high flying city executive), but a super hero who uses his super human powers to fight street level crime by night..... more recently they had him chasing after Al Quada bad guys

heres a good article on the use of Batman as pro Bush propeganda some years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html

From that article:

Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency...

Didn't Adolf and the boys do that in the 1930s?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

So, terrorist or not?

][cEMAN**

Some people would consider criminals to be outside of 'decent society', and therefore any means to enable justice is acceptable. As the term terrorist has to have someone on the giving end, and someone on the receiving end. Considering criminals to have forfeited their rights as people within society, they may not be considered people to be terrorised. It would mean Batman doesn't have a valid target to consider what he does terrorism.

The less long winded way would be that you can't terrorise a tree in the way you're describing it.

Besides, they're not afraid of Batman. They're afraid of the repercussions of their deeds. So to say being afraid of Batman is the same as terrorism just because he uses their fears against them, would be the same as calling the police terr----wait - you might be onto something here

Fysh

I'd say that in the strictest sense of the word, he isn't because there's not a lot a fictional character can actually do to spread terror, the cowardly and superstitious ways of criminals notwithstanding.

That being said, the majority of terrorist activity that is openly characterised as such is intended to effect political impact or change. (Either to prevent the people from peacefully effecting change via elections or to force an incumbent government to allow/recognize an election).

Batman is apolitical, since the character exists in a world where he does not have the inclination and/or ability to pursue higher-level criminals. Thus he is not a terrorist but a vigilante - enforcing a stated pursuit of justice/law-enforcement through means that fall outside of the law itself.

Of course, you can probably say that about pretty much any of the big superhero characters, so it's not really much of an insight.

Star Bingo

and i implore anyone to read batman's bio in the arkham game.

as my brother says, the ultimate ego massage.

JABcomix

I wouldn't categorize Batman a terrorist because he is not randomly dispelling his terror. He is focused on the criminals themselves, not the public at large. Terrorist don't discriminate. They take out innocent people with extreme violence. Batman takes out criminals that deserve to be taken out. Batman is a vigilante. He takes the law into his own hand. However, his sense of justice is higher than that of a terrorist. Terrorist derive their motive from the fallacy of personal liberty. Batman derives his motive from law and order. Batman is the corrector of all those freedom loving criminals that think they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Batman is the balance of society. Terrorist are after the one thing that Batman would deny them and that is "freedom". Terrorist take their urge for freedom to such levels that they are willing to kill innocent people to obtain that freedom. Their selfishness ultimately enslaves the population to fear. Batman acts out of Selflessness to ensure that all people have relative freedom by keeping these criminals in check.

So no, BATMAN is not a terrorist.

~JAB

zero19

Yes, a terrifying terrorist

Fysh

A gentle reminder: though this thread was started in AH, it's not there any more. Please remember to adjust your posting styles accordingly.

Handsome Bob

Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency...

Yes, like George Bush, Batman abuses the civil rights of the innocent.

JABcomix

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Yes, like George Bush, Batman abuses the civil rights of the innocent.

Hey, where did all this antagonism against Batman come from all of a sudden? He's never really hurt anybody, just fictional characters. Unless we know for a fact that a "fictional" criminal that Batman killed was innocent, then we cannot call Batman anything for it is only in the minds of the writers that he exist. He is a metaphor. Metaphors cannot be defined conclusively because they constantly change with our own understanding of ourselves. If we saw the world in terms of black and white, then perhaps Batman would be more easily defined. However, he is elusive in definition because our understanding of who WE are is constantly being redefined. Therefore, what can be true for us now might be false later. Batman will continue to change and evolve with time, just as humanity will drudge itself out of the mire of it's existence.

Handsome Bob

JABcomix wrote: »

Hey, where did all this antagonism against Batman come from all of a sudden? He's never really hurt anybody, just fictional characters. Unless we know for a fact that a "fictional" criminal that Batman killed was innocent, then we cannot call Batman anything for it is only in the minds of the writers that he exist. He is a metaphor. Metaphors cannot be defined conclusively because they constantly change with our own understanding of ourselves. If we saw the world in terms of black and white, then perhaps Batman would be more easily defined. However, he is elusive in definition because our understanding of who WE are is constantly being redefined. Therefore, what can be true for us now might be false later. Batman will continue to change and evolve with time, just as humanity will drudge itself out of the mire of it's existence.

My sarcasm button must be broken.

I agree with you. Look, his universe is a heightened reality to the say the very least. There is no grey area here, Batman only abuses the civil rights of scum. They have been proven to be scum by the very actions we see on page ourselves.

I guess there could be a case made for Batman abusing the rights of due process but where is the guarantee that the system won't fail? As I said, it's a heightened reality, so it doesn't make me uncomfortable to see Batman ignoring due process when it comes to the likes of The Joker or Scarecrow.

frankhellon

Hi DoireNod,
I think that Batmand is not the terrotist.

DoireNod

I'd just like to say that I am not questioning whether or not Batman is a terrorist in Gotham City or in any of the comics or movies, since they are entirely fictional universes. I am thinking more along hypothetical lines. If Batman was real, would he be considered a terrorist, since he acts outside the law and uses terror as a means of coercion? I think he would be a terrorist. I hate the term as it is used today, but technically, Batman would be a terrorist.

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;62130810']Some people would consider criminals to be outside of 'decent society', and therefore any means to enable justice is acceptable.

I know what you mean. But, if this was the case in say, real life, then that would surely render 'Law' obsolete? If the majority of people consider criminals outside of 'decent society' and that any means of action is acceptable as long as justice is the end, then Law is not needed. Anarchy reigns? Mob rule?

Besides, they're not afraid of Batman. They're afraid of the repercussions of their deeds. So to say being afraid of Batman is the same as terrorism just because he uses their fears against them, would be the same as calling the police terr----wait - you might be onto something here

Now that you say it...

Fysh wrote: »

That being said, the majority of terrorist activity that is openly characterised as such is intended to effect political impact or change. (Either to prevent the people from peacefully effecting change via elections or to force an incumbent government to allow/recognize an election).

Batman is apolitical, since the character exists in a world where he does not have the inclination and/or ability to pursue higher-level criminals. Thus he is not a terrorist but a vigilante - enforcing a stated pursuit of justice/law-enforcement through means that fall outside of the law itself.

I see what you're saying, but does terrorism have to be politically driven? I don't think so. Like I said above, if people accept that Batman can use means outside of the Law to enforce Law, does that not render Law obsolete?

Of course, you can probably say that about pretty much any of the big superhero characters, so it's not really much of an insight.

True. We revere those who seek justice. Justice is an honourable pursuit and is different to Law. That's why superheroes are special. We couldn't have a superheroe seeking legal compensation .

JABcomix wrote: »

I wouldn't categorize Batman a terrorist because he is not randomly dispelling his terror. He is focused on the criminals themselves, not the public at large.

He still uses terror. His intentions and who is subject to his terror do not negate his use of terror. He uses it as coercion. Ergo he is a terrorist. The next question I suppose is, is his terrorism justified?

Terrorist don't discriminate. They take out innocent people with extreme violence. Batman takes out criminals that deserve to be taken out.

Who decides that these criminals deserve to be taken out? Batman, the Law, 'God', or the people?

Batman derives his motive from law and order.

Batman derives his motive from law and order? By contravening Law? His motive is the pursuit of justice in accordance to what his notion of justice is.

Batman is the corrector of all those freedom loving criminals that think they can do whatever the hell they want to do.

And he does this by basically doing whatever the hell he wants to do.

Terrorist are after the one thing that Batman would deny them and that is "freedom". Terrorist take their urge for freedom to such levels that they are willing to kill innocent people to obtain that freedom. Their selfishness ultimately enslaves the population to fear.

What if the desire for freedom is a desire which is shared by the majority of the people? Are the terrorists being selfish then?

frankhellon wrote: »

Hi DoireNod,
I think that Batmand is not the terrotist.

Hi frankhellon.
Thanks for your insight.

Fysh

DoireNod wrote: »

I know what you mean. But, if this was the case in say, real life, then that would surely render 'Law' obsolete? If the majority of people consider criminals outside of 'decent society' and that any means of action is acceptable as long as justice is the end, then Law is not needed. Anarchy reigns? Mob rule?

Well, no. Conventional law would be rendered obsolete when a democratically-convened referendum or election showed irrefutably that a majority or totality of the population under a given government were in favour of vigilante justice. Of course, such people would likely then reconsider when they realise that things like evidence, due process and value to society fall by the wayside in the pursuit of vengeance dressed up as justice under vigilantism.

DoireNod wrote: »

I see what you're saying, but does terrorism have to be politically driven? I don't think so. Like I said above, if people accept that Batman can use means outside of the Law to enforce Law, does that not render Law obsolete?

I don't think there's a universal definition of terrorism, but most terrorist groups appear to have an ideological or political agenda. You could argue that enforcing the spirit of the law while going beyond the measures allowed by the letter of the law is an ideology, but it's not a very well-reasoned one as it undermines the very notion it purports to uphold - ie law as a structure to enforce and promote social wellbeing.

DoireNod

Fysh wrote: »

Well, no. Conventional law would be rendered obsolete when a democratically-convened referendum or election showed irrefutably that a majority or totality of the population under a given government were in favour of vigilante justice. Of course, such people would likely then reconsider when they realise that things like evidence, due process and value to society fall by the wayside in the pursuit of vengeance dressed up as justice under vigilantism.

Naturally, it would become Law if it was agreed upon by a voting majority or whatever, but in the case that there was no democratically-convened referendum or election and the will of the majority was there for 'criminals' to be pursued at any and all cost, by any means, there is mob-rule. To condone Batman using any means, including those outside Law, to fight criminals means that you cannot condemn those who act outside Law for other reasons. Maybe I'm stretching this too far, but I hope you get my point. The will of the majority is not always best or right.

I don't think there's a universal definition of terrorism, but most terrorist groups appear to have an ideological or political agenda.

Simply put terrorism is a definition of an action or actions, no? Those being the systematic use of terror, especially as coercion. It's not limited to groups pursuing political or ideological agendas.

You could argue that enforcing the spirit of the law while going beyond the measures allowed by the letter of the law is an ideology, but it's not a very well-reasoned one as it undermines the very notion it purports to uphold - ie law as a structure to enforce and promote social wellbeing.

Good point.

Roaster

Is Superman an illegal immigrant?

DoireNod

Roaster wrote: »

Is Superman an illegal immigrant?

No, he's an illegal alien.

Get your own thread! :P

Corkfeen

Supermans an illegal alien. For anyone whos read superman : red son, Batman was a bit of a terrorist in that.:D

][cEMAN**

DoireNod wrote: »

I know what you mean. But, if this was the case in say, real life, then that would surely render 'Law' obsolete? If the majority of people consider criminals outside of 'decent society' and that any means of action is acceptable as long as justice is the end, then Law is not needed. Anarchy reigns? Mob rule?

Those people I mentioned, would say yes. Not saying they're right though.

JABcomix

DoireNod wrote: »

What if the desire for freedom is a desire which is shared by the majority of the people? Are the terrorists being selfish then?

Your freedom ends where my freedom begins. Freedom is a fallacy brought onto man. No man can be absolutely free, unless another is absolutely enslaved.

Batman ensures that all the citizens of Gotham have a relative amount of freedom. He works outside the law because he knows that the law is corrupted and it doesn't ensure it's citizens the freedoms and rights they deserve. He selflessly takes it upon himself to ensure that the people of Gotham are safe. He doesn't have to do this. He's a billionaire. He can just live the rest of his life in ABSOLUTE FREEDOM using his money to enslave others. However, he CHOOSES to be a servant of the people of Gotham. He is selfless in every extent of the meaning. He realizes the need for law and order and becomes a natural extension of that.

Batman is not suppressing an uprising of citizens than feel disenfranchised, he is stopping those that would impose their own perverted versions of freedom on others. Batman is the great equalizer.


So again, I say, Batman is no terrorist.

~JAB

DoireNod

JABcomix wrote: »

Your freedom ends where my freedom begins. Freedom is a fallacy brought onto man. No man can be absolutely free, unless another is absolutely enslaved.

Nice thought, but it really depends on your definition of freedom. I don't think that freedom necessarily requires enslavement. Perhaps it does, in the sense that if there was no enslavement, there would be no notion of being free, but I think that the state of being free can exist without the state of subserviance.

Batman ensures that all the citizens of Gotham have a relative amount of freedom. He works outside the law because he knows that the law is corrupted and it doesn't ensure it's citizens the freedoms and rights they deserve. He selflessly takes it upon himself to ensure that the people of Gotham are safe. He doesn't have to do this. He's a billionaire. He can just live the rest of his life in ABSOLUTE FREEDOM using his money to enslave others. However, he CHOOSES to be a servant of the people of Gotham. He is selfless in every extent of the meaning. He realizes the need for law and order and becomes a natural extension of that.


Batman is not suppressing an uprising of citizens than feel disenfranchised, he is stopping those that would impose their own perverted versions of freedom on others. Batman is the great equalizer.


So again, I say, Batman is no terrorist.

~JAB

There are other ways that Batman, as Bruce Wayne the billionaire, could tackle criminals, but he resorts to violence and infliction of terror. What is he if he's not a terrorist? A freedom fighter? An agent of justice?

Firekitten

In theory... hes not a terrorist. He has no political motivation, or financial motivation... two key driving forces behind terrosism. Batman is a freelance agent persuing justice and law beyond the civil rights limited means of gothem city...

Think of it this way...

A police man must follow a number of rules to catch a criminal, but an Inteligence Officer operating in a foreign country may catch the criminal much easier as they are not subject to the same legal restrictions, and methods... Some are 'fear inducing' but terrorism isnt just 'the inspiration of terror'. Because if it was... Can we list Russel Brand as a terrorist?

DoireNod

Firekitten wrote: »

In theory... hes not a terrorist. He has no political motivation, or financial motivation... two key driving forces behind terrosism. Batman is a freelance agent persuing justice and law beyond the civil rights limited means of gothem city...

Think of it this way...

A police man must follow a number of rules to catch a criminal, but an Inteligence Officer operating in a foreign country may catch the criminal much easier as they are not subject to the same legal restrictions, and methods... Some are 'fear inducing' but terrorism isnt just 'the inspiration of terror'. Because if it was... Can we list Russel Brand as a terrorist?

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?)

Fysh

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.

Well, you can say that but there's no internationally-accepted standard for terrorism. High-profile terrorist groups such as the IRA, UVF, Al Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers and ETA all have a political agenda; off the top of my head I can't think of any comparably high-profile terrorist group that lacks a political agenda. So I don't think it's as simple as saying terrorism == uses terror.

The big question depends on how the man on the street sees Batman. If the general public fear him (as they are purported to do at the end of The Dark Knight, for instance) then he could arguably be classified a terrorist. However, if his methods target only criminals and the general public approve of his actions (their illegality notwithstanding) then he cannot very well be a terrorist, because he is not using terror to coerce individuals to a proscribed form of behaviour; rather he is providing a further deterrent against breaking the law. This could raise the larger question as to whether a government can be found to commit acts of terrorism in the pursuit of law enforcement - given that many legal systems work on an assumption of innocence until guilt is proven, it is far from trivial to justify removing the freedoms granted to an innocent civilian based solely on suspicion of criminal behaviour. (Not that this has stopped certain governments from doing so anyway...)

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.