Good thing the character isn’t a terrorist then. The head of a cult of assassins is not a terrorist. Assassins target specific people for specific reasons, not to create terror.
I thought we were talking about a character that’s the head of a league of assassins, not the actual plot of the movie. You know that the movie didn’t have to have that plot, right? You realize it’s not some sort of requirement to make that specific Batman story, yes?
…What even is your point? In almost every iteration Ra’s al Ghul is trying to destroy Gotham (or Star City in case of CW’s Arrow). He’s absolutely a terrorist.
OK, do the analysis of how many stories/continuities/universes have him as a terrorist vs how many have him as an ally. If you can split the latter criteria into ‘was never a terrorist’, ‘was a terrorist but is now a repentant ally’, ‘never even murdered anyone’ then even better.
You don’t even know his comics biography and you’re demanding that. 🙄
A few seconds at Wikipedia could tell you his basic motivations, which are not terrorism:
Raʼs al Ghul is an international criminal mastermind whose ultimate goal is a world in perfect environmental balance. He believes that the best way to achieve this balance is to eliminate most of humanity
He’s not trying to scare anyone, just kill them and everyone they know. He doesn’t care whether or not there’s any terror. It doesn’t even enter into the equation for him.
The fact that you don’t even know that and you’ve been arguing with me this whole time about him being a terrorist is hilarious.
Next time, maybe learn about Batman before you argue about Batman.
Please show me that definition. Assassinations are generally not done to cause terror. They are done to achieve more specific political goals (i.e. get the guy in power out of power).
Yes, again, you can come up with that convoluted after-the-fact explanation that wasn’t in the movie or you can not piss off Arab people.
I don’t think not being typecast as terrorists pisses off arabs
Good thing the character isn’t a terrorist then. The head of a cult of assassins is not a terrorist. Assassins target specific people for specific reasons, not to create terror.
They want to destroy a city by means of chemical warfare. They’re absolutely terrorist jfc did you even see the movie?
I thought we were talking about a character that’s the head of a league of assassins, not the actual plot of the movie. You know that the movie didn’t have to have that plot, right? You realize it’s not some sort of requirement to make that specific Batman story, yes?
…What even is your point? In almost every iteration Ra’s al Ghul is trying to destroy Gotham (or Star City in case of CW’s Arrow). He’s absolutely a terrorist.
Apart from the many, many, many Batman stories where he isn’t.
He even teams up with Batman sometimes.
Maybe the problem here is you don’t actually read the comics.
OK, do the analysis of how many stories/continuities/universes have him as a terrorist vs how many have him as an ally. If you can split the latter criteria into ‘was never a terrorist’, ‘was a terrorist but is now a repentant ally’, ‘never even murdered anyone’ then even better.
Include pie chart if possible.
You don’t even know his comics biography and you’re demanding that. 🙄
A few seconds at Wikipedia could tell you his basic motivations, which are not terrorism:
He’s not trying to scare anyone, just kill them and everyone they know. He doesn’t care whether or not there’s any terror. It doesn’t even enter into the equation for him.
The fact that you don’t even know that and you’ve been arguing with me this whole time about him being a terrorist is hilarious.
Next time, maybe learn about Batman before you argue about Batman.
Given assassin actions by definition are terror attacks, I’ll disagree with you.
Please show me that definition. Assassinations are generally not done to cause terror. They are done to achieve more specific political goals (i.e. get the guy in power out of power).
So the same definition of terrorism, i.e. specific actions done to further political goals. You’re mad for no reason here
That is not the definition of terrorism… if you believe it is, please show me this definition.
Also, please quote what in specific I said that makes you think I am angry about this.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103209420
Terrrorism is the use of violence to cause political change. Not whatever nonsense you were taught in whatever terrible education system produced you.
You’re not going with your own definition. Did you even read it or did you just think I wouldn’t? It starts with this:
The purpose of most assassinations is not about fear.