Gut wrenching.
That’s what the two hour premier of season three of Battlestar Galactica was.
I’ll tell you what: you KEEP your “we’re oh so smart and witty” season premiere of Lost, and I’ll take the riveting drama that is BSG any day.
This was two hours of absolutely riveting and for lack of a better word, uncomfortable TV viewing.
|
|
The episode opens with almost six months having passed since the Cylons invaded New Caprica and have been ruling the colony with a heavy hand.
The human-looking Cylons are experiencing some internal conflict concerning how to rule or get along with the human residents. Dean Stockwell is influencing the majority of ruling Cylons that there should be mass executions, whittling down the number of surving humans to a “manageable” number of about 1,000. Two of the others, specifically one of the “Boomer” models and Number Six are aghast at the way the situation is developing, since they broke away from the rest of the Cylon fleet presumably to live in peace with the humans.
The Cylons are rounding up, imprisoning, torturing and interrogating members of the population. Among those captured and tortured are Col. Saul Tigh who now thanks to the Cylons, has only one eye. He is released and if you thought he was cranky and angry before, watch out… that was nothing compared to his mood now. Starbuck (in the only Lost-ish scene that had me worried) is being forced to live with a Cylon who says he wants nothing more than for her to fall in love with him. She seems to be going along with it, but then murders him, only to have him reappear resurrected shortly thereafter, and we discover that this is the fifth time she’s “killed” him. She is truly in Hell.
The rebels (called “insurgents” by the Cylons) have had enough, and with Col. Tigh now pretty much out for blood, they pull out all the stops and even resort to suicide bombings. The president (Baltar) is his usual spineless self until they want him to sign off on something so heinous that even he balks at it.
The battlegroup, which took off when the Cylons arrived 6 months ago has it’s own problems, with minimal and inexperienced crew that can’t even complete training exercises correctly much less face battle. Apollo looks shockingly plump and has lost his “edge”, and Adama (his father) is none to happy about his son’s slide from self-discipline in every regard.
Of course the thing that jumps out while watching the episode is the obviously intentional parallels that they are trying to imply between what’s happening between the Cylons and the “insurgents”, and the current war in Iraq. That was part of what made me uncomfortable with the episode, as we watch the humans get to the point where they are willing to strap on bombs and murder their own kind.
I’m sure people will argue the point, but to me there really isn’t a valid parallel, since the Iraqi insurgents/terrorists and those who blow themselves up in Israel are not being subjugated. They in fact want to subjugate everyone else into living under Sharia law, and that is quite different from what is happening on Battlestar Galactica.
In any case, it’s all thought provoking and gripping stuff that had me glued to the TV and I can not wait to see how this season pans out.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Learn more about Screen Rant or if you want more frequent updates follow us on Twitter. Thanks for visiting!
47 Comments
This is basically what I argued in my post on the topic. The writers clearly wanted to create the parallel, but it’s a bit disturbing considering that we’re supposed to root against the Cylons, who are imposing dictatorship — which means, in the real world, rooting against America, which is trying to replace a dictatorship with a democracy of self-rule. A very unfortunate blurring of the lines by the writers.
But the premiere was expertly crafted, I definitely enjoyed it.
In case you’re interested in my post, it’s here: http://seedlings.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/iraq-and-galactica/
I can see where you get the idea of the suicide bomber parallels with what’s going on in the middle east but the ultimate message in Battlestar was that suicide bombing is morally corrupt. I’ve not heard anyone in authority from the real world sources of the suicide bombers urge their own people to stop the carnage, which is what we saw in this season premier.
MTran
That’s true… and they DID show Tigh as someone who was slipping into extreme territory. Still, it’s a bit unsettling to watch the “good guys” using methods that are evil, even out of desperation.
Vic
Great piece on your site, you went into more detail than I did on the Iraq/BSG comparison and I agree completely.
Thanks for commenting and the link to your blog.
Vic
I don’t think the Iraq/Galactica parallel works well, especially with regards to suicide bombings, for one main reason. If you remember back to season one or two (I can’t remember which for sure), the Cylons are the first to use suicide bombing as a tactic. One of the PR guy models invades Galactica and blows himself up. Just a thought.
That’s what I really love about this show… it gives the viewer a lot to chew on.
Vic
Firstly Id like to say the first episode was far better than expected and I think they left us with just the right amount of continuation from last season to keep us guessing as to the future of the race (the ultimate subplot of the series). However, in regards to comments made about suicide bombings, although it is impossible to draw absolute similarities to current situations in Israel and Iraq (for some reason people easily forget about the former, which has been going on for a far greater period of time (p.s. I’m roman catholic)) I believe the writers objective was fullfilled simply by getting people to talk and write about the issue. Although, being a I.R. major, I frequently think about these issues it rarely comes up in everyday life as it does for people thousands of miles from us. I believe the intent was not to draw direct comparissons with current events but to broadly convey the logic behind suicide terrorism (or freedom fighting) and to help viewers understand why it occurs(as a last means of offence) not to justify it. One of the major reasons why the parralel cannot be drawn is simply because there is (I hope) not a giant starship waiting to rescue those people who feel they are wronged by having their territories invaded. Which makes one think about the nessecity of suicide bombings by the humans in BSG. All in all I feel the writers hit the right note but Id really like to see how this all pans out asap. As gripping and emotionally charged as it is, I wouldn’t want to dwell on this kind of BSG too long. I watch it because of its veriety… and the large battle sequences.
p.s. its real late so plz excuse spelling errors.
since the Iraqi insurgents/terrorists and those who blow themselves up in Israel are not being subjugated.
Em the Palestinians ARE being subjugated by the Isrealis.
The Iraqis ARE being subjugated by the Americans.
I think the parallels are perfect.
I don’t want to get into a drawn out political discussion, but the Israelis are NOT subjugating Palestinians nor is the U.S. doing that to Iraq (give me a break on that one).
First, “Palestinians” were actually Syrians. The people responsible for assigning the borders for “Palestines” (actually at the time, Syrians) and Israel was… are you ready?
The United Nations.
In the war that immediately followed, a consortium of Middle Eastern (Arab) countries attacked Israel to get all the land back (that was, if you recall, assigned to Israel by the U.N.). Israel kicked butt and took over even MORE of the land (which was their right since they were attacked by those with the intention to take THEIR land).
Oh, BTW, Jordan and Egypt (who were part of the coalition that attacked Israel) ALSO took some of the land that had been assigned to the (so-called) Palestinians, and did NOT give them autonomous governments in those areas. No one ever mentions THAT, however.
Here’s a nice little video summary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HelIHTveKQw
Vic
You’re missing the point. Right and wrong are for you to decide, regardless the intent is to make you see the other side of fighting a conflict against an overwhelming oppressor.
Vic
I think that (though being a UK resident who hasn’t even got to see the damn show yet!!!!! Not till January, British frakking Broadcasting (only time I’ve felt like I want to be American).) the people that tend to critise the war in Iraq (that’s pronounced ihh-rack, BTW, not eye-rack) and in Israel seem to have little conviction in their statements, and I wager that the majority know very little about the subject, and rather fancy themselves as do-gooders (probably evangelical extremists, who’re embarassing for the USA) who think they know what’s best for people who suffer from the tyranny of ruthless dictatorships.
Whatever your view, I think everyone can agree that battlestar is the most compelling, honest and thoughtful depiction of the worlds woe’s, as it were. It represents a close and sensitive parallel for our world, but at the same time twists and mutates the issues, the result of which challenges its audience (being obviously tailored for its western audience) to think about the issues, and not just make uninformed judgements about them. I find that the biggest appeal of this wonderful show, is that it conveys so much empathy for people in the darkest and most horrible places possible. Finally, I think as you watch this show (this is directed at people who think Galactica ‘contrived’) you have to remember, that while the characters are fictitious, the majority of their horrible situations are not. There are people who are being raped, there are people who are oppressed, there are people being rounded up and slaughtered becuase of trivial differences (like for being gay) and inevitably their are crises of faith leading to war, fanatacism and suicide bombing. And yes, we in the west haven’t really got a clue!
The parallel doesn’t work, because it assumes that the Cylons are evil and trying to install a dictatorship. But America got rid of the dictatorship and is installing a democracy, where the people choose.
Opinion polls in Iraq consistently show that most Iraqis are pro-US, pro their Iraqi government (they did turn out and vote, after all), and pro-democracy. The insurgents are not locals but are from Syria, Saudi, Iran, and other places.
By using a simplistic parallel, BSG paints the insurgents in Iraq as noble freedom fighters, when they are nothing of the sort. They are merely killers who machine-gun Iraqi schoolchildren and behead captives. I’m not expecting to see that on BSG. Unless they are prepared to include the sadistic nature of insurgents in Iraq and have the Cylons try to install democracy, they should stick to escapism.
where do daddy dave and co. get their information? If you leave the confines of the American Media, you will find that the US is overwhelming despised in Iraq (and elsewhere). Between 100,000 and 600,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq and that’s according to the most respected medical journal in the world (The Lancet). That’s over 2% of the population! Can you imagine killing that many US citizens?! Anyone who thinks that Iraqi’s welcome the US presence are ignorant and sadly so. The US blew it completely and any goodwill that once existed for the overthrow of Sadaam is gone. long gone.
Anyone that actually believes the stream of self-justifying garbage that spews from the current administration and even more sadly by the spineless US media has been duped. I urge you to read something from anywhere else on this earth.
From the opinions on these pages, your hearts and morals are totally in the right place, but your heads are not.
While BSG and Iraq do not have direct parallels, the issues are the same. What we term the insurgency in Iraq feel quite the same as the humans in BSG: overwhelemed by a superior enemy and desperate enough to use any measures to get rid of them. You can argue that they have it all wrong, but make no mistake that to push people to suicide, they have to actually feel extremely desperate. You can argue that they have been brainwashed, but that would apply to the BSG characters too. Do they seem brainwashed to you?
p.s. Vic. suggest you read ‘beyond chutzpah’ by finkelstein.
First off, I appreciate that your comment was not hateful in tone.
I’d like to respond to some of your points.
“If you leave the confines of the American Media, you will find that the US is overwhelming despised in Iraq (and elsewhere).”
Right here I’ve gotta say I REALLY don’t care what some of the rest of the world thinks. Most of the countries that “despise” us (that aren’t in the Middle East) are socialist-leaning countries that have tons of their own problems. Hell, look at what’s happening to France with regards to their Muslim population. They have an all-out civil war on their hands but THAT doesn’t get reported in the media.
“Between 100,000 and 600,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq and that’s according to the most respected medical journal in the world (The Lancet). That’s over 2% of the population! Can you imagine killing that many US citizens?!”
That number is HIGHLY disputed and the consensus (even on a anti-Iraq War website that collects stats) is that the number is closer to 50,000, and I would wager that most of that was caused by the insurgents.
“Anyone who thinks that Iraqi’s welcome the US presence are ignorant and sadly so.”
Of course, we never see that aspect covered in the media. The news is after all, all about “bad” news.
“The US blew it completely and any goodwill that once existed for the overthrow of Sadaam is gone. long gone.”
I agree that the war could have been handled better.
“Anyone that actually believes the stream of self-justifying garbage that spews from the current administration and even more sadly by the spineless US media has been duped.”
Funny that you’re putting the administration and the media on the same side since they are diametrically opposed.
“I urge you to read something from anywhere else on this earth.”
Why bother? Same junk that’s in the media here.
“From the opinions on these pages, your hearts and morals are totally in the right place, but your heads are not.”
That statement is one reason that I’m even replying to your post. You’re not a troll.
“While BSG and Iraq do not have direct parallels, the issues are the same. What we term the insurgency in Iraq feel quite the same as the humans in BSG: overwhelemed by a superior enemy and desperate enough to use any measures to get rid of them. You can argue that they have it all wrong, but make no mistake that to push people to suicide, they have to actually feel extremely desperate. You can argue that they have been brainwashed, but that would apply to the BSG characters too. Do they seem brainwashed to you?”
Riiiight… and how exactly were we oppressing them before terrorists bombed the U.S.S. Cole? How about the first World Trade Center bombing? Israeli women and children being blown up in malls and on buses?
I don’t by the “oppressed and therefore pushed to the edge” argument. Not for a microsecond.
Perhaps if they win and subject you to Sharia law (if not death) then maybe you’ll see the light.
Sincerely,
Vic
“That number is HIGHLY disputed and the consensus (even on a anti-Iraq War website that collects stats) is that the number is closer to 50,000, and I would wager that most of that was caused by the insurgents.”
by whom? the president saying he doesn’t agree, does not count as disputed. american generals on the ground saying they don’t agree, does not count as disputed. to dispute something you need to have some sort basis for that dispute, just saying you don’t agree is being contrary — i might dispute the sky is blue, doesn’t make me right. also neither iraq body count nor icasualties has made any statement yet with regards to the lancet study. both of the former use media reports of deaths for their counting, lancet’s study is far more scientific and reliable.
the study is only disputed by those who have a vested interest in the war, and have not been disproven, discredited or even rationally argued against.
–
in general now, not directed at anyone.
as for the show, i thought it was brilliant. regardless of your view of the war in iraq it forced you to question what you believe. certainly as an opponent to the war there were moments i felt uncomfortable for that very reason. i think the writers deserve immense credit for causing a reaction in viewers based on their own beliefs and not some shock/gross out tactic.
the juvenile response amongst some viewers, those threatening boycotts and writing letters to NBC, seem rather more enlightening on the mindset of those individuals. apropos with the current political climate, their solution to the discomfort of questioning their beliefs is to destroy, remove or otherwise find ways to ignore the issue.
again kudos to the writers for one of the most compelling 2 hours of television i’ve seen in a good long while.
In regards to the “whom” question, try this site:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
which is definitely NOT in favor of the war.
Vic
only tangetally BSG… more like comparitive universes
I certainly am NOT in favour of sharia law, dictatorships or any other form of oppressive government.
Having enjoyed living in America for the last 5 years and now having left, it really bothers me that the world has so negative opinion of America and it also bothers me that Americans (in general) seem to have so little grasp of why.
Sure other countries like France have their problems, but that doesn’t mean that everything they say is not worth listening to. There is no logic in thinking like that.
This is why I find BSG so interesting. These last episodes have actually tried to deal with the issues around why sane, rational, well educated people would turn to suicicde as a strategy.
It is American propoganda to say that insurgents and suicide bombers are all crazy or brainwashed. A huge number of them are well educated and from middle class families. In London where I now live, that was the case of all of the 7/7 bombers. The question is why do these people feel they have no other option but to blow themselves up. I’m not saying they are right, but it’s something worth considering thoroughly.
This brings me to some of the points you made:
If there was any good news about Iraq, the bush administration would be shouting it from the rooftops. The sad fact is that there isn’t any and any positive thing that has been said, has turned out to be a lie. Given the Iraqi’s a democratic government? Please! we’ve given them a civil war. More people have died (even using your low estimates) in the 2 years of US led government than in the tyranny of Sadaam.
“Funny that you’re putting the administration and the media on the same side since they are diametrically opposed.”
You cannot be serious here!
The US media is the most supine anywhere on earth.
The fact is that after 9/11 the media (and the democrats) gave bush a free pass rather than scrutiny, so all of them are now finding it hard to back track and say what a total disaster this all is and that the US is now less safe and has less friends. Shame on all of them!
Why should you bother to read media anywhere else in the world? If you accept that all media is slanted, the only way to get halfway to the truth is to look at more sources of news, preferably further apart. Media elsewhere, while biased in its own way, is not at all like the US media.
“Riiiight… and how exactly were we oppressing them before terrorists bombed the U.S.S. Cole? How about the first World Trade Center bombing? Israeli women and children being blown up in malls and on buses? I don’t by the “oppressed and therefore pushed to the edge” argument. Not for a microsecond.”
If America’s collective memory only goes as far back as the USS Cole or the first Trade Center bombings, its not surprising that you find these terrorist actions so surprising. Examples of US oppression are numerous; in fact they were an accepted and acknowledged strategy of the cold war. It was considered better to support any opponent to Communism, regardless of how heinous they were: Thus we have US support for tyrants worldwide, Idi Amin in Zaire, the Apartheid government in South Africa (where the South Africans fought the Cubans in Angola - I was drafted into that war!).
Then of course there is US support for the murderous Pinochet in Chile, not to mention, Panama and most of the rest of South America.
And the US supported who against Iran? Sadaam Husein! And it was the US support of Bin Laden and the Mujahaddin in Afganistan against the Russians, that has given us the well trained and connected Al Quada of today.
The fact is that there are countless reasons for anti-US sentiment worldwide that have nothing to do with Muslim extremism or the sour grapes of socialist countries. This is beyond dispute. The actions of the US during the cold war sowed the seeds of the current anti-americanism.
Don’t get me wrong, certainly it can be argued that in the context of the cold war, the strategy was entirely justified. It stopped Comunism after all! However, that is no excuse to pretend you don’t understand why lots of other nations dislike and distrust the US. Many of these countries are still in tatters.
To look at the rise of fanatical terrorists and try and understand how it happened, is probably asking too much of the soundbite driven American press and the attention span of a notoriously disinterested public.
It is much more convenient to simplify the enemy as ‘15th century fanatics’ or followers of a ‘cult of death’ or simply say that they ‘hate the west’. No more need be said and the context of these things vanishes and there is no hope of designing strategies to diffuse these threats and avoid more of them in the future, because at root they are simplified, misunderstood or deliberately misportrayed.
“Perhaps if they win and subject you to Sharia law (if not death) then maybe you’ll see the light.”
Sounds like a Donald Rumsfeld soundbite.
Nobody (except them) wants them to win, but there is no hope of fighting them without understanding them properly. It plays right into their hands.
also,
“That number (100-600,000) is HIGHLY disputed and the consensus (even on a anti-Iraq War website that collects stats) is that the number is closer to 50,000, and I would wager that most of that was caused by the insurgents.”
For starters, the wesite you quote has not come to a conclusion on the Lancet report.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
Thanks for a great site
“Having enjoyed living in America for the last 5 years and now having left, it really bothers me that the world has so negative opinion of America and it also bothers me that Americans (in general) seem to have so little grasp of why.”
That is a GREAT sentence.
“Sure other countries like France have their problems, but that doesn’t mean that everything they say is not worth listening to. There is no logic in thinking like that.”
I never stated what you imply above (that they’re not listening to). I made an example of the anti-current-administration/pro-Muslim bias in U.S. news by mentioning the fact that there is for all intents and purposes an all-out civil war between heavily Muslim neighborhoods and the French police. With the exception of one radio show I have not heard one PEEP about this in the media.
“The US media is the most supine anywhere on earth.”
You DID say you lived here for five years?
The only news organization that I’m aware of that is pro-Bush is Fox News. With the exception of talk-radio all other major media outlets including TV, magazines and newspapers are extremely left wing.
“If there was any good news about Iraq, the bush administration would be shouting it from the rooftops.”
The Bush administration has SERIOUSLY mishandled the public relations side of this entire thing. I’ve heard plenty of interviews with soldiers on the ground over in Iraq and there is plenty of positive stuff going on over there. Although some may resent us being there, the majority do NOT want us to leave yet.
As to the history of the United States’ relations with leaders who turned out to be despotic, hindsight is always 20/20.
Oftentimes there are situations where one needs to choose the lesser of two evils or subscribe to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
“It is much more convenient to simplify the enemy as ‘15th century fanatics’ or followers of a ‘cult of death’ or simply say that they ‘hate the west’. No more need be said and the context of these things vanishes and there is no hope of designing strategies to diffuse these threats and avoid more of them in the future, because at root they are simplified, misunderstood or deliberately misportrayed.”
Say what you like, but there are some people with which negotiation is simply NOT a possibility. Period. As you pointed out in your statement concerning the background of some of these people, it’s certainly not poverty (as some in the U.S. would like us to believe) that leads to people blowing themselves and innocent civilians to bits.
It’s difficult to not demonize someone who hijacks planes and flies them into buildings that usually contain 10,000 people, or who ride buses with women and children and murder them. Personally, it gets to a point where I don’t WANT to understand murderers or care WHY they do it. I wouldn’t care to have a sit-down conversation with a mass-murderer/serial killer to know what travesties he faced in life that motivated him to murder 30 people. Say what you like but a zealot cannot be reasoned with.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree.
Vic
i think we agree quite a lot.
i dont think you can reason with zealots, by the time they are zealots they are beyond reason. on this we agree.
However, I don’t think you can devise strategies of dealing with fanaticism without trying to understand how they got to their insane views in the first place AND then take steps to avoid creating situations that may lead to those views as an end result. i.e. avoid cold war type mistakes.
In the BSG example, the cylons originally have good intentions of starting a cylon/human community- but this is a non-starter to the humans, who’d rather blow themselves up to be rid of them. This leaves cylons with two options: crack down or abandon project. cracking down leads to more people willing to blow themslevs up, so actually only one option…
ok enough
You guys who are drawing parallels, talking about good and evil, etc. need to understand one key factor: New Caprica is NOT Iraq. And the Cylons don’t represent Americans, nor do the human colonists. These stories are about people under pressure. Iraqis, yes even the suicide bombers, are human beings that made a choice. That’s what this is about, people making choices. So stop thinking just because they’re the protagonists, they have to act the way Americans would act. If that’s how you think, you’re defining humanity as including only Americans; and that’s incredibly narrow-minded. The characters on Battlestar Galactica are meant to include all facets of humanity: the reasonable, the extreme, the good and the ugly. For god’s sake, think before you judge.
Vic
Sure, but you got to keep things in perspective. Taking humanity into account means you’re going to have characters like Roslin, who speak against suicide bombing, and Tigh, who are willing to use extremes. If you can’t accept that some people are willing to go over the edge, and others are willing to stay on the side of reason, and that humanity consists of both sides, you’re naive about what people are capable of. If you still have doubts, why not compare the ways in which Cylons are more like terrorists?
Cylons: Religious fanatics, their genocide of the 12 Colonies meant to reflect 9/11, they used suicide bombing way before the humans did without being subjugated (like the “Iraqis in Israel” that you brought up).
Humans: Suicide bombing was used as a desperate, last resort tactic by those who believed their lives were already over.
Is that really enough for you to suddenly think that the writers are trying to push their own political agendas? Oh please. Remember when the writers made those who wanted peace with the Cylons look like total lunatics? Or when Roslin banned abortion and tried to rig an election, which turned out would’ve been better for humanity overall? Those all seem like pro-Bush agendas, if anything.
Vic,
YOU are the reason the world hates the U.S. and, probably, also the reason Bush got his 2nd run. (Thanks a lot bro) And just in case you didn’t catch the sarcasm on that one, please also accept my gratitude for making all us Americans look like dimwits that are stupid enough to choke on pretzels, attempt to read children’s books upside down and cant see further than our T.V. screens. All I have to say to you is get up off the goddamn couch, pick up a book and, instead of backing up garbage with more nonsense, you learn to back your facts up from A RANGE of reliable sources. The ONE thing the Bush administration and the GOP managed to do well on is the media, also the main reason they’re in office and are still able to pull chart topping debacles one after another as they’ve been doing.
In other words, in my own interest as well as that of the nation, either stop expressing your opinion (not because I said so but because you genuinly realize its actually pretty uninformed and generally offensive to read or hear) or you put the clicker down n pick up a nice fat book like Against all Enemies by the Ex. director of Counter Terrorism (Dick Clark) or if you feel like stepping up to it although given what Ive read from you thus far I dont suggest do so right away, The strategic logic of suicide terrorism.
Most importantly, please… move back to Missouri where the rest of the world cant see or hear ya. Thanks again.
p.s. still for the war, hate communism and Love my country.
Your comments are TYPICAL of the Left: Only for freedom of speech if it agrees with your agenda.
For every book that you name I can name a counter which will support my views. Among other things, I’d recommend you visit MichaelSavage.com to get an idea of what we’re up against.
Vic
P.S. I don’t necessarily agree with every decision by the current administration.
As someone coming from the center, I think it’s a mistake to think “anon” is typical of anything except attention-whoring. His comments are counter productive and his supporting the war certainly doesn’t seem leftist. Careful how you designate labels, Vic. Don’t associate this nut with either side of the political spectrum, both of which have something important to bring to the table.
Much has been hashed over here, so I will try not to belabor any points, but BSG season 3, after having seen the 1st episode, is really adrift… No substantial parallel can be made between the Cylons and the galacticans with the US and Iraq, even though the writers tried very hard to do so. The parallels while numerous, are shallow, and disconnected.
Still, if the writers are intelligent, they can visit some of the smaller issues in complex internal conflicts that are similar in Iraq today. For example, if the humans were fractionalized, and at each others throats, and they ended up depending on the Cylons to keep peace enough to prevent them from killing themselves… that would be interesting (and similar) to the situation in Iraq.
One of the most facinating things in Iraq is this simple fact: If the insurgents went away, the US would be gone. If the insurgents never came, the the US would be long gone already. Everyone knows this, including the insurgents. They don’t simply want the US out of Iraq. Instead, they want to keep the US there long enough to *force* the US out. They want a battle, and a win. They are willing to kill thousands of Arabs to get it.
The insurgency in Iraq is causing two major effects:
1 - They are keeping the US in Iraq (as the US is duty bound to try to maintain stability)
2 - They are responsible, directly, for most Iraqi deaths in post Saddam Iraq, and using terrorism against arab civilians (in a case of sowing what you reap, for the arab world).
These two cases seem to be out of reach of the story line in BSG.
Interestingly, while the Cylons are motivated to force a single religion on the humans, it is radical islam that acts to force the world to follow its religion, killing all those that will not convert. This links the Cylons and the muselems. I suppose that the morals of forcing religion on others could be examined in an episode…
But still, at this point, it looks like BSG is in a storyline quagmire.
Sorry, but that’s a really naive way of looking at the situation. Radical Muslims aren’t trying to convert the world to Islam or whatever. They simply see the US occupation of Iraq as an imperial move, regardless of whether we see it that way. People aren’t afraid of change, they’re afraid of loss. When we moved in, even though our intentions were in the name of peace, democracy, stability and all that good stuff, we appeared to them to be an invading force. You talk about “what if the insurgents never came” as if they arrived from some other part of the world, which is way off.
Most of them are Iraqis, members of various factions vying for control of the region for whatever sect or cultural group they support. You have Iraqi Sunnis, Iraqi Shiites, Kurdish Sunnis, etc. all fighting for space, not wanting to submit to what many see as an American puppet regime. Not all of them see it that way, but enough do. Still, you’re acting like the insurgents aren’t Iraqis, which leads me to think you haven’t done your homework. They’re not trying to defeat us to show that they’re better than us. Maybe some are, but for the most part, they just want us out so that they can either have their civil war or partition the country along ethnic lines.
Cross writes
“Radical muslems aren’t trying to converto the world to Islam or whatever.”
Actually, the forced conversion into islam is fundimental islamic doctrine, and has been so since Muhammad left Mecca in 622 and ruled in Medina as essentially a warlord, using the sword to force conversion to Islam.
The most fanatical insurgents are those steeped in Wahhabism, and come primarily from Saudi Arabia where Wahhabism is rooted… these men are ideologically motivated, and intend to die. They are the core suicide squad. They are the followers of the doctrine penned in the Medina years of Mohammad.
Don’t mistake those local Iraqi’s that are part of the insurgent activities and those that are hell bent to die in the name of islam. Their motivations are strictly different, as are their results.
Al-Qaeda is fueled by Wahabbism, and most of the 911 attackers were of course, Saudi. And of course they are in Iraq for the fight. If we win in Iraq, the tactic of terrorism looses favor. They can’t have that.
The issue is not the fact that each faction in Iraq wishes to gain the upper hand… the question is, how do they intend to do it? By violent acts? It should be stressed that most members of each group do NOT participate in violent acts, so then one has no choice but to ask: What is motivating those few that do? Dare you assume that All Iraqi’s are basically violent, and will therefore take to killing to solve their problems? Think carefully. The violence is a *strictly minority issue*.
It seems to me you have much work ahead of you before you gain much more than a TIME Inc. understanding of what is happing there.
One final practical tidbit. Consider:
Victory is ours, in two years, if the insurgency decreases in size by only one percent per week.
Period.
On the other hand, if it grows by one percent per week, then there is no end. We have lost.
This simple 2% sway is all that stands between victory and defeat.
For either side.
We also know that the Arab populations have changable views on using terror tactics.
This being the case…
This war is a media war.
What *they* understand of us, is media based. (as is the reverse). Media is the primary means to recruit into the most radicalized parts of the insurgency, and a significant portion are swayed by knowing a friend or relative that has joined. (As indicated by the results of a Saudi study).
If the media does not fan the flames, recruitment goes down. When recruitment goes down, violence goes down… and eventually things settle down.
Next time you see a media report, or watch a Michael Moore movie, reflect on this.
Best regards
I don’t watch Michael Moore movies. Why? Because he’s about as confused in his ideas as you are. And just like you, he bends the facts that suit his own ends, so shame on you for assuming I’m in the same camp as that blowhard simply because I don’t agree that we’re winning this war. Even a great many Republicans would agree that Iraq has been heavily mismanaged. By your logic, the only thing we’d have to do to stop the violence is to leave, because then the insurgents will have felt like they’ve won and so they’d stop killing people. That seems like backwards alien-logic to me and it’s an insult to everything our troops over there stand for.
What you can’t deny is that most Iraqis want us out of there. Not all of them want to force us out violently, but more are starting to support the insurgency because we’re simply not making them safe. 150,000 troops are about 250,000 less than the number we’d need to even have a shot at bringing stability to the region, according to actual simulations run by the US military. Given this, it’s unlikely that the insurgency will go down because it’s stemming from the Iraqi population itself. And as more become disillusioned with our ability to control the situation, more will align themselves along insurgent lines. If we can’t make them safe, they’ll find factions that they think can.
Actually, I never for a second assumed you were in the Michael Moore camp, nor did I ever say so. Please check your assumptions at the door. This world needs more people that act on facts, and less on assumptions, IMHO. You falling into the latter category.
Placing you in the M. Moore camp was the furthest thing from my mind actually.
My moore comments were meant strictly of a clear example of how the media SHAPES world opinion.
If you were ever on the handle, you seem to have flown off it. You seem like a bit of a hot-head… sorry, but I don’t need your insults, or assumptions.
Returning this channel to your regularly scheduled programming.
Actually, I never for a second assumed you were in the Michael Moore camp, nor did I ever say so. Please check your assumptions at the door. This world needs more people that act on facts, and less on assumptions, IMHO. You falling into the latter category.
Placing you in the M. Moore camp was the furthest thing from my mind actually.
My moore comments were meant strictly of a clear example of how the media SHAPES world opinion.
If you were ever on the handle, you seem to have flown off it. You seem like a bit of a hot-head… sorry, but I don’t need your insults, or assumptions.
Returning this channel to your regularly scheduled programming.
If I’ve misread your comments, I do apologize. But I’ve been blindsided too often by so many hard-liners from both the left and right that I often feel compelled to lay it out that there are people who don’t think along those simplistic lines. It just seems like not enough credit is given to the independent thinkers, the same independents that elected Bush in 04 and a Democratic Congress just this week.
Vic,
I was with you every step of the way buddy. Then you pulled the Michael Savage card. Please remember, he is an entertainer. Nothing more. He has brought some interesting items to the table, but just as often screams hyperbole like “traitor” and “scumbag” rather than actually articulating his point. Savage lives in a world of strictly black and white because it serves his interests to do so. He is an entertainer.
Okay enough of that. What I just wanted to express was a big thank you to Ronald Moore for dragging Science Fiction television back in to the world of social relavance. The best science fiction is always allegory, and there was a total absence of it on “US Magazine” fan pandering “freak of the week” faux fashion shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Smallville. Hell, Moore left Star Trek when it became obvious that those shows producers would rather fly the Las Vegas Hilton through space full of endlessly happy people and keep their rating number exactly the same instead of challenging viewers and risking pissing someone off. Oh, and as a result a billion dollar franchise went out with a giant whimper….
But I digress…check out Moore’s work on Star Trek Deep Space Nine for many of the exact themes that are being shown on BSG. It seems to me he has always had an interest in who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist. Though the story in Star Trek was more an exact reproduction of the Nazi’s/French Resistance/Vichy French WWII situation. He would be writing these stories without 9-11 and without Iraq, but is certainly using Iraq parallels to make it even more relevant to today. I do not think that BSG is a direct commentary on Iraq, but the intent is certainly there to make one think about both sides and what makes someone decide what to do, and something that resembles present day events is probably the best way to do so.
Vic
I find Mike’s comments hilarious.
“If the insurgents went away, the US would be gone. If the insurgents never came, the the US would be long gone already. Everyone knows this, including the insurgents.”
Err, Mike, the insurgents are Iraqis. Where are they going to ‘go away’ too? The Americans, like the Cylons, came to New Caprica (Iraq) and the insurgency sprang up to resist them. By your logic, if the Iraqis went away, the US would leave?
I am finding BSG new series very entertaining and a great effort (finally!) by US media (as commented on a lot before here) at making people think and tackling tuff issues.,eg Suicide bombing, resistance, occupation, religion, culture clash etc etc.
Entertaining TV should also exercise the mind and give people stuff to talk about thats relevant to today. Its great to see the series so far.. I tihnk im up to episode 8 or something.
The whole section showing the Cyclons recruiting human police from the colonists, with the other humans viewing them as traitors and collaborators should put another spin on the constant US insistence on ‘training Iraqi forces’. The govt is a puppet govt, like Baltar, and the police can be seen as collaborators. Its a tricky situation.
Also of interest was the recent revelation that Commander Adam had been sent on a secret mission (unauthorised by the government it seems) by the Admiralty, to test Cylon defences and breach the Human / Cyclon armistice.
A non state sanctioned act of violence that causes a great empire to lash out and attack? sound familiar?
A great series so far, and a lot of talking and thinking points, and good to see lively discussion here too.
One poster wrote “Riiiight… and how exactly were we oppressing them before terrorists bombed the U.S.S. Cole? How about the first World Trade Center bombing? Israeli women and children being blown up in malls and on buses?”
People dismiss the argument that the Iraq war is creating hatred of the United States by saying that people hated us before we invaded Iraq. This argument drives me crazy. Yes, some people hated us before the war. The question is whether MORE people hate us now.
If I were to go to the middle east, become the leading spokesperson for al quaida, convince half the muslim world that the U.S. is plotting to poison muslim babies with laser controlled tooth picks, would you say that what I did was okay because people hated us before I started broadcasting, or would you be concerned that I was creating MORE hatred of the U.S.
That’s the problem with folks looking at it from that point of view: Moral equivalence which does not exist.
Heck, why not make an analogy between a parent disciplining their child and Charles Manson?
Vic
Vic wrote “And there you go, putting the intentions and actions of the U.S. government on the same level as that of a terrorist organization in your analogy.”
I’ll respond to your point even though you didn’t respond to mine. Of course I believe that our INTENTIONS are far more benign that those of terrorist. The problem is that good intentions only count for so much. Do you think the families of the thousands (by your estimate ?? I don’t know what your estimate is) or hundreds of thousand by other estimates care about our intentions.
Now back to my point. You are not the only person to argue that we don’t have to worry about increasing hatred of the U.S. because they hated us before the war. Of course some people hated us before the war. The question is do MORE people hate us beceause of the war and is that hatred harmful.
Do you believe that more people hate the U.S. because of the Iraq war. Would an increase in the number of people who hate the U.S. be harmful whether that increase is the intended consequence of terrorist or the unintended consequence of the U.S. government.
I would welcome a NO answer to both questions, but please answer the questions.
Notice the above statement does not necessarily say that we ARE right. I believe that the initial reasoning and the ultimate goal are right but in the end it’s up to the Iraqis to find a way to live together and no outsider can force them to do that. That may be where an ultimate failure may come from all this.
Vic
You fail, Vic. I had hope for you and you failed. Initial reasoning was ties to al Qaeda and WMDs. None of which were found. Please don’t bullshit us. And don’t use the excuse that it’s “up to the Iraqis” because the Iraqis have been divided ever since they were under Saddam. Please, please don’t say anything this stupid ever again.
BTW, say what you want but I still think we were justified based on a dozen years of outright non-compliance with the resolutions put in place by the *U.N.* after they attacked Kuwait.
Vic
Right. Even though the UN didn’t approve of the invasion of Iraq nor did we invade immmediately after Saddam attacked Kuwait and bombed Kurds. Are you seriously saying that we were justified in invading them TEN YEARS after we already pushed them out of Kuwait? You cannot be this dense.
I’m done with this thread and BTW you’re starting to push it with words like “stupid” and “dense” so I would suggest you tone down the rhetoric.
Vic
Sorry, Vic. But I do think someone’s lying to you. None of what you’ve said so far would be confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report. In fact, they’ve been thoroughly discounted. The administration changed its reasons for going to war upon discovering that their original reasons where completely without merit. And they relied on the American people having a short enough memory to let it slide. I didn’t think you’d be one of those people.
What's your opinion? Leave a comment!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!