Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!moens
From: moens@ubc-cs.UUCP (Ted Moens)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: A BRAZIL question (SPOILER?)
Message-ID: <172@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Feb-86 19:55:10 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.172
Posted: Fri Feb 21 19:55:10 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 03:10:00 EST
References: <11000015@ada-uts> <10700133@uiucdcs> <378@watdragon.UUCP> <718@harvard.UUCP>
Reply-To: moens@ubc-cs.UUCP (Ted Moens)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 28
Keywords: terrorists
Summary: even terrorists are relative

In article <718@harvard.UUCP> lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) writes:
>In article <378@watdragon.UUCP>,
>wasaunders@watdragon.UUCP (Alec Saunders) writes:
>
>> I have another question - or maybe a theory ... I think that there were no
>> terrorists. I think that the government was the "terrorists" and was using
>> fear of terrorism to control the population. Does this seem reasonable to
>> anyone else? This would make Jill and Harry Tuttle much stronger symbols in
>> the film. 
>
>How exactly was the government using the "terrorists" to control the
>population? Nobody seemed the least bit phased by the bombings, except,
>of course, for the injured.
>

Jill asks Sam: "Have you ever SEEN a terrorist..."
Perhaps the terrorist bombings were arranged by the government in order to
justify the need for anti-terrorist resources.  In fact, the deputy minister
uses the 13 years of "beginner's luck" bombings as a reason for needing more 
and better information retrieval services. If the government is concerned with 
perpetuating itself, it would be well equipped with police and information
to nip any perceived threat to itself in the bud.  To the government, a 
terrorist would be someone who threatens the status quo, Harry or Jill
for instance....

						Ted Moens

"loose lips are noose lips" as I'm afraid mine will be.