This film can be regarded as a film reflecting terrorist organizations or terrorist acts, at least we can see this statement many times in the film. Therefore, my thinking mainly revolves around this topic.
1. There must be incentives for terror. As long as people in this world have normal thinking, then any social behavior has its inherent reasons. Have there been unprovoked terrorist acts? Even if there are, I am afraid it is very rare. They can only be extreme cases and do not have sociological significance. From the film, we clearly see that it was the international politics of the late 1960s that triggered a series of terrorist acts in West Germany, and then formed a terrorist organization.
2. Hatred triggers hatred, and violence triggers violence. At the beginning of the film, the West German police aroused strong public outrage to protest against the brutality of the students. This fire ignited the hatred of U.S. imperialism that was originally hidden in the hearts of the students. In the subsequent suppression and pursuit operations, the police and the Red Luyi reported it again, and the level of violence in his actions rose gradually. The police's violence against students is believed to be not a state apparatus that treats one's brothers and sisters and compatriots well, but a cold-blooded animal who is only responsible to his superiors and does not make judgments or human nature when executing instructions. This scene has appeared in many countries. Could this be the true nature of the police?
3. Terrorism, terrorism, state terrorism. Terrorism, in my opinion, is actually another term for violent means. However, in recent years, why have relevant countries and international organizations replaced the term violent actions with terrorism? There is a lot of meaning here. Terrorism is a condition and a consequence of violent actions. It emphasizes the fear that violent actions bring to people's psychology. Therefore, anti-terrorism has the appeal beyond nationalism and ism. For this reason, some countries Willing to conceal the true purpose of violent actions in the name of anti-terrorism, and divert people's questions and thinking about why violent actions occurred. However, terror itself is not the ultimate appeal of violent actions. Most violent actions against society have their political opinions or appeals behind them. Therefore, terror is only the appearance, and the root cause of violence or terror should be the most concerned. This shows that downplaying the root causes of the violence and its political views reflect the guilty conscience of the state (authorities) who knows it is wrong. If terrorism has to be said, it can only be state terrorism, because it is a premeditated and planned anti-human and inhumane crime against the people. It is called terrorism because it has clear claims and theoretical systems, such as the authoritarian centralization of the Nazis (Germany, Stalin, and the Eastern European socialist countries during the Cold War, etc.)
4. Violence or law-abiding, a dilemma Question. In a normal society or a just society, there is no such dilemma. Only in a deformed or sinful society will such a dilemma appear. It should be noted that in a non-democratic country, the law is a manifestation of the will of the ruler. They It does not represent the interests of the public. Therefore, abiding by the law is not self-evident and unique. In a broader sense, abiding by the law or resisting the law are the rights of citizens. Compared with the rights of the government or authorities, the rights of citizens are It is supreme and the only unrestricted. On the contrary, the power of the government or authority should be appropriately restricted. Violence is not a patent of the country, it is also a weapon of the weak. When justice is lacking, fairness is lost, and rights are deprived, violence is It has become the only weapon for the weak to save themselves. Many terrorist actions are always civil against the government and the weak against the strong. This reveals a truth in itself. Terror is the last weapon for the weak to defend or resist. It comes at the cost of its own destruction. If it is not a last resort, it will never come to this point. The so-called officials force the people to rebel, which is also called. Isn't this worthy of reflection by those in power?
5. Where is the boundary of justice? In this case, how to handle terror or law-abiding? If we make a simple summary, the conclusion is: the government or the authority should be the ultimate law-abiding company, and the people who can get moral tolerance can only get the people who have no way. Moveable acts of terror-if fierce resistance is defined as terror.
So, can violent acts with justified reasons not be morally condemned? The terrorists in the film act or even sacrifice for a certain ideal. Excluding the subjectivity of ideal values, can terrorist acts be taken even for the sake of a lofty ideal? Is it possible to resort to any means for the so-called lofty purpose? Such cross-examinations will lead to a series of questions, such as whether the purpose and means should be unified, whether the interests of the few people can be sacrificed for the interests of the envisioned majority, and whether human progress should follow the internal development trajectory of society or The process should be accelerated in a revolutionary way, and it may not be easy to answer these questions convincingly.
View more about The Baader Meinhof Complex reviews
