Has Bond fandom affected my views on assassinations? Not at all. If anything, the Bourne Trilogy better represents my views on the subject.
And since others have mentioned it as an example of a "good" assassination, I consider the negative consequences from the Osama bin Laden raid to outweigh the positives. The CIA's exploitation of medical personnel and relief workers has led to the group Save the Children being booted out of Pakistan, people leading vaccination campaigns to be murdered, and a massive upswing in child polio cases.
National Geographic (among other outlets) has reported in this extensively.
Considering that many analysts believe bin Laden's assassination had little or no positive impact on U.S. security or anti-terrorism effort, one must ask if America's quest for revenge was worth the lives and health of those in Pakistan. I say no.
Yes, I understand your point of view on this subject, dear Le Samurai. It is perhaps best summed up in this brilliant satirical song on the death of bin Laden:
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
My being a Bond fan hasn't influenced my opinion on extra-judicial killing...but my being a Robert Ludlum fan has! I'm talking about his earlier books before his death, including of course the Bourne trilogy and the other novels before those. I confess that the scenarios presented provided me a different way of seeing national security because for the most part, the Western governments were portrayed as generally benevolent, though there was the occasional breakdown in the system that caused sinister acts to take place.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I disagree with how unconventional weaponry is treated differently than conventional weaponry.
Killing people with a drone is wrong, but killing people with bullets and grenades is okay?
The point is that assasintions by drone causes a lot of collateral casualties. Also, when a Pakistani boy grows up fearing American drones, seeing friends and family killed by them, who will he side with - America or the people blowing up western buildings and passenger planes?
How is sending a drone that unintentionally kills an innocent boy any different than sending an on-the-ground army that unintentionally kills an innocent boy?
There have been plenty of cases of corrupt or mentally ill soldiers inflicting massacres on villages. There's a risk with everything. Drone programs are simply controversial because they're new - not because they're, at the end of the day, any more harmful.
How is sending a drone that unintentionally kills an innocent boy any different than sending an on-the-ground army that unintentionally kills an innocent boy?
There have been plenty of cases of corrupt or mentally ill soldiers inflicting massacres on villages. There's a risk with everything. Drone programs are simply controversial because they're new - not because they're, at the end of the day, any more harmful.
Drones make killing easy, hence the problem. Since no U.S. soldiers are being put in harm's way, the public doesn't really pay that much attention to the situation. When we hear about a couple of Westerners being accidentally killed by drones, Americans get upset and Obama issues an apology. Why don't we get upset over the innocent Pakistanis who are accidentally killed? Where is Obama's apology to them?
—Le Samourai
A Gent in Training.... A blog about my continuing efforts to be improve myself, be a better person, and lead a good life. It incorporates such far flung topics as fitness, self defense, music, style, food and drink, and personal philosophy. Agent In Training
When we hear about a couple of Westerners being accidentally killed by drones, Americans get upset and Obama issues an apology. Why don't we get upset over the innocent Pakistanis who are accidentally killed? Where is Obama's apology to them?
An apology would be an admittance of guilt, and the military industrial complex will not allow that seeing as their profits grow with more drone usage & production. Follow the money, follow the lobbyists. It's all about commerce. War is good business.
Full title: Has being a Bond fan made you a supporter of extra-judicial killing/state-sponsored assassination?
I've been thinking about this a lot of late so I thought I would start a thread on it to gauge the views of other Bond fans. I realise that the subject matter is a little bit controversial. The thread is not meant to invoke controversy, however. Let me say that from the get-go.
What I want to know is does your being a literary/cinematic James Bond fan make you more in favour of state-sponsored assassination (also referred to as extra-judicial killing) by spies/secret agents/special forces etc. against certain individuals (a recent example in the Navy SEALS assassination of Osama bin Laden in May 2011). President George W. Bush wanted the CIA agents to have a "licence to kill" in the hunt for Osama bin Laden after the Al-Queada September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the attempt to crash into the White House:
Obviously, Ian Fleming came up with the idea of the "licence to kill in the line of duty" first and no doubt based it on his wartime experiences as Assistant to the Director of Naval Intelligence for the duration of World War II and in particular on his 'Red Indians' in the 30 Assault Unit as well as with the Special Operations Executive (SOE). Ian Fleming himself famously suggested several ways that the CIA might assassinate Fidel Castro (including making his beard fall out and giving him explosive cigars).
There were several plots to kill Hitler during World War II and the SOE trained the two assassins who killed Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in the then Czechoslovakia (but which had the terrible consequence of the vengeful Nazis obliterating the Czech town of Lidice and everybody and everything in it).
On the other (anti-Western) side of the coin, during the Cold War the Soviets of course murdered defectors and traitors and we see this happening more recently in the cases of the Bulgarian dissident writer Georgi Markov in September 1978 in London with a pellet containing the toxin ricin fired from an umbrella and Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006 with the radioactive poison Polonium 210, only to be found in Russian scientific labs. SMERSH was of course a Soviet liquidation organ of terror during World War II and it found its equivalents in the NKVD and the KGB (and perhaps even the FSB).
So, are we as Bond fans in favour of state assassination by the UK, the US or their allies (which is of course against international and state law which forbids assassination as a state policy) or are we opposed to it? Is it better for it to remain in James Bond's fictional world or should it encroach into the real world that we, as Bond fans, inhabit?
Either way, I'd love top hear your views as I'm greatly interested in this as a topic of discussion.
Personally, I'm in favour of a controlled level of state assassination such as in the cases of Hitler or more recently Osama bin Laden but that said I of course realise there are inherent dangers if this evil power is abused by a government or intelligence chiefs. I'm against the use of the death penalty, however, as I see that as a separate matter and anyway too many innocents have lost their lives in the past.
I hope that we can all have a civil discussion about this, as I feel it is important. -{
The short answer is, no. Bond is a fantasy character, so I can separate the violence, often cartoonish, in the films from real life pretty easily.
In real life, I don't support the death penalty. I'm not a pacifist, but I think violence should be a last resort and not a first response.
They've played down the license to kill thing in recent films haven't they? Largely cos it is no longer the cocktail party joke it was in the early Connery films, when the death penalty was still in force for murderers. Now any punk can get a gun and kill someone, it has no 'prestige', even mock prestige.
That said, the Brosnan years saw him become more of a neocon as he went about doing premptive strikes against the Soviet Union in the pts of GE, and N Korea in DAD, he is a bit rough with the bankers in the pts of TWINE too.
The narciscistic (sp?) quality of the Bond character may have influenced the likes of Blair and Bush, but then so does the memory of winning WW2 and being used to a successful narrative.
Comments
Yes, I understand your point of view on this subject, dear Le Samurai. It is perhaps best summed up in this brilliant satirical song on the death of bin Laden:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukt-_LKhd1U
How is sending a drone that unintentionally kills an innocent boy any different than sending an on-the-ground army that unintentionally kills an innocent boy?
There have been plenty of cases of corrupt or mentally ill soldiers inflicting massacres on villages. There's a risk with everything. Drone programs are simply controversial because they're new - not because they're, at the end of the day, any more harmful.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
A Gent in Training.... A blog about my continuing efforts to be improve myself, be a better person, and lead a good life. It incorporates such far flung topics as fitness, self defense, music, style, food and drink, and personal philosophy.
Agent In Training
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
In real life, I don't support the death penalty. I'm not a pacifist, but I think violence should be a last resort and not a first response.
That said, the Brosnan years saw him become more of a neocon as he went about doing premptive strikes against the Soviet Union in the pts of GE, and N Korea in DAD, he is a bit rough with the bankers in the pts of TWINE too.
The narciscistic (sp?) quality of the Bond character may have influenced the likes of Blair and Bush, but then so does the memory of winning WW2 and being used to a successful narrative.
Roger Moore 1927-2017