Jump to content

Chaircat Meow

Members
  • Posts

    8,342
  • Joined

3 Followers

About Chaircat Meow

  • Birthday 08/18/1989

Profile Information

  • Oppressive Joke
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

24,898 profile views

Chaircat Meow's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. Israeli explanation: Mark Regev, senior adviser to the Israeli prime minister, has told the BBC the Israeli authorities are looking at exactly what happened and said its military would not "deliberately target a hospital". "My information, that I have just received from the highest authority... is that all indications are that this was not Israeli orders, that this was rather, a Hamas rocket that fell short." From past conflicts with the terrorists in Gaza, we know that on average about 33% of rockets that they shoot at us, fall short and land in Gaza." from Mark Regev Adviser to Israel's prime minister Mark Regev Adviser to Israel's prime minister
  2. I'm just going with the view we don't know what happened at this stage. Reports from the front lines of a war are very uncertain. Funded by does not necessarily mean run by either.
  3. The BBC said 'Hundreds of people have been killed in an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza City, according to Palestinian officials; the Israeli military says it's investigating the incident'
  4. Have they? Most reports I read have some variation on 'according to Hamas officials.' How are these news organisations in a position to confirm this at the moment?
  5. I think what she meant is this: urban warfare is extremely difficult and bloody and it is not possible to try and eliminate Hamas without substantial loss of life, including innocent civilians. It's what happened when Iraqi troops retook Mosul from ISIS. This is particularly true because of the nature of the Gaza strip and Hamas tactics. So when people say Israel can go ahead and attack Hamas they at least raise the suspicion that in practice they mean the opposite.
  6. I wasn't asking for proof the demands couldn't be fulfilled. I asked for proof Ramsay would attack the whole watch when the demands weren't fulfilled. The original claim was that it should have been obvious, from Bown's POV, that Jon was defending the watch when he made his shieldhall speech and I disagreed. As an aside I think guest rite doesn't enter into this. Breaking guest rite means attacking your host or your guest. I don't think it means you can't turn them over the king or his warden. Jon Arryn raised his banners because he didn't want to see Robert/Ned murdered not because guest rite left him no choice in the matter.
  7. Yep that was all quoted and discussed above. Nowhere does it say 'the Watch will be attacked as well' or anything of the sort. In fact Ramsay had the opportunity to include such a threat but he did not. He told Jon he would cut his heart out and eat it and left it there. After that it doesn't say 'and I will make a pie full of all your crows too and eat it with mustard.'
  8. Proof? Ramsay actually says what he will do in the event of none compliance. It has just been quoted.
  9. The letter and the threat were addressed to Jon. Whatever other people have said those are the facts here. If you think an attack on the NW was implied in the letter that's great but we have no evidence Jon did and if he did think this he made no effort to communicate this point to anyone. Your original claim was this it clear from Bowen and co's POV that Ramsay was going to attack the whole NW. Tywin made one demand: appoint Slynt. How does appointing him equate to aligning with Tywin ? The NW are allowed to pick their own LC - if they voted for him how is that breaching neutrality?. What were they going to do to Stannis with Slynt as LC? Unless the plan actually was to help Tywin defeat Stannis by fighting him (which I really doubt and this is never said - not even by Tywin) I don't think this gets you to oathbreaking/breach of neutrality. At best I think Tywin would have expected Slynt to do a reverse Jon - inform Roose of any plans he heard about in the way Jon helped Stannis win Deepwood by giving advice and helped with the Karstarks. Which is on the edge of course but it is not like going to war with him. This is even vaguer than the 'take no part in the wars of the seven kingdoms' which is how it is usually described. Why not just use the book phrasing? Because it doesn't help you ...
  10. They didn't claim the Night's Watch was in rebellion or even that Jon was a rebel. Cersei tried to have other people she didn't like/felt threatened by killed too even when they were on her side. Assassination by its nature is underhanded and you often do it precisely when you don't want to be seen as publicly opposed. Think of Tywin's 'Castamere' threat which he made, for example, against Lord Manderly but not against the Night's Watch. There's a big difference there.
  11. Not even the Lannisters or the Boltons have this extreme interpretation. They've tried to strong arm the watch but neither ultimately supposed hosting Stannis per se made the NW enemies/rebels.
  12. The bolded is the threat. To Jon alone. Trouble your black crows is vague - it could mean anything. It most likely refers to the next sentence - Ramsay will trouble the black crows by executing their Lord Commander if his demands aren't met. When did Bowen plot to get Jon killed? I don't remember that at all. He actually tries to stop him going to a weirwood grove outside the Wall at one point because he's worried about him - so plotting to kill him would be out of character.
  13. Your interpretation makes Jon a moron who totally misrepresented the situation for shits and giggles. If Ramsay is really coming to kill, torture and feed Bowen to his dogs then Bowen will not be a happy bunny: make sure he understands that!
  14. 1. He could have tried but he was unlikely to succeed given Jon had whipped up the wildling forces at Castle Black to follow him to war. So this option was, realistically, precluded by the situation. In any case, the penalty for desertion is death not imprisonment - as Ned Stark and Jon Snow would tell you. 2. No he doesn't. Bowen never suggests attacking Stannis or trying to help the Boltons defeat their enemies. He did want to make Slynt Lord Commander as a signal to Lord Tywin that the watch wasn't siding with Stannis (a terrible plan, btw) but that's all. No one in text ever claims that amounts to 'taking part' as Lord Commanders are partly chosen for their ability to deal with other lords and the king. I think here you've made the conditions for not breaching neutrality so onerous no one can really meet them, which conveniently gets Jon off the hook for actually doing things like recruiting his own army and attacking a northern lord. 3. No he really isn't. He threatens to kill Jon if his demands aren't met, not every member of the NW. The Boltons are very unlikely to massacre the Night's Watch, a sacred northern institution. They have enough problems with unpopularity/violation of sacred principles already and are trying to build up legitimacy with Farya - getting her back being one of the main points of the letter. And if Jon thought it was obvious Ramsay was coming to massacre the Night's Watch he would have said so rather than implying in his speech marching against him was oathbreaking. I also agree with Adam Feldman re Bowen's motivations.
×
×
  • Create New...