What 'needed to be done'?

[Darkstream]

On 05/03/2017 at 8:44 AM, John Suburbs said:

Use the ignore button.

And while your at it, attack all the people on this thread who are now debating Jon and Stannis. And then go the General forum and find any and all posts about RL=J, the Northern Conspiracy, the Pink Letter, Mance=Rhaegar and all the other topics that have been discussed ad nauseum.

You see, the arrogance, bitterness, and rudeness that you have thus shown towards other posters in this dead end argument is exactly why I singled you out and "attacked"  only poor little you.

Who woulda thunk this was where this tired out ol' argument was going to go.

ETA:

It's too bad about the above too. Obviously, I don't subscribe to your theory, but there are some details, and some points that you make, that does give me pause when considering the events that took place during the Purple Wedding. A civil discussion of these would be interesting. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, you cannot maintain a discussion on this topic that doesn't quickly deteriate into insults and childish back and forth.

[FoyeTwenty Boston]

On 2/24/2017 at 5:01 PM, LyrnaSnowBunnyAvenger said:

Huh?  Not trying to be disrespectful or anything but what are you talking about?  First time I've seen this thrown out there.  Kidnapped by who?  I'm intrigued. 

 

On 2/24/2017 at 2:18 PM, Tianzi said:

 

Rhaegar - POSSIBLY that whole Lyanna's abduction circus, if he had basis to think it's essential to saving the world.

I would also love some expansion on this statement. Who would have kidnapped Rhaegar? What are you suggesting here?

 

On 2/24/2017 at 4:26 PM, John Suburbs said:

 

Rhaegar is an enigma. Hard to say what he was thinking, and it is possible that he was kidnapped along with Lyanna.

 

 

[John Suburbs]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 8:04 PM, Darkstream said:

You see, the arrogance, bitterness, and rudeness that you have thus shown towards other posters in this dead end argument is exactly why I singled you out and "attacked"  only poor little you.

Who woulda thunk this was where this tired out ol' argument was going to go.

ETA:

It's too bad about the above too. Obviously, I don't subscribe to your theory, but there are some details, and some points that you make, that does give me pause when considering the events that took place during the Purple Wedding. A civil discussion of these would be interesting. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, you cannot maintain a discussion on this topic that doesn't quickly deteriate into insults and childish back and forth.

If you bothered to look, you'll notice that I am never the one to start the nastiness. In fact, I show incredible forbearance at the hostility that is thrown at me simply for pointing out the facts.

[John Suburbs]

23 hours ago, FoyeTwenty Boston said:

 

I would also love some expansion on this statement. Who would have kidnapped Rhaegar? What are you suggesting here?

 

 

Both Rhaegar and Lyanna could have been kidnapped by the kingsguard, on the orders of Aerys or due to some plot of their own. Rhaegar is then compelled to return to KL and fight for Aerys under the threat of death for Lyanna and her unborn child.

Don't ask me for evidence. I have none. It's just an idea.

[Darkstream]

5 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

If you bothered to look, you'll notice that I am never the one to start the nastiness. In fact, I show incredible forbearance at the hostility that is thrown at me simply for pointing out the facts.

I have looked, and I really don't care who started it. That's what I mean by childish. Whoever is to blame, doesn't change the fact that this debate always goes there. 

Look, I'm not here to attack you, as you so put it. I simply gave you a polite reminder to keep it on topic, and you made a big deal about it.

I'm done. Get the last word in if you must, I won't reply.

[John Suburbs]

19 hours ago, Darkstream said:

I have looked, and I really don't care who started it. That's what I mean by childish. Whoever is to blame, doesn't change the fact that this debate always goes there. 

Look, I'm not here to attack you, as you so put it. I simply gave you a polite reminder to keep it on topic, and you made a big deal about it.

I'm done. Get the last word in if you must, I won't reply.

We were having a polite conversation on this board. Then Lady Blizz drops in with her arrogant remark about how her opinions on dense poison "are not rocket science." Translation: Only an idiot would not see things my way. When I politely pointed out the flaws in her argument, she got all huffy.

Then you chime in with your emphatic "No" regarding whether I have any evidence to support my argument, which it turns out was not only arrogant and condescending but utterly disingenuous since it turns out that you in fact agree that at least some of my evidence is sound.

My original comments on this board were perfectly on topic. It was the two of you who were spoiling for an argument that caused the diversion, which it always does through the arrogance and childishness of others.

So I submit to you, good ser, that if you want to dial down the arrogance around here, you start with yourself.

But since you also seem intrigued by my thoughts on the PW, I invite you to PM me with questions any time, and maybe we can have a civil discourse that could lead to mutual understanding.

 

[Ser Snowflake]

On 3/4/2017 at 3:49 AM, khal drogon said:

By your logic if Stannis had the right to force the NW with his army then Ramsay has the right too.

Stannis is a losing horse. Betting on him is not smart.

Marsh followed Jon's commands though reluctantly till Shieldhall speech. Marsh did give valid counsel like sending freefolk to rescue the wildlings at hardhome than sending men of the Watch which Jon rejected without giving any reason. He also advised him to not look too close to Stannis which he rejected too. Oh yes wrong counsels.

It is funny that people want everyone to see Jon as the Snowflake he is. 

 

I'm not following your logic.

Stannis didn't have the right to force the NW.....he had the army to do what he wanted. Jon didn't have the men to stop him. The difference between Stannis and Ramsay...is that King Stannis aided the watch while Ramsay only threatened the Watch. Why would Jon go to war with the only King to fight for the Watch? Stannis was a guest. There is precedent for the NW hosting kings, and to deny Stannis shelter would be counterproductive and stupid.

The Watch would really have a hard time receiving aid from the 7K if they started disrespecting Lords and Kings who fight and die for them. That's a textbook example of biting the hands that feed you

And Stannis is far from a losing horse....He is the last king from the original five still fighting TWOFK, about to get at least 20000 sellswords, and is currently marching to liberate Winterfell.

Sending the free folk to Hardhome was wrong. LC Snow learned from his predecessor, and is following the Old Bear's example. It's easier to get men to follow you if they know that you are willing to do the hard jobs alongside with them. Plus any intel on the WW and conditions beyond the wall would be helpful.

It's funny that you seem to have a problem the two people most responsible for the Watch still being around. You call the only king to come to the NW's aid a "losing horse" and seem to have a low opinion of the guy who infiltrated the free folk, escaped with critical information, led the battle that ultimately broke the power of the free folk. secured loan from IB to feed the watch throughout winter, opened up several other castles along the wall, and killed the wight that infiltrated CB.

LC Snow is no snowflake.....but a traitor he is not. He is more loyal and useful to the watch than Marsh. The Old Bear chose wisely when he picked LC Snow to be his steward and predecessor.

 

[khal drogon]

41 minutes ago, The Pimp that was Promised said:

I'm not following your logic.

 

Stannis didn't have the right to force the NW.....he had the army to do what he wanted. Jon didn't have the men to stop him. The difference between Stannis and Ramsay...is that King Stannis aided the watch while Ramsay only threatened the Watch. Why would Jon go to war with the only King to fight for the Watch? Stannis was a guest. There is precedent for the NW hosting kings, and to deny Stannis shelter would be counterproductive and stupid.

The Watch would really have a hard time receiving aid from the 7K if they started disrespecting Lords and Kings who fight and die for them. That's a textbook example of biting the hands that feed you

And Stannis is far from a losing horse....He is the last king from the original five still fighting TWOFK, about to get at least 20000 sellswords, and is currently marching to liberate Winterfell.

Sending the free folk to Hardhome was wrong. LC Snow learned from his predecessor, and is following the Old Bear's example. It's easier to get men to follow you if they know that you are willing to do the hard jobs alongside with them. Plus any intel on the WW and conditions beyond the wall would be helpful.

It's funny that you seem to have a problem the two people most responsible for the Watch still being around. You call the only king to come to the NW's aid a "losing horse" and seem to have a low opinion of the guy who infiltrated the free folk, escaped with critical information, led the battle that ultimately broke the power of the free folk. secured loan from IB to feed the watch throughout winter, opened up several other castles along the wall, and killed the wight that infiltrated CB.

LC Snow is no snowflake.....but a traitor he is not. He is more loyal and useful to the watch than Marsh. The Old Bear chose wisely when he picked LC Snow to be his steward and predeces

You said Stannis had more men than Jon so Jon was forced by Stannis. Same logic applies for Ramsay too. If Ramsay could outnumber Jon then he could get his way too according to your own logic. Anyway the rule of the NW is not to be coerced by anyone even the King and it has an independence from the kingdoms. Also another rule is to not indulge in matters concerning the seven kingdoms. 

Stannis helped the watch which is one of his duties as he claims to be the true king. He can't expect anything else from the watch though which does not come under his rulership. But what he does? He interferes in every decision of the watch from conducting its elections to manning its forts. Jon was way too generous for sheltering a rebel king and his men who gives only problems to the other set of people he is trying to settle. These are not what guests do. Stannis played King in the Watch too. He even offered Jon Winterfell while the NW vows are for life. Sorry the watch doesn't owe anything to Stannis and there is no precedent for how Stannis acted.

Jon bit his hand feeding him when he chose to aid Stannis. Stannis was hated everywhere even by the Northern lords. So unless Stannis takes the Iron throne he was in no position to feed anyone.

It baffles me why people still can't believe Stannis isn't losing. Surviving among the original five doesn't mean he is the winner and not losing. The guy has no realistic chance to win the throne or even the North. 

I don't think the men of the NW are willing to go in a suicide mission to hardhome under the leadership of a wildling. In fact other capable wildling men under Tormund going for their rescue is more wiser. Wildlings are clearly more willing here yet Lord Snow wanted them to aid his desertion.

The NW is as good as destroyed and had no future because of Jon's past decisions. Even before Jon's stabbing a conflict between the Queen's men and the wildlings is imminent which the watch was not prepared to face. Jon was unwise most of the times yet you seem to say he didn't do any mistakes which is baffling. If you saw from a neutral POV both Jon and Marsh committed mistakes.

[DixiesArcher]

On 2/24/2017 at 6:02 PM, Allardyce said:

You forgot to include the assassination of lord commander Jon Snow.  It was mutiny but it needed to be done.  Jon was willing to destroy the night's watch to save his sister. Jon already started a feud with the Boltons for the sake of his sister.  Bowen Marsh had no other choice but stop his foolish commander.  Jon had to be killed to prevent him doing more harm to Westeros.

The mental gymnastics here is laughable. The nights watch is a dying organization filled with ppl who played just as much politics as Jon did. They weren't protecting the integrity of the watch they're using it as a justification to get on what they believe will save them in the end. To bad they're wrong they're most likely toast all of them. 

[khal drogon]

1 hour ago, DixiesArcher said:

The mental gymnastics here is laughable. The nights watch is a dying organization filled with ppl who played just as much politics as Jon did. They weren't protecting the integrity of the watch they're using it as a justification to get on what they believe will save them in the end. To bad they're wrong they're most likely toast all of them. 

Marsh's was a desperate attempt to uphold what the Watch stands for. His obvious wildlings bias was his big flaw which prevented him from being committed to the true idea of the watch. Jon on the other hand did too radical reforms without taking the watch with him. A compromise between them would have been the best thing for the watch but not anymore. I agree on the point that the Watch is dying and would have died even if Jon wasn't stabbed. 

[Ser Snowflake]

3 hours ago, khal drogon said:

You said Stannis had more men than Jon so Jon was forced by Stannis. Same logic applies for Ramsay too. If Ramsay could outnumber Jon then he could get his way too according to your own logic. Anyway the rule of the NW is not to be coerced by anyone even the King and it has an independence from the kingdoms. Also another rule is to not indulge in matters concerning the seven kingdoms. 

Stannis helped the watch which is one of his duties as he claims to be the true king. He can't expect anything else from the watch though which does not come under his rulership. But what he does? He interferes in every decision of the watch from conducting its elections to manning its forts. Jon was way too generous for sheltering a rebel king and his men who gives only problems to the other set of people he is trying to settle. These are not what guests do. Stannis played King in the Watch too. He even offered Jon Winterfell while the NW vows are for life. Sorry the watch doesn't owe anything to Stannis and there is no precedent for how Stannis acted.

Jon bit his hand feeding him when he chose to aid Stannis. Stannis was hated everywhere even by the Northern lords. So unless Stannis takes the Iron throne he was in no position to feed anyone.

It baffles me why people still can't believe Stannis isn't losing. Surviving among the original five doesn't mean he is the winner and not losing. The guy has no realistic chance to win the throne or even the North. 

I don't think the men of the NW are willing to go in a suicide mission to hardhome under the leadership of a wildling. In fact other capable wildling men under Tormund going for their rescue is more wiser. Wildlings are clearly more willing here yet Lord Snow wanted them to aid his desertion.

The NW is as good as destroyed and had no future because of Jon's past decisions. Even before Jon's stabbing a conflict between the Queen's men and the wildlings is imminent which the watch was not prepared to face. Jon was unwise most of the times yet you seem to say he didn't do any mistakes which is baffling. If you saw from a neutral POV both Jon and Marsh committed mistakes.

I didn't say Jon was forced by Stannis to aid him.....I said that Jon didn't have the men to oppose Stannis. Stannis saved the watch, so Jon sheltered him for a time. Stannis most certainly would have forced Jon's hand with his superior army if the LC would have ordered Stannis to leave the wall after the battle. That would have been foolish on Jon's part. A threat is only as good if one has the ability to enforce it.

The Lords Glover, Wull, Norrey, Liddell, half of the Umbers, and the Manderlys most certainly don't hate Stannis. If it wasn't for Stannis, there would be thousands of wildlings roaming around the north along with hordes of WW if the wall had fallen.

And it is no coincidence that Stannis is the last of the original five standing. The man is Iron to the bone, and is still winning battles. your logic baffles me. The only battle Stannis lost was when he got caught between wildfire and basically three armies.....and he still almost won. Stannis has outlasted four kings, defeated the King beyond the wall, and is about to kick Roose's behind. I'm betting my money on Stannis.

You still fail to acknowledge that without Jon, the watch would have fallen. When did I say that Jon didn't make any mistakes? I acknowledged earlier sending his most loyal men away was a mistake. Also, not keeping Ghost close to him was a mistake.

Whats baffling to me, is that you don't seem to acknowledge Jon and Stannis's crucial role in holding the wall. You call the former a snowflake and the latter a loser, while praising Marsh, a treasonous fool who doomed the wall.

Marsh is no different than the fools who murdered the Old Bear.

[khal drogon]

5 minutes ago, The Pimp that was Promised said:

I didn't say Jon was forced by Stannis to aid him.....I said that Jon didn't have the men to oppose Stannis. Stannis saved the watch, so Jon sheltered him for a time. Stannis most certainly would have forced Jon's hand with his superior army if the LC would have ordered Stannis to leave the wall after the battle. That would have been foolish on Jon's part. A threat is only as good if one has the ability to enforce it.

The Lords Glover, Wull, Norrey, Liddell, half of the Umbers, and the Manderlys most certainly don't hate Stannis. If it wasn't for Stannis, there would be thousands of wildlings roaming around the north along with hordes of WW if the wall had fallen.

And it is no coincidence that Stannis is the last of the original five standing. The man is Iron to the bone, and is still winning battles. your logic baffles me. The only battle Stannis lost was when he got caught between wildfire and basically three armies.....and he still almost won. Stannis has outlasted four kings, defeated the King beyond the wall, and is about to kick Roose's behind. I'm betting my money on Stannis.

You still fail to acknowledge that without Jon, the watch would have fallen. When did I say that Jon didn't make any mistakes? I acknowledged earlier sending his most loyal men away was a mistake. Also, not keeping Ghost close to him was a mistake.

Whats baffling to me, is that you don't seem to acknowledge Jon and Stannis's crucial role in holding the wall. You call the former a snowflake and the latter a loser, while praising Marsh, a treasonous fool who doomed the wall.

Marsh is no different than the fools who murdered the Old Bear.

Are you believing that those Northern lords love Stannis? My Sweet summer child. They are all using Stannis for their own ends. I won't bet any money on Stannis.

It seems our argument is getting nowhere and points are getting repeated. Let's agree to disagree. Good Luck.

[Lord Wraith]

Baelish betraying Ned. I know everyone thinks that luring him to King's Landing was all part of his master plan but I disagree. Baelish primarily wanted to keep Stannis off the throne. He explains as much to Ned. At best he gets back to the Fingers, at worse Stannis executes him for his corruption at course. Simple preservation.

Not to mention everyone else had already betrayed Ned at this point: Sansa, Renly, Ned himself by going to Cersei. Baelish simply jumped off a drowning ship.

Not saying it was a good thing but simply self preservation.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

On 03/03/2017 at 8:09 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

When your most dangerous enemy conspire to attack your realm with hordes of barbarians you can do what you what, that doesn’t make you right though.

As for the age Dany didn’t seemed to have a problem to mass murdering, or even committing genocide, children younger than she was during AGOT.

Dany wasn’t conspiring to invade the kingdoms though, at that stage. She wasn’t an enemy she was a potential future enemy. All Ned’s arguments against it were perfectly logical, and Robert gave the order out of hatred not a reasonable weighing up of risk vs reward. Robert himself recognised it was the wrong thing to do in the end.

 

It has to be acknowledged that the decision to assassinate Dany was an unholy fuck up even on pragmatist grounds – Drogo wasn’t interested in invading until the botched hit.

 

I wasn’t attempting a side-by-side comparison of Robert and Dany’s ethics, just saying that Robert’s actions in this instance were wrong.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

4 hours ago, Lord Wraith said:

Not to mention everyone else had already betrayed Ned at this point: Sansa, Renly, Ned himself by going to Cersei. Baelish simply jumped off a drowning ship.

Not saying it was a good thing but simply self preservation.

Small point, but I wouldn't really describe Renly's actions as betrayal. He submitted a plan to Ned, and when he was turned down (rather brusquely I might add), he went his own way. 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

On 10/3/2017 at 11:54 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Dany wasn’t conspiring to invade the kingdoms though, at that stage. She wasn’t an enemy she was a potential future enemy. All Ned’s arguments against it were perfectly logical, and Robert gave the order out of hatred not a reasonable weighing up of risk vs reward. Robert himself recognised it was the wrong thing to do in the end.

By marrying Drogo she was conspiring to attack him, that is why she married him.

On 10/3/2017 at 11:54 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

It has to be acknowledged that the decision to assassinate Dany was an unholy fuck up even on pragmatist grounds – Drogo wasn’t interested in invading until the botched hit.

For you maybe for others is smart to kill the enemy before he gets all the potential power he can have.

On 10/3/2017 at 11:54 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I wasn’t attempting a side-by-side comparison of Robert and Dany’s ethics, just saying that Robert’s actions in this instance were wrong.

Again for you, Dany didn't seemed to have problems of killing children younger that she was because she felt like it.

[Darkstream]

8 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

By marrying Drogo she was conspiring to attack him, that is why she married him.

Sorry, that is not correct. Not only was she certainly not conspiring to attack Robert, but she was against the marriage in the first place. She married Drogo because she was sold off to him, and had no say in the matter. That was Viserys' motive, not Dany's.

Quote

For you maybe for others is smart to kill the enemy before he gets all the potential power he can have.

Yeah, killing a young innocent girl because she might one day have the potential to oppose you is smart...if you are a cowardly, immoral, piece of shit.

Quote

Again for you, Dany didn't seemed to have problems of killing children younger that she was because she felt like it.

Wow, what an ingnorant, bias assessment of why she did what she did. Because she felt like it?

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

9 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Wow, what an ingnorant, bias assessment of why she did what she did. Because she felt like it?

She did or she didn't order the death of children younger than she was during AGOT? And it is because she felt like it, genocide; mass murdering of children was her choice.

11 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Yeah, killing a young innocent girl because she might one day have the potential to oppose you is smart...if you are a cowardly, immoral, piece of shit.

Again your opinion. Killing your enemy who actively conspires to attack you is the right thing to do.

12 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Sorry, that is not correct. Not only was she certainly not conspiring to attack Robert, but she was against the marriage in the first place. She married Drogo because she was sold off to him, and had no say in the matter. That was Viserys' motive, not Dany's.

Oh it was Viserys' fault and let me guess why she was planning to have her son as the King and not Viserys' son? Utter bs.  She knew what she was doing and she did it and that's fine. But that doesn't mean that Robert was wrong. He would have been wrong if he had already killed them but he hadn't touched them until they actively started to conspire against him.

[Darkstream]

22 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

She did or she didn't order the death of children younger than she was during AGOT? And it is because she felt like it, genocide; mass murdering of children was her choice.

 

 

 

Again:

Wow, what an ingnorant, bias assessment of why she did what she did. Because she felt like it? 

I didn't say she didn't do it, and I never said that it wasn't her choice.

22 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Again your opinion. Killing your enemy who actively conspires to attack you is the right thing to do.

Only, she wasn't actively conspiring to attack him. And yes, that is my opinion, as your thoughts on the matter are only your opinion.

Quote

Oh it was Viserys' fault and let me guess why she was planning to have her son as the King and not Viserys' son? Utter bs.  She knew what she was doing and she did it and that's fine. But that doesn't mean that Robert was wrong. He would have been wrong if he had already killed them but he hadn't touched them until they actively started to conspire against him.

 

I never said that her intentions didn't change later on. You said that was her motive for marrying Drogo, which is undeniably a false statement.

It doesn't mean he was right either. The answer to whether he was right or wrong is subjective, and him being right to do so is only your opinion.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

33 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I never said that her intentions didn't change later on. You said that was her motive for marrying Drogo, which is undeniably a false statement.

Her reason to marry Drogo was to go home. Well her home was Essos but that wasn't what she meant was it? Her motive was from the beginning to go to Westeros, well only a dump one would think that this doesn't mean war.

40 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Wow, what an ingnorant, bias assessment of why she did what she did. Because she felt like it? 

According to who? 

 

The point is that someone cannot blame Robert for sending an assassin after she had already actively started to conspire against him because of how young she was when she had no problem to order genocide, mass murder of children younger than she was during AGOT.