What would you have done as lord of the Vale?

[Faydra]

Entirely unrelated, but on one way they are similar: I believe Tyrion is a Targ about as much as I believe the leeches did anything. Other than help convince Stannis that Mel is for real, that is. Which she is on some level of course, just not completely, and not like she says she is.

Except that Tyrion being a Targ was not stated in the books by any character, while the leeches doing something was. Tyrion being a Targ relates to your theory in the sense that it is possible, but not directly confirmed by a character.

[Roose on the Loose]

I would have joined Robb's rebellion with the proviso that SR is King of Mountain and Vale and on the same level as Robb, not his vassal.

I would give Yohn the command and marry one of his daughters. In every major house of the Vale, I would send peasants to beg employment in the castle and report back gossip. I would also pay a couple of courtiers on each banner man's inner circle to inform on their lord. This goes double for Runestone.

And I'd push Maester Colemon through the moon door if he didn't knock off the leaching.

[Bryanfury]

It isn't a theory! It is FACT that Tywin and Walder planned the Red Wedding before the leeches burned. It is FACT that Littlefinger and Olenna planned Joffs murder before the leeches burned. The only theory is that the leeches did anything, and there is zero physical or textual evidence to show those leeches affecting the murders in anyway. You are doing nothing but propagating your claim with logical fallacies because you can't show any real evidence. I guess sometimes theres a certain level of mental development needed to have this kind of critical thought. I have to try really hard to teach my class of 7 year olds to develop it.

[Mikkel]

Except that Tyrion being a Targ was not stated in the books by any character, while the leeches doing something was. Tyrion being a Targ relates to your theory in the sense that it is possible, but not directly confirmed by a character.

1) Something being stated by a single character does not make it true. This applies in all cases, but even more so when said character is known to use lies, subterfuge and cheap tricks to augment how powerful she appears to be

2) Other evidence outright says that plans were afoot long before the leeches burn. It's likely that the outcome of these plans is what Melisandre sees, and uses to "prove" her powers.

3) "Tyrion is a Targ" is indeed not mentioned by any character, which means there's no connection to the matter at hand. They're opposite cases, not parallels.

[mvd10]

just wait for everyone to kill each other and pledge support to the winner I suppose, no real reason to fight in that war, im lord of the Vale and warden of the east, thats really enough, the only other thing to admire probably would be being the Hand, but it isnt worth fighting a war that i might lose :p

[kimim]

1) Something being stated by a single character does not make it true. This applies in all cases, but even more so when said character is known to use lies, subterfuge and cheap tricks to augment how powerful she appears to be

2) Other evidence outright says that plans were afoot long before the leeches burn. It's likely that the outcome of these plans is what Melisandre sees, and uses to "prove" her powers.

3) "Tyrion is a Targ" is indeed not mentioned by any character, which means there's no connection to the matter at hand. They're opposite cases, not parallels.

But Mel doesn't pick the people who are supposed to die, Stannis does (I think) so it can't be Mel picking people that she knows will die.

EDIT: I gotta reread that bit.

[Faydra]

1) Something being stated by a single character does not make it true. This applies in all cases, but even more so when said character is known to use lies, subterfuge and cheap tricks to augment how powerful she appears to be

2) Other evidence outright says that plans were afoot long before the leeches burn. It's likely that the outcome of these plans is what Melisandre sees, and uses to "prove" her powers.

3) "Tyrion is a Targ" is indeed not mentioned by any character, which means there's no connection to the matter at hand. They're opposite cases, not parallels.

1.Obviously not. But in the absence of another character telling otherwise, that's the closest we'll get. And not all of Melisandre's deeds are tricks. She survived poison and the power of king's blood was tested before.

2.Plenty of other things point to such plans being in motion because they were at war for a long time. It would be weird if it were otherwise. Plans ahead mean nothing as plans sometimes fail.

3.Leeches not working isn't mentioned as well. The more I think of it, the more similarities I find. Like this Tyrion being a Targ theory, there are people having doubts (Tywin saying that he's not his son, Davos' "two is not three" quote), but even in their presence, these theories seem a bit forced, if not ridiculous.

4.And what the poster above me said.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

It isn't a theory! It is FACT that Tywin and Walder planned the Red Wedding before the leeches burned. It is FACT that Littlefinger and Olenna planned Joffs murder before the leeches burned.

Neither of those are true.

You really need to learn the difference between Fact and Specualtion.

[Faydra]

It isn't a theory! It is FACT that Tywin and Walder planned the Red Wedding before the leeches burned. It is FACT that Littlefinger and Olenna planned Joffs murder before the leeches burned. The only theory is that the leeches did anything, and there is zero physical or textual evidence to show those leeches affecting the murders in anyway. You are doing nothing but propagating your claim with logical fallacies because you can't show any real evidence. I guess sometimes theres a certain level of mental development needed to have this kind of critical thought. I have to try really hard to teach my class of 7 year olds to develop it.

Please keep your personal canon to yourself. If otherwise, please stay civil.

[Bryanfury]

Please keep your personal cannon to yourself. If otherwise, please stay civil.

Please refrain from dismissing reasoned debate as personal canon in the face of your own unsupported claims. Or better yet, actually provide supporting evidence from your claims instead of repeating the same logical fallacy every other post. Or better yet, stop posting.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Please refrain from dismissing reasoned debate as personal canon in the face of your own unsupported claims. Or better yet, actually provide supporting evidence from your claims instead of repeating the same logical fallacy every other post. Or better yet, stop posting.

You were the one saying something was a Fact without providing any supporting evidence.

[Rohirrim]

Moon door dem hoes

[juanml82]

Please keep your personal canon to yourself. If otherwise, please stay civil.

I'm not sure about the RW (that can be checked with the timeline which, while estimative, should provide a good reference), but the QoT definitely planned to have Joffrey killed before the Blackwater (and the leeches). Her questioning of Sansa (and likely Varys and other witnesses of Joffrey's brutality towards Sansa) only served to prove her that LF's underlinings weren't lying.

[Faydra]

I'm not sure about the RW (that can be checked with the timeline which, while estimative, should provide a good reference), but the QoT definitely planned to have Joffrey killed before the Blackwater (and the leeches). Her questioning of Sansa (and likely Varys and other witnesses of Joffrey's brutality towards Sansa) only served to prove her that LF's underlinings weren't lying.

It's a good theory that they did, one that I support myself. What I was refering to is that they're good speculations, but, as thelittledragonthatcould said, they're not facts. There seemed to be a problem with the distinction between the two.

[kimim]

Please refrain from dismissing reasoned debate as personal canon in the face of your own unsupported claims. Or better yet, actually provide supporting evidence from your claims instead of repeating the same logical fallacy every other post. Or better yet, stop posting.

We're talking about MAGIC. No one knows how Mel's magic works; no one knows what's at the root of it, no one knows anything.

I looked at the text again. She tries to dissuade Stannis from using the leeches; she wants to use Edric to wake the "stone dragon." Stannis takes the leeches, and Stannis chooses the names. There were plans to kill all of these people in advance, which could be what Mel was counting on, so you can say that there is no magic involved. You could also say that at least one of the assassinations was supposed to fail before Stannis burns the leeches, and the magic turned an iffy thing into a certain one.

Arguing over this is like tilting at windmills.

[Ulthosian Stark]

Burn the Westerlands to the gwound. Down to the gwound. *that weird kid from south parks voice*

[Faydra]

Arguing over this is like tilting at windmills.

Thank you for being the voice of reason. I've been saying that this is arguing over a moot point, but I felt quite alone in this belief.

[jon stark I]

I would support Robb.He was doing well with 18000 men imagine 38000 men.Also I would probably kill every girl Robb was happened to be around or just Jeyne just to be safe.I mean why woudn't they slit her throat I still don't understad they could blame it on Lannisters or one of the household men.

[juanml82]

I would support Robb.He was doing well with 18000 men imagine 38000 men.Also I would probably kill every girl Robb was happened to be around or just Jeyne just to be safe.I mean why woudn't they slit her throat I still don't understad they could blame it on Lannisters or one of the household men.

One of the Freys suggested it, but somehow Robb got angry at the idea

[kimim]

Thank you for being the voice of reason. I've been saying that this is arguing over a moot point, but I felt quite alone in this belief.

Aw thank you! It's impossible to reason out Mel's magic.