Fjordgazer Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Are you new here or something? It's not over til it's locked. LOL, then we need to get vitriolic soon enough :whip: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Are you new here or something? It's not over til it's locked. No. It's not over until someone says "rape" and then, it gets locked :dunno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 rape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjordgazer Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 No. It's not over until someone says "rape" and then, it gets locked :dunno: More exactly, when someone screams "rape apologist" at another poster for the flimsiest of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjordgazer Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 You're setting me up, right? I already have a police record in this forum, have some mercy. :bawl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 A woman can be tortured with the same methods as a man. Even as fed up as she was in that time, she wouldn't outright ask for the rape of any woman; that was your implication. Yeah, I'm not sure how "torturing women" automatically means rape. Neither Shavepate nor Dany mentioned rape as a part of his interrogation technique. Why not assume the same when he or someone else is torturing men? It's not like men can't be raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maid So Fair Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 You're setting me up, right? I already have a police record in this forum, have some mercy. :bawl:Now you are just excusing your use of the word rape. :box: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjordgazer Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Now you are just excusing your use of the word rape. :box: :frown5: ... ... I think i Better Call Saul! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Why are people so unwilling to distinguish between a deliberate scorched-earth campaign of rape, pillage and destruction and these happening as a collateral damage in a war? He "payed the Lannisters back in kind". He didn't "try to minimalize smallfolk casualities while pursuing his campain in the west whilst unfortunately, Rickard Karstark and Roose Bolton, the only two Northenerscapable of such crimes, were paying the Lannisters back in kind". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I think some people have a Sansa like naiveté when it comes to Robb's campaign in the Westerlands. Did we not forget that Jamie and Brienne came across an atrocity commitetd by Stark men in the Riverlands? Why do you think GRRM included that scene in the book? What tdo people really think paying Tywin back in kind for the devastation he caued really means? Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Pie Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 He "payed the Lannisters back in kind". He didn't "try to minimalize smallfolk casualities while pursuing his campain in the west whilst unfortunately, Rickard Karstark and Roose Bolton, the only two Northenerscapable of such crimes, were paying the Lannisters back in kind".And you are taking one quote out of many to suit your argument. Nobody says the west didn't suffer or it was wrong but the difference between the two campaigns as described is huge. Robb did not target peasants. Unless there's something else to back it upFor Robb- description of his campaign in the westtreatment of the Craghis mother saying he's not a beastRobb's general personalityAgainst robb- that quoteTywin targeted civilians and sacked towns and castles. Robb stormed castles and targeted mines mostly (and yes there were raids and yes it was wrong). Tywin played to Edmure's weakness (shown over and over again to be his caring heart) and robb did the same to Tywin (gold and prestige) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Pie Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 And everyone's argument against robb rests on the word of a frey. A Frey. One who seemingly lies in the very same passage when he say robb carved out a heart and fed it to grey wolf... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 His mother wasn't in the West and might be slightly biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Pie Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 His mother wasn't in the West and might be slightly biased. So you believe Robb carved out Stafford's heart and fed it to grey wind? And we see this ramsayesque side to robb how many times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Thing is everyone knew Tywin couldn't care less about his subjects being killed and tortured. He was a completely heartless scumbag and everyone knew it. He won't rush back to defend his smallfolk even if thousands of them are being tortured. So on a purely pragmatic and strategic level it doesn't make military sense for Robb's army to engage in such a campaign of terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Thing is everyone knew Tywin couldn't care less about his subjects being killed and tortured. He was a completely heartless scumbag and everyone knew it. He won't rush back to defend his smallfolk even if thousands of them are being tortured. So on a purely pragmatic and strategic level it doesn't make military sense for Robb's army to engage in such a campaign of terror. Turns out there are some advantages to having a heartless scumbag for a lord then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Turns out there are some advantages to having a heartless scumbag for a lord then. As an alternative, subjects are even better off when the lord is not starting a war because he's pissed off at someone again for an insult against his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 As an alternative, subjects are even better off when the lord is not starting a war because he's pissed off at someone again for an insult against his family. You don't actually believe Tywin that he started that war for Tyrion do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 You don't actually believe Tywin that he started that war for Tyrion do you? What else then? Starting a war over Tyrion's capture perfectly fits Tywin's MO, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 What else then? Starting a war over Tyrion's capture perfectly fits Tywin's MO, in my opinion. He knew all along about the plot to overthrow Cersei and his grandchildren on the grounds of bastardry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.