Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This wasn't war. The war was over. The people of King's Landing weren't collateral victims. They were just victims. Daenerys didn't kill them because she had to in order to accomplish her goal, or even because it was the easiest way to accomplish her goal. Burning them all was her goal, which is why she was enraged by the bells. She had already decided, and said as much beforehand, that they didn't deserve to survive. That's why her attrocity didn't shock me. What was shocking was only how sloppily we transitioned from where she was at the end of last season to where she was at the opening of episode 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Centurion Piso said:

I don't get into logic debates when it comes to this show because it's not the real story.  I just want to point out that what we saw is the reality of war.  Every war kills civilians.  It's not only the soldiers who died when the Americans dropped the atom bombs in Japan.  A half-assed, uncommitted attitude will result in losing the war for your side.  

Er....this really isn't a good comparison.  What Daenerys did would be comparable if the Americans had dropped the bombs in Japan *after* the Japanese had surrendered and the war was won.  Right or wrong, the bombs were dropped to MAKE the Japanese surrender.  Not the same thing!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Dany did was what'd be labeled as total war as opposed to say counterinsurgency. She could've stopped everything once the bells started ringing but she went full bore and killed God knows how many. I did like seeing Cersei get her comeuppance but she could easily have JUST targeted the Red Keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 12:14 AM, Centurion Piso said:

I don't get into logic debates when it comes to this show because it's not the real story.  I just want to point out that what we saw is the reality of war.  Every war kills civilians.  It's not only the soldiers who died when the Americans dropped the atom bombs in Japan.  A half-assed, uncommitted attitude will result in losing the war for your side.  

So, once the Germans and Japanese had laid down their weapons and surrendered the Allies kept killing everyone?  That’s how you win wars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nightwish said:

So she didn’t accept the surrendence as she probably wanted to kill Cersei and spit on her face the “innocents” shield Cersei had put between her and Dany. 

“Surrenderence” is not a word.  Perhaps Dany didn’t want to accept Cersei’s “surrender” but that in no way justifies her immolation of King’s Landing before she goes after the Red Keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TyrionFan82 said:

What Dany did was what'd be labeled as total war as opposed to say counterinsurgency. She could've stopped everything once the bells started ringing but she went full bore and killed God knows how many. I did like seeing Cersei get her comeuppance but she could easily have JUST targeted the Red Keep.

No.  Even Von Clausewitz would have objected to attacking the civilian population of an enemy after the surrender of that combatant government. What Dany did was not “Total War” it was unjustified slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Hoo said:

It's not for the heck of it.  Bottom line, strategic goal is to destroy the enemy.  Part of that is to destroy the population. because when there is no enemy population, there is no enemy, and the goal is to destroy the enemy.  Which is why civilians suffered throughout the history, they were a strategic enemy. 

Wee problem. There's laws governing war... and one of them is targeting civilians is a war crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Marquis de Leech said:

Wee problem. There's laws governing war... and one of them is targeting civilians is a war crime.

Indeed.  And further targeting civilians or military personnel after the combatant Government has laid down arms is not in keeping with “Total War” ideas because the war is already over.  What the OP is attempting to justify and say is just part and parcel of war is genocide.

Hence the North part of the board has some scary notions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Even Von Clausewitz would have objected to attacking the civilian population of an enemy after the surrender of that combatant government. What Dany did was not “Total War” it was unjustified slaughter.

To you and me, certainly.  But not to her.  There are many adjectives that can be applied to what she did.  Cruel, wicked, ruthless, but not inexplicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Even Von Clausewitz would have objected to attacking the civilian population of an enemy after the surrender of that combatant government. What Dany did was not “Total War” it was unjustified slaughter.

Even Ludendorff, major proponent of total war and not exactly known as a peaceful loving sort, probably would have objected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

To you and me, certainly.  But not to her.  There are many adjectives that can be applied to what she did.  Cruel, wicked, ruthless, but not inexplicable.

Okay, are you going to say that genocide is justifiable?  What she attempted was mighty close to Genocide against anyone living under Lannister rule regardless of whether they supported that rule or not.

The OP is mistakenly claiming that attacking a civilian population after the combatant government has laid down arms is “just part of war” it really isn’t.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, are you going to say that genocide is justifiable?  What she attempted was mighty close to Genocide against anyone living under Lannister rule regardless of whether they supported that rule or not.

The OP is mistakenly claiming that attacking a civilian population after the combatant have laid down arms is “just part of war” it really isn’t.

I think that what she did was evil and went beyond the needs of war.  But, I think she saw it as fully justified.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, are you going to say that genocide is justifiable?  What she attempted was mighty close to Genocide against anyone living under Lannister rule regardless of whether they supported that rule or not.

The OP is mistakenly claiming that attacking a civilian population after the combatant have laid down arms is “just part of war” it really isn’t.

Massacring King's Landing isn't genocide. The people there are not an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group. It might conceivably be a Crime Against Humanity, but I don't think it meets the criteria of widespread and systematic (it's one city).

It's certainly a war crime by any definition though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SeanF said:

I think that what she did was evil and went beyond the needs of war.  But, I think she saw it as fully justified.

 

Her subjective belief that her actions after the remaining Lannister forces laid down arms (literally) does not make her actions justified from an objective point of view, or justifiable in “Just War” or “Total War” theory.  

I’m trying to get the OP to see that their suggestion that “this is how wars get fought” is a long doggone way from accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Massacring King's Landing isn't genocide. The people there are not an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group. It might conceivably be a Crime Against Humanity, but I don't think it meets the criteria of widespread and systematic (it's one city).

It's certainly a war crime by any definition though.

But in a society where that city had essentially become a city-state wouldn’t such an action in destroying the distinctive culture and people of King’s Landing be within the definition of Genocide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Her subjective belief that her actions after the remaining Lannister forces laid down arms (literally) does not make her actions justified from an objective point of view, or justifiable in “Just War” or “Total War” theory.  

I’m trying to get the OP to see that their suggestion that “this is how wars get fought” is a long doggone way from accurate.

Not just inaccurate, but enough to earn them a short trip to the Hague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But in a society where that city had essentially become a city-state wouldn’t such an action in destroying the distinctive culture and people of King’s Landing be within the definition of Genocide?

You'd have to provide some evidence that Daenerys intended the extermination of the people in the Crownlands generally, if not Westeros from the Wall to Dorne. King's Landing is a large city, but it doesn't form its own little ethnicity.

("Culture" is omitted from the formal definition in any case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Not just inaccurate, but enough to earn them a short trip to the Hague.

Someone like Daenerys would be spending the rest of her life in prison in our world.

She wouldn't be nailed on a charge of genocide, but certainly on s charge of mass murder, torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Someone like Daenerys would be spending the rest of her life in prison in our world.

She wouldn't be nailed on a charge of genocide, but certainly on s charge of mass murder, torture, and inhuman and degrading treatment.

Nitpick: that wouldn't fly. She'd be immune from prosecution as a currently serving Head of State. You'd have to depose her first, at which point the Pinochet precedent applies. Or set up a special UN tribunal to deal with her.

(I'd also point out that the mere fact that we're having to invoke Augusto Pinochet in a discussion about a character's actions does not bode well for Daenerys).

Edited by The Marquis de Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

You'd have to provide some evidence that Daenerys intended the extermination of the people in the Crownlands generally, if not Westeros from the Wall to Dorne. King's Landing is a large city, but it doesn't form its own little ethnicity.

("Culture" is omitted from the formal definition in any case).

I see your point.  

I still wonder how Genocide would apply in a city-state context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×