Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

After they surrendered? Or as hor du’combat?

I don't think surrender was an option given to the Dornish (except at the outset when Rhaenys travelled to Sunspear).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I don't think surrender was an option given to the Dornish (except at the outset when Rhaenys travelled to Sunspear).

Is this from the Worldbook or “Fire and Blood”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So did Daenarys:

a) Indeed go mad in the span of one episode? In which case the inevitable betrayal of her is justified but her progression to madness makes no sense

b) Stay consistent with her and the worlds concept of justice and war?  In which case all the other characters inevitable betrayal of her makes no sense

This discussion is moot, and I think the only conclusion is that the writers are mad and we have all been betrayed.

Edited by markdotinc

Share this post


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

Is this from the Worldbook or “Fire and Blood”?

The Worldbook.  The war sounded genocidal to me.

That's not to say the Dornish were guiltless in this, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, markdotinc said:

So did Daenarys:

a) Indeed go mad in the span of one episode? In which case the inevitable betrayal of her is justified but her progression to madness makes no sense

b) Stay consistent with her and the worlds concept of justice and war?  In which case all the other characters inevitable betrayal of her makes no sense

This discussion is moot, and I think the only conclusion is that the writers are mad and we have all been betrayed.

Her concept of justice, and Grey Worm's, and that of her soldiers is at odds with that of Tyrion, Jon, and Davos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Worldbook.  The war sounded genocidal to me.

That's not to say the Dornish were guiltless in this, either.

I need to look at that again.

Share this post


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

So did Daenarys:

a) Indeed go mad in the span of one episode? In which case the inevitable betrayal of her is justified but her progression to madness makes no sense

b) Stay consistent with her and the worlds concept of justice and war?  In which case all the other characters betrayal of her makes no sense

This discussion is moot, and I think the only conclusion is that the writers are mad and we have all been betrayed.

I agree. Dany is left alone and in action they all betray her after using her resources and power. It seems right not to trust anyone even the bells that ring.

Apparently everything is used against her character in order to bring her down in one episode and then say that John saves the realm from the mad queen. And who saves the realm of all these traitors that the script has made stupid, useless, apathetic, ungrateful and so wrong in their assumptions all from the start? Why does she have to endure all their stupidity until the very end? I don’t know what we are left to sympathize with. 

The anonymous crowd of Kings landing?

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nightwish said:

I agree. Dany is left alone and in action they all betray her after using her resources and power. It seems right not to trust anyone even the bells that ring.

Apparently everything is used against her character in order to bring her down in one episode and then say that John saves the realm from the mad queen. And who saves the realm of all these traitors that the script has made stupid, useless, and so wrong in their assumptions all from the start? Why does she have to endure all their stupidity until the very end? I don’t know what we are left to sympathize with. 

The anonymous crowd of Kings landing?

Are you claiming the immolation of King’s Landing after Lannister forces laid down as is justified?

Share this post


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

Are you claiming the immolation of King’s Landing after Lannister forces laid down as is justified?

 Not necessarily, but for her to forge a new order, the old order must be destroyed. What happened to KL will become a potent symbol of purification, power, and eventually rebirth for Westeros. History will be redefined as Before Dany and After.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Daemos said:

 Not necessarily, but for her to forge a new order, the old order must be destroyed. What happened to KL will become a potent symbol of purification, power, and eventually rebirth for Westeros. History will be redefined as Before Dany and After.

 

 

 

Well, that’s incredibly disturbing.  Are you suggesting her actions were coldly rational and not beyond the pale?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


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

Well, that’s incredibly disturbing.

Well the universe is violent, and Dany is the purging fires incarnate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Daemos said:

 Not necessarily, but for her to forge a new order, the old order must be destroyed. What happened to KL will become a potent symbol of purification, power, and eventually rebirth for Westeros. History will be redefined as Before Dany and After.

Yes. And while "Before Conquest" and "After Conquest" was seen as mixed blessings either way, I doubt too many people would tie any positive connotations to the last dragon conqueror. 

 

Share this post


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

 Are you suggesting her actions were coldly rational and not beyond the pale?

I’m saying that for her endgame and with the cards she has been recently dealt, what she did could be not purely emotional and was actually a strategy she decided on. Her own attack with Drogon was extremely calculated and choreographed afterall.

Share this post


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

Are you claiming the immolation of King’s Landing after Lannister forces laid down as is justified?

No, but from her perspective everyone around her has betrayed her. She no longer trusts the reality they offer. She needs a new reality, one she can trust herself. Simple as that. 

 

Share this post


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

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

Who enforces that?

The winning survivors!  You first have to survive, then you have to win, and then you can perhaps enforce that law, if the political climate is right to set up a military court and then to act on that law in that court over the losing survivors.   That is a long shot at your "justice" at the onset of the war and during the war.  At that time, the goal is to destroy the enemy. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nightwish said:

No, but from her perspective everyone around her has betrayed her. She no longer trusts the reality they offer. She needs a new reality, one she can trust herself. Simple as that. 

 

That doesn’t objectively justify what she did.  Nor does it objectively wash her hands of the blood of the innocents she killed... after... opposing forces laid down arms.  

No, it is not in keeping with her title of “the Breaker of Chains”.  

I fault the screenwriters with accelerating the time frame of this season and turning Dany from someone with compassion who could be trusted into the spitting image of her Father.

Share this post


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

Who enforces that?

The winning survivors!  You first have to survive, then you have to win, and then you can perhaps enforce that law, if the political climate is right to set up a military court and then to act on that law in that court over the losing survivors.   That is a long shot at your "justice" at the onset of the war and during the war.  At that time, the goal is to destroy the enemy. 

 

 

So, Genocide, is justified?  If you are on the winning side?

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


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

So, Genocide, is justified?

Damn straight because in a war the goal is to destroy the enemy, and when the civilians are wiped out, there is no base and purpose for the enemy's military, there is no enemy, and that is the goal, to destroy the enemy.  Those are the rules of war.

After the war, once the civilians are killed, you can chase some general to try him, but the damage is done, irreparable damage.  The laws and morality in peacetime have no bearing on martial laws, laws in wartime, which are based on survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That doesn’t objectively justify what she did.  Nor does it objectively wash her hands of the blood of the innocents she killed... after... opposing forces laid down arms.  

No, it is not in keeping with her title of “the Breaker of Chains”.  

I fault the screenwriters with accelerating the time frame of this season and turning Dany from someone with compassion who could be trusted into the spitting image of her Father.

No, it doesn't.

The screenwriters use as vehicle to bring her down and lead her to despair the rest of the characters. And how are the rest of the characters presented in order to lead her to the depths of isolation? In a positive light? 

No, completely unworthy and untrusted.

In a way they all contributed one way or another into this as they created around her a world she can't trust. 

I can't sympathize with anyone at this point. 

Edited by Nightwish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hoo said:

Damn straight because in a war the goal is to destroy the enemy, and when the civilians are wiped out, there is no base and purpose for the enemy's military, there is no enemy, and that is the goal, to destroy the enemy.  Those are the rules of war.

After the war, once the civilians are killed, you can chase some general to try him, but the damage is done, irreparable damage.  The laws and morality in peacetime have no bearing on martial laws, laws in wartime, which are based on survival.

Sweet Mary Mother of God.  That is a terrifying sentiment.  And you are absolutely incorrect that “those are the rules of war”.  Deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime.  I believe Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden were all war crimes perpetrated by the Allies.

We attempt to justify those actions but they remain war crimes.

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

×