Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, it's quite possible that Aegon, his sisters, and (naturally) Maegor would have done the same.  Harrenhall, Planky Town, hundreds of unnamed Dornish settlements were torched. 

I don't see Aegon the conqueror killing people after they surrender.  

Share this post


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

 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.

That's right.  There is no justice.

There is no justice for Jewish population wiped out in Europe.  They were wiped out.  It's over.  There is no justice for 10 million Russian civilians killed in WWII.

I am offended by you peddling justice! instead of telling it like it is.  Civilians will be killed in a war because it accomplishes the objective of the war.  That is the only justice in a war.

Kill or be killed, now or later.

 

Share this post


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

That's right.  There is no justice.

There is no justice for Jewish population wiped out in Europe.  They were wiped out.  It's over.  There is no justice for 10 million Russian civilians killed in WWII.

I am offended by you peddling justice! instead of telling it like it is.  Civilians will be killed in a war because it accomplishes the objective of the war.  That is the only justice in a war.

Kill or be killed, now or later.

 

Probably the most vomit inducing thing I have read in awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Probably the most vomit inducing thing I have read in awhile.

But it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

I don't see Aegon the conqueror killing people after they surrender.  

I imagine that Harren the Black, his sons, his soldiers and servants would have liked to surrender, once they realised just how lethal Balerion's flames were.  But, Harren had made his choice, not just for himself, but for all his people.

As far as Dany is concerned, Cersei made the same choice, on behalf of Kings Landing, when she executed Missandei in front of her.

The inhabitants of Plankytown were never even given a choice, before Queen Rhaenys burnt it the waterline.  

Unfortunately, Dany fits into this savage world.  Some of her advisers have a different set of ethics.  For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not justifying Dany's actions in any way.  They were evil.  But, some of the earlier Targaryens did equally evil things.

 

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

But it's true.

What's true? We should accept all these actions as being okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 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. 

If you violate the rules of war, no-one will uphold the rules of war against you in future. Short term gain, long term pain.

Even the Nazis kept to international agreements against chemical weapons.

Share this post


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

Probably the most vomit inducing thing I have read in awhile.

Agreed.  Justice is something to aspire to.  Because we fail to reach such a goal doesn’t make it unworthy to seek to get there.  

That anyone would claim Genocide is justified is a betrayal of everything our modern understanding of morality holds.

Share this post


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

Agreed.  Justice is something to aspire to.  Because we fail to reach such a goal doesn’t make it unworthy to seek to get there.  

That anyone would claim Genocide is justified is a betrayal of everything our modern understanding of morality holds.

Yeah, I really don't need some wise ass to tell me what often happens in war. I know.

Share this post


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

Probably the most vomit inducing thing I have read in awhile.

I feel the same way about you peddling bullsht about justice and morality.  It makes me want to puke.

The whole reason countries are careful about wars is because civilians will be wiped out.   If it was just militaries fighting, wars would be no big deal, matter of fact militiaries would fight all the time everywhere.  They loved that sht.   The problem, civilians will be wiped out.  That is why in real world there is diplomacy.

That was the narrative in the show as well, preceding the battles, the talk about civilians, because it goes without saying they will be wiped out.

 

Edited by Hoo

Share this post


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

What's true? We should accept all these actions as being okay?

If you enter the war that is what you get. Civilians die.

Share this post


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

I feel the same way about you peddling bullsht about justice and morality.  It makes me want to puke.

The whole reason countries are careful about wars is because civilians will be wiped out.   If it was just militaries fighting, wars would no big deal, matter of fact militiaries would fight all the time everywhere.  They loved that sht.   The problem, civilians will be wiped out.  That is why in real world there is diplomacy.

That was the narrative in the show as well, preceding the battles, the talk about civilians, because it goes without saying there will be wiped out.

The First World War wants a word with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nudu said:

She genocided them after they surrendered. There's a huge difference between coleteral damage and deliberate murder of thousands. 

^This. Plus....I'm pretty sure if Roosevelt and Churchill had had access to a huge ass Dragon that would have been capable of flying up to Hitler and the Japanese war generals and just eating them, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been a Dresden or a Hrioshima.
Just like there was no real need to even bring an army to KL in Season 7, Dany could have just flown up to Cersei and have Drogon eat her. The whole thing made no sense.

Share this post


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

I feel the same way about you peddling bullsht about justice and morality.  It makes me want to puke.

The whole reason countries are careful about wars is because civilians will be wiped out.   If it was just militaries fighting, wars would no big deal, matter of fact militiaries would fight all the time everywhere.  They loved that sht.   The problem, civilians will be wiped out.  That is why in real world there is diplomacy.

That was the narrative in the show as well, preceding the battles, the talk about civilians, because it goes without saying there will be wiped out.

 

And nobody disagrees that civilians are likely to be killed during war. People like you think you're teaching us about the realities of war. But, you are not. We all know what often happens. So you say nothing interesting or profound here, other than saying some really ghoulish and revolting stuff.

That  fact that civilians often die, however, does not mean anything goes. Some cases are clearly out of bounds.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


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

If you enter the war that is what you get. Civilians die.

Thanks for that. That is really helpful when discussing the obligations of soldiers and their commanders with respect to the lives of innocent civilians. What a profound and deep insight.

You think you're being really sophisticated here. But you are not. Can we like refrain from being Captain Obvious here?

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


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

If you enter the war that is what you get. Civilians die.

Yes.  That doesn't mean that maximising casualties among civilians should be a military aim.  Leaving aside the morality of it, it may be completely counterproductive, as a means of achieving one's war aims.

To take the most horrific example, the Holocaust.  It wasn't just a loathsome crime, it also detracted from Germany's war effort, by diverting resources that could have been used for fighting, and by depriving the Germans of a useful labour force.

Share this post


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

The First World War wants a word with you.

During thee WWI  Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian troops entered a few counties in Serbia, and wiped out 500,000 people.  Mostly those not fit for service who stayed behind in villages, women, elderly, children.   

That is the goal of war!  Anyone who says otherwise is peddling bullsht.  Selling you unicorns.  The reality is something else.

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

×