Why Mirri Maz Duur was in the wrong

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

Yes, I'm not saying she's a monster, but she's not entirely innocent either, to MMD she's just a kalheesi, why shouldn't shewant to kill her?

Apart from a hermit, I doubt if anyone can be "entirely innocent."  It's an extremely violent world.

[Tyrion1991]

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

That people suffered?? Let's put an extreme comparison, Dany's war on slavers bay, should she give up on her quest to end slavery because there is a lot of people dying?? It's a silly exampple, just to point that just because people die does't mean that overall the outcome is bad.

What would have happened if Drogo had not died?? Well, a wholo lot of people's life would have been destroyed.

You said that Mirri had two innocent lives on her hands...

 

 

Thats a false comparison. Dany freed millions of people from slavery. A public good and the desired outcome of the majority.

Miri achieved nothing. The Dothraki were raiding her people in the morning and they were raiding them at night. She achieved nothing beyond putting Danys child in the ground and getting a jolly out of lecturing a 13 year old widow. It was stupid for Miri to believe killing one Khal would change anything or save her people. In fact the Dothraki would probably think all these Lamb men are cursed and kill them out of hand now. This was petty revenge and the excuses that follow.

 

[CamiloRP]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Apart from a hermit, I doubt if anyone can be "entirely innocent."  It's an extremely violent world.

I meant not entirely innocent from the Dothraki crimes. She does benefit from the war, she does have slaves, she tried to buy slaves, she lived being served by slaves, and does it again in Qarth.

And from MMD's point of view, she's a member of a group that has been killing her people for a long time. She should want her dead.

[frenin]

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

1. Daenerys did not possess a military command role.  That ought to be obvious from the text. 

No command role is needed to  instigate, just influence over the ones that do have them. Wich she has.

Or are you arguing that Petyr has no role whatsoever in the start of the war of the 5 Kings??

 

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

2. War was instigated by those who negotiated the trade of Daenerys, in return for a Khalasar, and Drogo himself.  Daenerys was not a part of those negotiations, so far as I am aware.  In fact, the evidence is that she was very unhappy about being made to marry Drogo.

War was on her part, instigated since the very moment Viserys died, she tried to get Drogo to invade Westeros time after time.

 

 

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

3. It's not Dany's war.  Dany transmitted a claim to the Iron Throne to her and Drogo's unborn son.  Decisions about war and peace rested solely with Khal Drogo.

Sure it's Dany's war, Dany's one of the main instigators and she's the one giving the idea of her claim being passed down to her son. That Dany's not going to seat on the pointy chair is simply inmaterial.

Certainly, it's not the war of an unborn child.

 

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

4. The instigators of war are the adult males who are in charge of the negotiations for war, and the adult males who either fight or command those who fight, not the child bride who must do as she is told.  Daenerys does of course, favour war.  But, that does not make her responsible for  acts committed by others.

Her position as child bride is irrelevant, did she have influence on Drogo and used said influence and other people and events she could influence to sway her husband's opinion towards invading Westeros??

Yes, ergo she's guilty, sure not as guilty as Drogo but guilty nonetheless.

 

@Tyrion1991

Sure, just to point how extravagant yours was.

Dany has freed millions of slaves, and look at Yunkai, look at the Reconstruction mess, look look. If you're simply judging by body count, then Dany is as good as any to start.

 

Quote

Miri achieved nothing. The Dothraki were raiding her people in the morning and they were raiding them at night. She achieved nothing beyond putting Danys child in the ground and getting a jolly out of lecturing a 13 year old widow. It was stupid for Miri to believe killing one Khal would change anything or save her people. In fact the Dothraki would probably think all these Lamb men are cursed and kill them out of hand now. This was petty revenge and the excuses that follow.

The most powerful of the khals was put down thanks to her, perhaps future Genghis Khan was also averted.  Question of perspective.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, CamiloRP said:

I meant not entirely innocent from the Dothraki crimes. She does benefit from the war, she does have slaves, she tried to buy slaves, she lived being served by slaves, and does it again in Qarth.

And from MMD's point of view, she's a member of a group that has been killing her people for a long time. She should want her dead.

Short of killing herself, it's hard to see how she avoids such guilt by association.

[SeanF]

23 minutes ago, frenin said:

No command role is needed to  instigate, just influence over the ones that do have them. Wich she has.

Or are you arguing that Petyr has no role whatsoever in the start of the war of the 5 Kings??

 

War was on her part, instigated since the very moment Viserys died, she tried to get Drogo to invade Westeros time after time.

 

Petyr Baelish persuaded Lysa Arryn to murder her husband, and to lie to her sister about it.  Later, he framed Tyrion for the attempted murder of Bran, to Catelyn.  Then he betrayed Ned Stark, murdered his retainers, and quite likely persuaded Joffrey to have him executed.

To compare that to anything Daenerys did as Drogo's bride is laughable.

Once, after Viserys' death, Daenerys argued for war in Westeros as opposed to war around the Jade Sea. However, the trigger for war was the murder attempt.  Daenerys at no point, argued for, instigated, commanded, incited, or participated in the atrocities at Mirri's village.  The text simply does not support the view that, but for Daenery's actions, no harm would have come to Mirri and her village.  They were already under attack from Khal Ogo and his riders.  Had Daenerys not been present, there would have been no one to speak up for Mirri and the other victims.

It is no crime or sin, in and of itself, to favour war against Robert Baratheon.  What matters is how you conduct yourself in that war. 

[Tyrion1991]

10 minutes ago, frenin said:

No command role is needed to  instigate, just influence over the ones that do have them. Wich she has.

Or are you arguing that Petyr has no role whatsoever in the start of the war of the 5 Kings??

 

War was on her part, instigated since the very moment Viserys died, she tried to get Drogo to invade Westeros time after time.

 

 

Sure it's Dany's war, Dany's one of the main instigators and she's the one giving the idea of her claim being passed down to her son. That Dany's not going to seat on the pointy chair is simply inmaterial.

Certainly, it's not the war of an unborn child.

 

Her position as child bride is irrelevant, did she have influence on Drogo and used said influence and other people and events she could influence to sway her husband's opinion towards invading Westeros??

Yes, ergo she's guilty, sure not as guilty as Drogo but guilty nonetheless.

 

@Tyrion1991

Sure, just to point how extravagant yours was.

Dany has freed millions of slaves, and look at Yunkai, look at the Reconstruction mess, look look. If you're simply judging by body count, then Dany is as good as any to start.

 

The most powerful of the khals was put down thanks to her, perhaps future Genghis Khan was also averted.  Question of perspective.

 

Danys body count is not very high when you consider what she’s trying to do. How many millions of slaves do you think have died and would continue to die if that trade continued for a few thousand years? The greatest damage is being done by the reactionary coalition that committed genocide at Astapor.

Again, a thousand Tyrants or one. If you killed Genghis then there’d still be an entire society of nomads raiding each other. It’s hubris to think killing one man, much less a baby can solve this problem. The Dothraki aren’t going anywhere. Her people are still going to die. Still going to be enslaved. Nothing has changed. There’s no other perspective here. Her goal was to stop the killing. It’s not stopped. So she’s failed and like a coward starts making excuses to paint herself as a martyr. There’s no need to entertain the idea this characters a hero.

 

 

[frenin]

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Petyr Baelish persuaded Lysa Arryn to murder her husband, and to lie to her sister about it.  Later, he framed Tyrion for the attempted murder of Bran, to Catelyn.  Then he betrayed Ned Stark, murdered his retainers, and quite likely persuaded Joffrey to have him executed.

To compare that to anything Daenerys did as Drogo's bride is laughable.

It's not laughable, it's the logical conclusion one can draw from your argument.

Since Petyr "did not possess a military command role.  That ought to be obvious from the text. ", therefore he should be exonorated, no matter what he actually did.

Petyr did not murder Ned's retainers, Cersei's gold cloaks did.

 

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Once, after Viserys' death, Daenerys argued for war in Westeros as opposed to war around the Jade Sea.

True.

 

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The trigger was the murder attempt.

Completely untrue. She was already arguing for war well before the murder attempt, Robert's foolishness only made Drogo heed to his wife's advice.

 

Quote

The khal’s mouth twisted in a frown beneath the droop of his long mustachio. “The stallion who mounts the world has no need of iron chairs.” Dany propped herself on an elbow to look up at him, so tall and magnificent. She loved his hair especially. It had never been cut; he had never known defeat. “It was prophesied that the stallion will ride to the ends of the earth,” she said. “The earth ends at the black salt sea,” Drogo answered at once. He wet a cloth in a basin of warm water to wipe the sweat and oil from his skin. “No horse can cross the poison water.” “In the Free Cities, there are ships by the thousand,” Dany told him, as she had told him before. “Wooden horses with a hundred legs, that fly across the sea on wings full of wind.” Khal Drogo did not want to hear it. “We will speak no more of wooden horses and iron chairs.” He dropped the cloth and began to dress. “This day, I will go to the grass and hunt, woman wife,” he announced as he shrugged into a painted vest and buckled on a wide belt with heavy medallions of silver, gold, and bronze. “Yes, my sun-and-stars,” Dany said. Drogo would take his bloodriders and ride in search of hrakkar, the great white lion of the plains. If they returned triumphant, her lord husband’s joy would be fierce, and he might be willing to hear her out.

What do you call this if not instigating??

 

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Daenerys at no point, argued for, instigated, commanded, incited, or participated in atrocities.

False. She argued for a war with Westeros, fully knowing that said war had to be paid somehow and she accepted. 

 

Quote

. I am the blood of the dragon, Daenerys Targaryen reminded herself as she turned her face away. She pressed her lips together and hardened her heart and rode on toward the gate. “Most of Ogo’s riders fled,” Ser Jorah was saying. “Still, there may be as many as ten thousand captives.” Slaves, Dany thought. Khal Drogo would drive them downriver to one of the towns on Slaver’s Bay. She wanted to cry, but she told herself that she must be strong. This is war, this is what it looks like, this is the price of the Iron Throne.

Ergo, Dany is guilty.

 

Quote

It is no crime or sin, in and of itself, to favour war against Robert Baratheon.

Depends of your weapon. I'd argue that anyone willingly using the Dothraki is already guilty of war crimes simply by association.  Being the target Robert Baratheon, Aerys II Targaryen or the Wise Maesters.

 

22 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Danys body count is not very high when you consider what she’s trying to do.

Ah, I see.

 

22 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

How many millions of slaves do you think have died and would continue to die if that trade continued for a few thousand years? The greatest damage is being done by the reactionary coalition that committed genocide at Astapor.

How many people do you think Drogo would've continue to die and slave??

You seem to forget that Dany's hubby was one of the slavers's greatest suppliers.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Again, a thousand Tyrants or one. If you killed Genghis then there’d still be an entire society of nomads raiding each other.

Sure, but they would not be Genghis. Which means that millions would've been spared.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It’s hubris to think killing one man, much less a baby can solve this problem.

She was not trying to solve any problem. She was trying to eliminate the greatest threats she perceived.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

The Dothraki aren’t going anywhere. Her people are still going to die.

So, screw Sic Semper Tyrannis.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

. Her goal was to stop the killing.

No, It wasn't. It makes no sense that you create her goals, when those are pretty clear.

[SeanF]

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

It's not laughable, it's the logical conclusion one can draw from your argument.

Since Petyr "did not possess a military command role.  That ought to be obvious from the text. ", therefore he should be exonorated, no matter what he actually did.

Petyr did not murder Ned's retainers, Cersei's gold cloaks did.

 

True.

 

Completely untrue. She was already arguing for war well before the murder attempt, Robert's foolishness only made Drogo heed to his wife's advice.

 

 

False. She argued for a war with Westeros, fully knowing that said war had to be paid somehow and she accepted. 

 

Ergo, Dany is guilty.

 

 

Petyr Baelish  is Master of Coin which gives him immense authority, and a role that is similar to that of a commander.  He is guilty of murder, conspiracy, treason, lying, and betrayal.  He played a major part in pushing the Seven Kingdoms towards war.  But, he is not guilty of each and every atrocity committed by each party to the War of the Five Kings.  The guilt for such atrocities rests with those who commanded them or perpetrated them.  I don't hold him guilty for the rape of Pretty Pia, or Ser Kevan's behaviour in the Riverlands, for example.  The guilt for those actions rests with those who ordered them or carried them out.

This distinction is really quite crucial.  A person arguing in favour of a war does not make that person guilty for the actions of others, during the course of that war.  Had I been around at the time, I would have favoured WWII.  That would not, in itself, make me guilty of mass rape in East Germany.  I would only be guilty if I either ordered such things, did them, or was in a position to stop them from happening, and did nothing.

Your quote does nothing to prove that Daenerys ordered what was taking place at Mirr's village, or that she took part in atrocities there. What it does prove is that she was trying to harden her heart to what was taking place - something she failed to do.  She subsequently did her best to prevent atrocities (something which I think is unprecedented for a 14 year old girl) and her best was nowhere near good enough. 

"Ergo she is guilty?"  Guilty of what crime?  Baelish is guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.  Daenerys is "guilty" of  arguing in favour of war against Robert Baratheon.   That is no crime, either in universe, or in general.

[frenin]

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Petyr Baelish  is Master of Coin which gives him immense authority

Over what?? Certainly It gives him no authority over an army, nor his peers treat him like an equal. 

His whole way to ascend is sucking off the powerful... 

 

 

Quote

and a role that is similar to that of a commander. 

No, It does not. Not even now, when Martin said that despite all his money and titles, he had no army.

It certainly wasn't the case at the very beginning of AGOT.

 

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

He is guilty of murder, lying, and betrayal.  He played a major part in pushing the Seven Kingdoms towards war.  

True.

 

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 But, he is not guilty of each and every atrocity committed by each party to the War of the Five Kings.

No, just the ones he foresaw and worked towards.

 

 

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The guilt for such atrocities rests with those who commanded them or perpetrated them.  I don't hold him guilty for the rape of Pretty Pia, or Ser Kevan's behaviour in the Riverlands, for example.  The guilt for those actions rests with those who ordered them or carried them out.

This distinction is really quite crucial. A person arguing in favour of a war does not make that person guilty for the actions of others, during the course of that war. Had I been around at the time, I would have favoured WWII. That would not, in itself, make me guilty of mass rape in East Germany. I would only be guilty if I either ordered such things, did them, or was in a position to stop them from happening, and did nothing.

Sure, war is war, he couldn't have foreseen every event. He's loosely responsible, since the whole mess is his fault but that's about it.

The Dothraki invasion literally could've  only gone to one step, which was funding. Step, Dany was aware of and accepted as a lesser evil in her path to take back what was rightfully hers. Just as Petyr's actions are not really comparable to Dany's, the hundreds of thousands of ramifications of the war of the 5 Kings can be comparable to the very obvious raiding for slaves.

Dany could not have known who was going to be the target, but she did know someone was going to be the target. And she accepted so long as they furthered her quest. 

 

About your example, If i urge the allies to attack Dresden and by chance Churchill listens to me, It does make me guilty. Sure, I couldn't know that they were going to go that far, but i did know they were going to do something.

 

27 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Your quote does nothing to prove that Daenerys ordered what was taking place at Mirr's village, or that she took part in atrocities there. What it does prove is that she was trying to harden her heart to what was taking place - something she failed to do.  She subsequently did her best to prevent atrocities (something which I think is unprecedented for a 14 year old girl) and her best was nowhere near good enough. 

Can you tell me where I said that Dany ordered anything?? I said that she instigated. And my quotes do prove it, they also prove that she knew and accepted the price of taking back the Iron Throne.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Over what?? Certainly It gives him no authority over an army, nor his peers treat him like an equal. 

His whole way to ascend is sucking off the powerful... 

 

 

True.

 

No, just the ones he foresaw and worked towards.

 

 

Sure, war is war, he couldn't have foreseen every event. He's loosely responsible, since the whole mess is his fault but that's about it.

The Dothraki invasion literally could've  only gone to one step, which was funding. Step, Dany was aware of and accepted as a lesser evil in her path to take back what was rightfully hers. Just as Petyr's actions are not really comparable to Dany's, the hundreds of thousands of ramifications of the war of the 5 Kings can be comparable to the very obvious raiding for slaves.

Dany could not have known who was going to be the target, but she did know someone was going to be the target. And she accepted so long as they furthered her quest. 

 

About your example, If i urge the allies to attack Dresden and by chance Churchill listens to me, It does make me guilty. Sure, I couldn't know that they were going to go that far, but i did know they were going to do something.

 

Can you tell me where I said that Dany ordered anything?? I said that she instigated. And my quotes do prove it, they also prove that she knew and accepted the price of taking back the Iron Throne.

"Instigated" is a broad term.  It can mean to urge, promote, incite, as well as to order or command.  It also implies that the instigator initiated the activity in question.

Specifically, Daenerys did not urge, promote, or incite murder, rape, or enslavement either at Mirri's village, or anywhere else, for that matter.  And she certainly did not initiate these actions.  That is what "instigation" would mean in that context. Urging, promoting, or inciting war is not, in itself, criminal, either by the lights of Martin's world, or of ours.  

Daenerys would know, in general terms, that people would die in war, but that is nowhere near sufficient to establish guilt for the actions of others at Mirri's village. Her reaction to what she witnessed was one of horror, and ultimately, after failing to harden her heart, a determination to do what she could to stop it;  not to just shrug, and accept it as normal.

Returning to my example, if I urged the Soviets to attack Eastern Germany (and I most certainly would have done had I been a British diplomat in Moscow at the time) that would not make me guilty of subsequent mass rape, even if I had a general idea that they would be looking for revenge.

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

     In a world of liars and two faced characters it’s hard to discern their true motives. Chance encounters, being told someone’s dead without witnesses, and magic, should be scrutinized.
     MMD is a difficult person to judge. Shall we judge her actions or her words? Especially if we are judging her claims of harming someone, even if it’s just a cast off husk of who the person was.

[the Other Wolf]

3 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

Tyrion1991 is really working hard to bring out the Dany haters. 

A change from their normal irrational hatred of the Starks at least. 

[frenin]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

"Instigated" is a broad term.  It can mean to urge, promote, incite, as well as to order or command.  It also implies that the instigator initiated the activity in question.

Don't you understand what i mean by saying that?? She egged her husband to avenge her family.

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Specifically, Daenerys did not urge, promote, or incite murder, rape, or enslavement either at Mirri's village, or anywhere else, for that matter.  And she certainly did not initiate these actions.  That is what "instigation" would mean in that context. Urging, promoting, or inciting war is not, in itself, criminal, either by the lights of Martin's world, or of ours.  

Dany did urge, promote and incite a war with Robert Barathein, fully knowing that said war would need to be funded and that the slaves her husband was making and the lives he was ruining would serve fine for her cause.

 

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Daenerys would know, in general terms, that people would die in war, but that is nowhere near sufficient to establish guilt for the actions of others at Mirri's village. Her reaction to what she witnessed was one of horror, and ultimately, after failing to harden her heart, a determination to do what she could to stop it;  not to just shrug, and accept it as normal.

Untrue, Daenerys knew that people would have to pay the price for her war, she knew and she gladly accepted but as Tywin said, war is a butcher's work, and Dany had no taste for that.

Her reaction is irrelevamt, those people were targetted because of Dany's war.

 

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Returning to my example, if I urged the Soviets to attack Eastern Germany (and I most certainly would have done had I been a British diplomat in Moscow at the time) that would not make me guilty of subsequent mass rape, even if I had a general idea that they would be looking for revenge.

I do not understand why you're grasping at legalisms, seems to me the Tywin's approach, yes, you would be morally guilty and in this case, Dany deserves Mirri's retribution.

[TheLastWolf]

This thread is secretly (or not so secretly) a survey/poll to find out all those who dislike anything not Targaryen. And by definition, Stark haters, Dany lovers and so on. 

Not a disclaimer. 

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Don't you understand what i mean by saying that?? She egged her husband to avenge her family.

 

Dany did urge, promote and incite a war with Robert Barathein, fully knowing that said war would need to be funded and that the slaves her husband was making and the lives he was ruining would serve fine for her cause.

 

 

Untrue, Daenerys knew that people would have to pay the price for her war, she knew and she gladly accepted but as Tywin said, war is a butcher's work, and Dany had no taste for that.

Her reaction is irrelevamt, those people were targetted because of Dany's war.

 

 

I do not understand why you're grasping at legalisms, seems to me the Tywin's approach, yes, you would be morally guilty and in this case, Dany deserves Mirri's retribution.

Because I'm a lawyer.  So, I know that you wouldn't hang a dog on the evidence which you're presenting. If Daenerys were tried for inciting murder, rape, enslavement, any charges against her would be thrown out. forthwith.  And, even if I were to accept, purely for the sake of argument, that Daenerys deserved what was done to her, her unborn child did not.

I appreciate that law scarcely exists in Martin's world, but I think it's helpful to apply criminal law to specific situations, when characters are accused of crimes, in order to determine moral guilt.

Edit:  Perhaps right and wrong is not the correct approach.  I suppose one could argue that Daenerys and Mirri are rival combatants, each of which is entitled to strike at the other.

[TedBear]

Drogo's Khalazar did not decide to go to war because Dany asked, he repeatedly denied her requests, he decided to go to Westeros because Robert tried to kill Dany. Dany's fault is that she really wanted to go to Westeros, so we are blaming the fact that she benefits, not her actions. If Dany didn't care about Westeros, and preferred to stay where she was happy with her husband, after the assassination attempt, Drogo would fight back in the same way, it would be the same as someone ordering to kill Cersei, Joanna, Jeyne or another powerful man's wife, something that would offend this man. 

MMD's fault is clear, to me at least, if someone attacked my village and destroyed my temple, killing my friends, I would probably offer to treat that wound and put some kind of poison. How many times Drogo must have cut himself, and how many times he must have put mud on the wound.

Now in the case of Rhaego's death, I have already talked about it in other topics like this, which I believe was not MMD, but a consequence of the development of dragons inside the eggs, the truth is that they were alive before hatching on the pyre, so Dany feels that they are hot, so GRRM names her as "The mother of dragons", I believe that somehow the dragon eggs were sucking Rhaego's life by little. I've reread these passages a few times and realized that even MMD doesn't know why the baby was born deformed. First she says it's because Jorah took Dany into the tent, then she blames Dany and says that his life was used in the ritual to heal Drogo, 'Only death may pay for life ", but Drogo was not dead, he was sick , the dragons were dead and came to life.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Because I'm a lawyer.  So, I know that you wouldn't hang a dog on the evidence which you're presenting. If Daenerys were tried for inciting murder, rape, enslavement, any charges against her would be thrown out. forthwith. 

I'm not trying to hang a dog, and you have tried to shift the blame to Illryio or JonCon, for doing less than Dany. So, I'm pretty confused.

Moral wrong and legally wrong are not the same, nor are judged equally by people and judges.

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

And, even if I were to accept, purely for the sake of argument, that Daenerys deserved what was done to her, her unborn child did not.

Sure, but her unborn child was not targetted, if it was targetted at all, for that. It was targetted because of the threat he represented.

 

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

I appreciate that law scarcely exists in Martin's world, but I think it's helpful to apply criminal law to specific situations, when characters are accused of crimes, in order to determine moral guilt.

How so??  That Dany did not order the rapings cannot change the fact that she sanctioned the fate of the Lhazareen as a lesser evil to get back at the Baratheons.

Criminal law has little to do when we can rather literally read Dany's train of thought.

 

1 hour ago, TedBear said:

Drogo's Khalazar did not decide to go to war because Dany asked, he repeatedly denied her requests, he decided to go to Westeros because Robert tried to kill Dany. 

Because Dany used that attempt to convince to invade Westeros. 

 

1 hour ago, TedBear said:

Dany's fault is that she really wanted to go to Westeros

Wanted to go?? Or wanted to bring Fire and Blood upon those who wronged her family and take by force what was hers??

Depends of how you phrase it...

 

1 hour ago, TedBear said:

so we are blaming the fact that she benefits, not her actions.

No, I'm def blaming her actions.

 

1 hour ago, TedBear said:

If Dany didn't care about Westeros, and preferred to stay where she was happy with her husband, after the assassination attempt, Drogo would fight back in the same way, it would be the same as someone ordering to kill Cersei, Joanna, Jeyne or another powerful man's wife, something that would offend this man.

Likely, but that's not what it happened.

Dany seized the opportunity to convince Drogo to invade Westeros.

 

 

[SeanF]

46 minutes ago, frenin said:

I'm not trying to hang a dog, and you have tried to shift the blame to Illryio or JonCon, for doing less than Dany. So, I'm pretty confused.

Moral wrong and legally wrong are not the same, nor are judged equally by people and judges.

 

Sure, but her unborn child was not targetted, if it was targetted at all, for that. It was targetted because of the threat he represented.

 

 

How so??  That Dany did not order the rapings cannot change the fact that she sanctioned the fate of the Lhazareen as a lesser evil to get back at the Baratheons.

Criminal law has little to do when we can rather literally read Dany's train of thought.

 

 

 

 

 

I see Illyrio, Viserys, and Drogo as the people who actually sat down and negotiated the agreement whereby 13 year old Daenerys would be traded in return for military aid from the Dothraki. Varys, Jon Connington, and Harry Strickland were all in the loop, according to ADWD.   I don't think she had any choice in the matter. I don't think she was a party to these negotiations,  I think she was treated in effect as a chattel.   I think it's reasonable to hold adult male military commanders and politicians to a higher standard of responsibility than a child bride, who has no choice but to obey. Martin's world is s deeply sexist one.   The worst that can be said of her is that she spoke in favour of invading Westeros.  Once the first hit was put out on her, by Robert Baratheon, both she and Drogo were entitled to believe that there would be further attempts (they were not to know that Robert had fallen victim to a pig) .  I see the Dothraki riders as the people who chose to commit atrocities without any instruction or incitement  or persuasion to do so on her part.  I see her as someone who did her best to prevent atrocities. 

I'm pretty sure my 13/14 year old self would not have done nearly so well in her shoes., were I female.

Rhaego was potentially a threat.  Aegon and Rhaenys were potential threats, but that would not justify their killing.

We just aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

[TedBear]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Because Dany used that attempt to convince to invade Westeros

Because that was the deal for him to be able to marry her, Viserys would give him Dany, "a gift" the Viserys crown would be the way Drogo would thank the gift, it was something that was in progress, after the assassination attempt he felt offended , from then on this village was doomed, regardless of whether Dany cared about Westeros or not.

Dany is guilty of what has happened since then, and what will happen the moment she arrives in Westeros, when she sees the result she says that was the price, Drogo died and she will continue in an attempt to conquer, from there, on it will be her fault, she knows the price, she saw those women being raped, the people killed, and in the end she decides that she will accept the price and go ahead.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Wanted to go?? Or wanted to bring Fire and Blood upon those who wronged her family and take by force what was hers??

To conquer, like everyone else. Much of her desire to go to Westeros comes from the stories that Viserys tells her as a child, from the books that Jorah gives her, she idealizes Westeros, she doesn't just want to avenge her family, for sure she will also be involved in the war against The Others, she will not only arrive to take fire and blood, but also to help in a moment where dragons and armies will be needed