Mal and his people are just low-life thieves...

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 14:32
VIEWED: 39973
PAGE 13 of 17

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 20, 2006 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:

If Mal and his crew are just low life thieves then George W. Bush is one of the most honest and articulate men that has ever served in the White House, truly dedicated to preserving and protecting our Constitutional rights

Then Mal and his crew aren't just low-life theives, if I take your meaning- in which you'll get no flack from me.

2008, our chance to snatch some control back from The Alliance.

Snarky, early-mourning, non-poser/purplebelly Chrisisall

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Friday, January 20, 2006 3:42 PM

Now, I'm gonna split some more hairs, cuz like I said, it's a compulsion . . .

Now, Citizen, you've been using the Geneva convention as a reason why Mal shouldn't have killed that dude. Now, as I said before, I don't think Mal should have killed him either. But - how do we know what the rules of war are in Mal's 'verse? How do we know that, 500 years from now, they haven't just scrapped the Geneva convention and went, "you know, you can kill any soldier on an opposing side" or something like that. For all we know, killing that guy might have been perfectly acceptable by the standards of Mal's world. By the standards of our world it's obviously not, but Mal's world isn't ours.

And does no one have any thoughts on my statement that maybe that guy was suffering and dying, and Mal shot him out of mercy? It's possible, you know.

"I'm having one of those things - a headache with pictures."

"Of course I'm right. And if I'm not, may we all be horribly crushed from above somehow."

Like books? Go to this thread: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=14862
to find out how to buy mine!

CYBERSNARK

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:03 PM

Some (slightly different) perspective:

From everything we've seen, Haven colony had only one (ship-scale) gun. Just one gorram gun, which the gunship rather dramatically failed to take out!

Mal didn't kill that guy for being evil, he killed him for being incompetent. A favour to the genepool, it was.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:09 PM

LOL!!!!!
That was great!
ROTF,WTFE*!!!!!!!

*Wiping Tears From Eyes Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
And does no one have any thoughts on my statement that maybe that guy was suffering and dying, and Mal shot him out of mercy? It's possible, you know.

That's a possibility, a crash like that could have done him no good. A badly wounded POW Mal REALLY didn't have time for...

Impact-trauma Chrisisall

BEAR1313

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:19 PM

Oh hells yes he did the right thing when he popped that gorram allience child killer. After the operative declared war on Mal & crew the Sgt(the guy Niska meet) came back & did what had! again had! to be done. I'm suprised Zoe who's far more scary than Mal was so soft after Book & Haven were slaughtered. I think that for the most part the life on the raggity edge has to be seen in many shades of gray vs. black & white. As for being low-life no way. Just shades of gray. How low life was smuggling space heffers? Haha space cows! Well thats my deep thought for the day.
Shiny, Gorram space cows!! Joss is an evil genius!!

CITIZEN

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
Here's my real problem: 'Rules of war'?

Now Chris you're taking my comment out of context. That was a rebuke for someone else using the rules of war to justify Mal’s actions. If I can't use them to condemn then they can't be used to pardon either

.

Quote:
Baby, when the lead (or plasma beams) start flyin', there ain't no rules. No commanders, no orders.
There's survival. Anything threatens that, you say bye to it and accept whatever legal repercussions you may face, if you live.
Geneva Convention...peeps signed papers is all. Don't apply in the heat of real life and death.

I was under the impression we were talking about whether Mal’s actions were right or wrong, not whether they were justifiable.

Quote:
Britan and Canada, join us. You don't know the power of the corporate side!

We will not privatise... and you will be forced to buy us out...

Quote:
And yeah, if I went down in Iraq, not in a gunship but even in a passenger jet, and I survived the landing I would expect to be killed for the 'side' I'm recognized as being on.

My question was asking whether you or who ever would DESERVE to be killed, not whether it should be expected. If I'm wrongfully accused of a crime and sentenced to death I can expect to be killed but that doesn't mean I deserve it.
It's still a question nobody has actually answered; everyone just answers the much easier 'would you expect it' question...

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Now, Citizen, you've been using the Geneva convention as a reason why Mal shouldn't have killed that dude. Now, as I said before, I don't think Mal should have killed him either. But - how do we know what the rules of war are in Mal's 'verse? How do we know that, 500 years from now, they haven't just scrapped the Geneva convention and went, "you know, you can kill any soldier on an opposing side" or something like that.

My point still stands; if Mal had done that today he'd be a war criminal. The Geneva Convention is an internationally recognised accord that says what is 'okay' during war, and most of the world’s nations have signed it. Most of them will complain about people breaking it (whether they break it or not themselves), they recognise that the treatment forbidden by the Geneva Convention is wrong when employed against them.
It's entirely irrelevant whether the Geneva Convention is still in operation in the 'verse, though a form of it most likely is. The point is that it is a document that we can all agree sets out what is right and wrong even in a time of war. At least I'd be surprised if anyone here (unless GWB posts here) would disagree with it.

Quote:
For all we know, killing that guy might have been perfectly acceptable by the standards of Mal's world. By the standards of our world it's obviously not, but Mal's world isn't ours.

That doesn't make it right; it doesn't mean the officer deserved to be killed. For all we know by their rules of law it might be okay to deploy biological weapons against a civilian population, yet you yourself have used that as a reason why the Alliance is evil.

By these standards killing everyone on Haven is okay, they were under the power of the Alliance, just like the Alliance officer was under Mal’s power, and they were in the Alliance’s way, just like the officer was in Mal’s way.

Quote:
And does no one have any thoughts on my statement that maybe that guy was suffering and dying, and Mal shot him out of mercy? It's possible, you know.

I fail to see how shooting a wounded casualty as well as a surrendering soldier suddenly makes what he did better? The guy obviously wasn’t on deaths door, that is before he had a bullet through him.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That doesn't make it right; it doesn't mean the officer deserved to be killed. For all we know by their rules of law it might be okay to deploy biological weapons against a civilian population, yet you yourself have used that as a reason why the Alliance is evil.
By these standards killing everyone on Haven is okay, they were under the power of the Alliance, just like the Alliance officer was under Mal’s power, and they were in the Alliance’s way, just like the officer was in Mal’s way.

I'm not saying that it makes it right. You'll note that I still said I believed what Mal did was wrong. What I'm saying is that maybe in Mal's mind, it made it right, or at least acceptable. As a soldier of the times, he likely knows the current "rules of war" and quite possibly believed that what he did was perfectly acceptable, and wouldn't make him a war criminal.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I fail to see how shooting a wounded casualty as well as a surrendering soldier suddenly makes what he did better? The guy obviously wasn’t on deaths door, that is before he had a bullet through him.

Well, I think everybody's agreed that Mal killing that other guy at the beginning of the BDM because he was about to suffer and die was merciful. So, if this guy was wounded, suffering, and possibly about to die, couldn't Mal's shooting of him also be construed as merciful? I'm just saying this could possibly be another reason for why Mal may have thought that what he did was okay. Anyway, that one I presented more for sheer argument's sake than anything else.

"I'm having one of those things - a headache with pictures."

"Of course I'm right. And if I'm not, may we all be horribly crushed from above somehow."

Like books? Go to this thread: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=14862
to find out how to buy mine!

CITIZEN

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
I'm not saying that it makes it right. You'll note that I still said I believed what Mal did was wrong. What I'm saying is that maybe in Mal's mind, it made it right, or at least acceptable. As a soldier of the times, he likely knows the current "rules of war" and quite possibly believed that what he did was perfectly acceptable, and wouldn't make him a war criminal.

I think we're arguing different things is all. I'm saying it's wrong, making no mention on whether it's justifiable. If an action is wrong it is still wrong whether or not it is justifiable. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
You seem to be saying it's justifiable whether or not it is wrong.

Quote:
Well, I think everybody's agreed that Mal killing that other guy at the beginning of the BDM because he was about to suffer and die was merciful. So, if this guy was wounded, suffering, and possibly about to die, couldn't Mal's shooting of him also be construed as merciful?

That's somewhat of a murky issue though init. Mal shares the blame for putting that guy in that position, and not trying your hardest for everyone was a reason you gave for the Alliance being evil.

As a side note what I do find interesting is that some people I've seen saying euthanasia is wrong and is murder will also defend Mal's actions here, which really were euthanasia, except Mal may have been able to save that guys life.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Not by any recognised rules of war.

Here's my real problem: 'Rules of war'?
Baby, when the lead (or plasma beams) start flyin', there ain't no rules. No commanders, no orders.
There's survival. Anything threatens that, you say bye to it and accept whatever legal repercussions you may face, if you live.
Geneva Convention...peeps signed papers is all. Don't apply in the heat of real life and death.
The whole world's awash in a sea of RULES that don't mean a damned thing when the one(s) in power say 'not in this case' or 'doesn't apply to him'. We're all in this big game of chess, where the castle can move diagonally, 'cause one of the 'players' says so.

Those rules are the only semblance of honor and justification that can be given to war, though. Declaring them hogwash means to remove all recognition to even trying not to become a raping/murdering/village-burning monster. It removes even the possibility of good intentions and declares every war a free-for-all by default. Hello, Reavers?

These rules, even if not always followed, symbolize something important: the personal integrity of ever single soldier on his own, regardless of affiliation. The choice to question orders, to be more than a tool, put morality above practicality.

Even if governments try to wiggle out of them, I'd like to think that these rules, the ideal of them, means something to individual soldiers and reminds them of the fact that there's such a thing as... trying to be better than animals? Even in war?

To say that they aren't always followed is one thing.
To say they don't apply at all, aren't valid? Very worrying.

As an aside to citizen: I very much enjoy reading your arguments and find myself nodding along. It's nice to see the things that I would vaguely think, already out there and much better phrased, hehe.

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE