GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

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

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 04:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16986
PAGE 3 of 4

Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:21 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by CaptBryan:
I have been in the place of steal or starve.



The thing is, though, that Mal isn't in that place.

He could do honest work. He could haul legitimate cargo.

He chooses not to. (Even before the added strain of River's presence on the ship.)



That's an entirely different issue than people who steal because their alternative is starving.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:33 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Queenofthenorth:
Okay, Citizen, I've just re-read my post and realized I sounded like a complete bitch who was personally attacking you. That wasn't what I was trying to do at all. To be honest, I love arguing and I'm having a right blast having it out with intelligent folk like you and Agentrouka. However, I tend to get a little passionate and black and white in my arguments. So anyways, sorry if I offended you in any way, my humblest of apologies.


You didn't, though my reply may have come across in a way that indicated you had done, but that's largely for the same reasons you cite .

So sorry for that.
Quote:

Now, to qualify my arguments and make them grayer and more supportable. Instead of referring to the Alliance as evil, I'm gonna call their system corrupt and say that they do do bad things. I think we can all agree on that, yes? Just because they do sometimes do good things doesn't mean they shouldn't be brought down.

I agree, I believe they aren't evil, and certainly not as bad as Mal paints. We only ever see the bad side of the Alliance because we see them through the eyes of people who were always in conflict with the Alliance. Are they even bad enough to be brought down? I don't know, I've not seen them do anything worse than any nation on Earth. Not saying they're not, more the implication that maybe all nations are, if that makes any sense.
Quote:

Not your homeland, not mine, not anybody's.

Sorry, I thought I'd read somewhere you were American, I was mistaken, I appologise.
Quote:

For the record, let me state here that I think MAL WAS WRONG for killing that soldier.

Then I agree. I just wanted to point out that like life Firefly ain't black and White. The crew aren't the goodies fighting the good fight against the baddies, FireFly Ain't He-Man and the masters of the Universe and it ain't StarWars.
Basically I see a lot of talk like "he had it coming" and that gives me pause. It's the polarisation that I see coming out of America at the moment from a lot of people, the "we're good and they're bad so no matter what we do to them is right and justified no matter how bad" argument. Personally I think Joss had him kill the soldier because it was the wrong thing to do. Good people like Ralph from Lord of the Flies, can do bad things sometimes.
Quote:

Let me use Wash's words to address that: "Right, cuz I wouldn't get in trouble if we got caught. I could always say I was flying the ship by accident." I figure, any way you look at it, the people of Haven couldn't have been slaughtered without that guy's help. Which makes him guilty in some small way.

If an attack helicopter is shot down after attacking a village in Iraq, one that the crew believed was a terroist camp, does the pilot deserve to be summerially executed? Not asking what would happen, just whether the pilot would deserve it. I think you've made your feelings cleared, so that questions to everyone who thinks "he had it comming".

The argument could be made that everyone who pays taxes is culpable, without that money the Alliance couldn't build the ships.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:37 PM

QUEENOFTHENORTH


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by CaptBryan:
I have been in the place of steal or starve.



The thing is, though, that Mal isn't in that place.

He could do honest work. He could haul legitimate cargo.

He chooses not to. (Even before the added strain of River's presence on the ship.)



That's an entirely different issue than people who steal because their alternative is starving.



To be fair, how do you know he steals before River gets on the ship? Other than the time in the Serenity pilot, I mean. We didn't see anything of what Mal did in the 7 (I think) years between the war and River's arrival. Maybe that was the first time he had to steal, because they were going hungry. And I think that was more salvage than steal anyway. After that, River's presence on the ship makes regular Alliance jobs virtually impossible. Unless he wants to turn River in, which he doesn't.

I know, I know, I'm splitting hairs here. I can't help it. It's a compulsion.

"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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:55 PM

QUEENOFTHENORTH


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
[You didn't, though my reply may have come across in a way that indicated you had done, but that's largely for the same reasons you cite .
So sorry for that. ]



Yay, we're all getting along now.


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Sorry, I thought I'd read somewhere you were American, I was mistaken, I appologise. ]



Please, don't insult me like that. I'm Canadian. Let me clarify I was just kidding about the insult, in case an American browncoat mob wants to lynch me now. No worries, it's all good.

Anyways, I think if you tally up all the right/wrong stuff Mal's done, he comes out more of a paler gray than dark gray. Though shooting that guy certainly didn't help. Oh, and two more things just for argument's sake: that guy could have been the gunner too, the one that actually fired, thus making him the most guilty one on board. As you said, we don't know for sure. Also, it looked to me like he was pretty badly injured, so he might have died even with treatment from Simon, and suffered a good deal beforehand. Sooooo, maybe Mal did him "a piece of mercy". What do ya think?


"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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:55 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted Jubel:
mal doesn't live in america or any other democratic nation. he didn't ask to be in the alliance. him and zoe fought againt the alliance takeover of their world.


America has forced puppet governments on plenty of people. General Pinochet was installed by the American government in place of a valid elected for the people democracy. Unfortunatly the people chose a government that the White House didn't want, sorry guys here's a dictator.
Also all the evidence points to the Alliance being a democracy.
Quote:

what goes on in the 'verse cannot be compared in any way to our culture. closest you come to that is the american indians. what kind of police state does the alliance run?

Of course it can. There's no evidence of any 'police state' in operation on Alliance worlds not unless you call America and Britian police states, and some indication the other way.
Quote:

except for what is done with river.

Do you really think that America or any other nation wouldn't do the exact same thing if we had the technology?



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:56 PM

BOWIE


A Hero would never kill inocent people, but he will kill the bad guys. Personally, I feel any human who would let a man who killed all those peeps walk is not a man. Its a terrible crime, and I think its sick that anyone does not think doing it deserves the death penalty. How could they tell they were inocent? Because they had Grammit kids. Because they were obviously a mine center, not a army. If they had attacked fighters it would be one thing, they didn't. They attacked people who had almost no defence. Anyone on that ship coulda seen that what they were doing was wrong, and that makes them bad. Its touph, they weren't hero's. Hero's woulda taken that order and told the alliance to shove it.

So what do I think Hero's are? People who do whats right, weathr it mean having that persons head cut off, or being sent to jail.

If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:57 PM

VIOLETRIX


Quote:

Though I would argue that Mal isn't broken. Deeply hurt, yes. But not broken:)


you know, i think i'm going to have to amend my original statement, and agree with you that mal isn't broken. he seems like he has no hope, no faith, but i don't think that's exactly the case. i don't think he's as far down as he would like everyone to think he is, because to be in that place, he wouldn't give a s**t if he was still flyin'.
and i'd love to sign up and follow him into the black. he's the kind of leader-type you end up doing incredibly stupid, suicidal things for, you know?


http://violetrix.blogspot.com
soon there'll be no room for naughty men like us to slip about at all

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:29 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by CaptBryan:
I have been in the place of steal or starve.



The thing is, though, that Mal isn't in that place.

He could do honest work. He could haul legitimate cargo.

He chooses not to. (Even before the added strain of River's presence on the ship.)



That's an entirely different issue than people who steal because their alternative is starving.



To be fair, how do you know he steals before River gets on the ship? Other than the time in the Serenity pilot, I mean. We didn't see anything of what Mal did in the 7 (I think) years between the war and River's arrival. Maybe that was the first time he had to steal, because they were going hungry. And I think that was more salvage than steal anyway. After that, River's presence on the ship makes regular Alliance jobs virtually impossible. Unless he wants to turn River in, which he doesn't.

I know, I know, I'm splitting hairs here. I can't help it. It's a compulsion.




Splitting hairs can be fun. But I think it can be assumed without much risk of being wrong, that Mal had the crime thing going a while.

Wash says in the pilot, "We're crooks, sweety, if everything was right we'd be in jail."

The implication of some experience (the crybaby distraction device!) in illegal activity is pretty heavy.

And he could try for work that's not Alliance. They're all over the place, yes, but they can't be everywhere or everyone would be Alliance, even on the rim.



Mal likes being a petty crook, even if it stings when Inara calls him that. It's his way of lashing out at the 'verse.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:41 PM

QUEENOFTHENORTH


I wouldn't strictly say that he likes it (BDM when he looks all sad about what he does) but I think it's the only way he can live and still respect himself. By that I mean he's still trying to "get" the Alliance and isn't submitting to their rule. Not that he respects himself for stealing cuz I don't think he does.

I see Mal as more a Robin Hood type thief than just your average "steal to make a buck" thief. He doesn't steal from people that really need their stuff, or if he does, he makes it right again (Train Job). This doesn't mean he's right, just less wrong. Besides, everybody likes Robin Hood, right? I mean, Mal even wears tight pants.

"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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:58 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bowie:
A Hero would never kill inocent people, but he will kill the bad guys. Personally, I feel any human who would let a man who killed all those peeps walk is not a man. Its a terrible crime, and I think its sick that anyone does not think doing it deserves the death penalty.


Right so your calling for the death penalty for American and British service personnel in Iraq right? Or are the children and civilians dying out there, being burnt alive with white phosphorus 'baddies' so it's okay to kill them?
Quote:

How could they tell they were inocent? Because they had Grammit kids.

I'm sure the fact that they had kids was right on the front page of the briefing notes.
Quote:

Because they were obviously a mine center, not a army. If they had attacked fighters it would be one thing, they didn't. They attacked people who had almost no defence.

And as we all know terrorists tend to sit about in big Terrorist bases with big neon signs that say "yes we are terrorists" and they never use, or disguise their base of operations as, civilian instillations.
Quote:

Anyone on that ship coulda seen that what they were doing was wrong, and that makes them bad. Its touph, they weren't hero's.

You know that do you? You're either very naive or ignorant of how these things work.
Quote:

People who do whats right, weathr it mean having that persons head cut off

Are you a follower of Al Zarqawi? He has the same Black and White "I'm good you're evil" moral Relativism as you seem to show.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:07 PM

XIEAINING


You live in a very black and white world.

If the Alliance as a whole and Blue Sun are corrupt and unjust, that still doesn't make every Alliance soldier evil to the core.

Human beings = shades of grey.


The point I was making is that we've seen the alliance soldiers and officers face to face and what we see is callous disregard for human life. No, every soldier is not evil to the core. But they are unwilling to excersize even the smallest bit of compassion towards the people that they forced to "unify" with them. These people simply don't matter. Settlers in peril on backwater worlds, people dying in front of their eyes from easily treatable causes, these people are irrelevant to the Alliance soldiers and officers. That's been made very, very clear in the series.

Were the doctors and nurses of whites-only hospitals in the segregated south evil to the core? No. Did they allow black babies, children, women and men to die on their doorsteps because they were the wrong color? Yes. I personally knew a woman who's sister bled to death on the steps of a whites-only hospital. That doesn't make the people evil, but it does make them complicit in evil.

The Alliance governmental system is corrupt and evil. Not necesarily the essence of true evil like The Emporer/Darth Vader/Lord Voldemort. But evil in the sense of: "tending to cause great harm; the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice."

Those who perpetuate the evil system whether they are fry cooks or Operatives are responsible for their part. They themselves are products of said evil system and view the innocent people in the margins with contempt or indifference. Their mothers, spouses and children love them and think they're nice people. This juxtapostion I do not refute, but I will continue to insist that the Alliance soldiers and officers we have seen are willing accomplices in acts that are "morally bad, intrinsically corrupt, wantonly destructive, inhumane, selfish, or wicked." (quotes are from Google Web Definitions: evil.)

You really really really need to read the rest of the thread before you start posting.

I really really really did read the entire thread from first post to last before I chimed in.

Right and wrong do not change relative to your situation. Justice is not the same thing as morality. Killing a man with his hands in the air in surrender is never the right thing to do, even if it is the just and smart thing to do.

You missed my point entirely. Your presentation of what is right and wrong do not apply to Mal. Mal is trying to survive. He's trying to make a place where he can survive--survival for his own heart, mind, soul, and body, survival for his crew, which he considers extensions of himself, and survival for his ship. He is in a place most of us will never know, and many cannot truly grasp or empathize with. When you are living on the edge of space, fighting for your survial everyday, the concepts of absolute rights and wrongs have no meaning.

Mal kills, and kills often. Killing is wrong. Unless it's for survival/self defense. Or unless you're a soldier in a legally engaged war, following legal orders. Or unless you're a government who's condemned someone to death after a fair trial. Or...the list goes on and on for what are justifiable homicides. By Mal's personal rules, which is almost all he left, shooting that soldier was the the only course of action open to him. He has never killed anyone unless it was kill or be killed. Even Crow falls into that category.

You have to make a complete paradigm shift in order to understand what 'verse Mal and his crew are dealing with. When you're on the frontier, fighting for your life and for your very soul, things are different then when you're on a core planet with plenty of food and shelter. Of course what he did wasn't "right". He knows that. But is was necessary, in his judgement, for his continued existance.

"Someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back....You got the right same as anyone to live and to try to kill people. I mean, you know."

That is the world into which Mal has been forced to live for his own survival. Ideals like impartial justice, rules of engagement, ethical treatment of prisoners of war, these things are now irrelevant to Mal. He has no ideals left. He started out with plenty and they were burned off by what both the Browncoat and Alliance leaders did to him and his, and what the Alliance continues to do.

It's not right, but it was necessary for his survival.

The Alliances actions are necessary for their survival.

Joss Whedon has presented us with a 'verse where each side is fighting for their very survival. And because we're human, we're rooting for the underdogs. Plus also, they're damn funny and easy on the eyes.

Joss Whedon himself said that bad guys wore hats. Only bad guys wore hats in the 'verse. The guy comin out of the crashed ship had a hat, ergo he was bad by Joss' own visual code. Hence, he got shot. Yes, that means Jayne is also a bad guy, but fact is, he admits it.

"I mean to live. I mean for us to live. The Alliance won't have that, so we go where they don't follow....There's a lot of fine ways to die. I ain't waiting for the Alliance to choose mine." [Shoots Alliance soldier]

This is how it is in Joss' verse. You either accept the paradigm shift and accept Mal's reality, or you run yourself in circles alternately praising or condemning what he does.

I choose to meet Mal where he is.


(I'll be in my bunk.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:16 PM

CITIZEN


If I'm reading your post right you're saying that America is evil.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:23 PM

JAYTEE


Ok, I know I'll take heat for this but I don't care.

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 and Donald Rumsfeld is a genius in military planning.

There, I've said it. I expect to catch some flack for that for those people here that call themselves Browncoats but are really just poser purplebellies so if I've offended you then all I can say is.....bite me! see ya in 2008 when the tables finally turn.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:28 PM

JETFLAIR


Quote:

Originally posted by XieAining:
To those of you who think Mal shooting an Alliance soldier who's throwing up his arms in surrender is just plain wrong, you really really really need to rewatch the series with particular attention to what the Alliance military says and does. You really really really need to get a grip on what the Alliance and Blue Sun are.

Listen to what the commanding officer says in Train Job. Critical medicine has been stolen. The officer says to mark it as delivered. Orders the attachment of soldiers on. Sends no help to the townsfolk to retrieve the meds. They're on their own.

Watch Safe again and realize that the Alliance officer would have refused medical assistance to Book, thus condemning him to death, had Book not had an ident card that the officer deemed worthy.

The Alliance is an unholy entity. Blue Sun is a corporation that owns just about every damn thing, and is, in most respects, the government. You're looking at a facist government/corporate monopoly that is only interested in its own survival and amassing more power and wealth.

Mal has lived his whole life suffering the indignities, horrors, and injustices of a brutal, oppressive regime. He fought for independence from it and was betrayed by his own commanders in the end, left to watch damn near everyone under his command die AFTER a cease fire, waiting for the med ships that didn't come until the Alliance and the Browncoats worked out a surrender.

Mal has no alligance, nor should he, to the Alliance code of justice. The Alliance code of justice is warped, slanted towards the "haves" and the "have-mores". It seeks to empower the rich and disenfranchise the poor. Why the hell do you think they were trying to rebell? Because they didn't want to pay their taxes? NO! Because the Alliance is evil and indifferent by turns to the beleaugered people on the outer rim planets and these folks had had about enough of being abandoned when they needed help, and being interefered with in the most high handed way imaginable when it suited the Alliance.

He tried to win his independence from the Alliance and lost. So he simply declared his own personal independence and tries to stay as far away from the Alliance as possible. Unfortunately, circumstances keep drawing him and the Alliance face to face.

You cannot judge Mal's actions by your own standards that were forged by living in a prosperous country governed by the rule of law, with democratically elected officals, states rights, and advocacy groups for the disenfranshised. You live in a paradise that Mal couldn't even concieve.

Honestly, seriously, rewatch the episodes and pay attention to what the Alliance is.

That being said, there's another layer.

Inara: I just want to know who I'm dealing with. I've seen too many versions of you to be sure.

Mal: I start fighting a war, I guarantee you'll see something new.


Mal is no longer a civilian when he lands on Haven and sees what the Operative has set in motion. He's now at war.

If on the beaches of Normandy in the heat of battle, a German solider stumbled out of a bunker with arms raised, after having spent the last three hours shredding the Allied soldiers to bits, do you honestly think any of the Allied soldiers would have stopped, accepted his surrender, and marched him off to a prisoner of war camp? Every last man on that beach would have picked him off--shot, stabbed, or stomped him to death. Because it's war. And unlike our "civilized" wars, in the future Mal lives in, there are no humane Rules of Engagement. Honest to Pete, the Allied solider was, to Mal, an enemy combatant. Maybe not by our rules, maybe not by your priviledged standards, but he was an enemy combatant to a man who's had to live with a regime that's heaped upon him and his nothing but sorrow and pain his whole life. To a man who's fought against this sort of hideous behavior in one war already and finds himself in another war with an Operative of the Alliance and the men at his command, it's a no brainer to shoot anything that moves on a battlefield, which is what Haven had become.

And anyone who's been paying attention to what and who the Alliance and their soldiers are, knows that at the first opportunity, that pilot would have turned on the crew and killed every last one of them if they'd accepted his surrender. Everyone on that rock knew it too.

Mal only kills for survival. The only times he ever killed in the series or movie was to ensure his own life, the lives of his crew, or of innocents that he'd pledged to protect. The circumstances under which he fights cannot be judged by our own society's standards. Look up the definition of "cultural relativitly".

(I'll be in my bunk)



You know, I don't think I'll ever be okay with that shooting, but you have given the best explanation of it (as far as justifying Mal's actions) that I've seen to date. You have some really good points.

____________________________________

"Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you when she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home." .......We love you, captain.

"This is the captain. We may experience some slight turbulence and then.....explode"

www.serenityverse.com - Zoe necklace replicas, Serenity dogtags, jewelry, image gallery w/ custom DVD covers, other goodies!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:36 PM

JETFLAIR


Quote:



We wonder sometimes if Mal is happy w/ his choices. When he asks River in the BDM "Do your understand your part in all of this?" & she looks at him & asks "Do you?" Mal answers "This is what I do darlin'." then more quietly & to himself "It's what I do." I am sure everyone saw the look on Mal's face, a mix of pain, resignation, perhaps even fatigue. Is he really happy? He looks like a man with a great many burdens to bear. As he tells Simon jobs are harder to come by, even legit ones, since Simon & River are onboard Serenity.



To me, it's that sort of thing, in addition to most of his actions, that says "yes, Mal is a moral man. Mal is a good guy." He does things he doesn't like in order to keep himself and his crew flying, but he is a deeply good character.

___________________________________________

"Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you when she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home." .......We love you, captain.

"This is the captain. We may experience some slight turbulence and then.....explode"

www.serenityverse.com - Zoe necklace replicas, Serenity dogtags, jewelry, image gallery w/ custom DVD covers, other goodies!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 2:54 PM

SUBTORPMAN


Its my understanding that Josh came up the consept of Firefly after reading "The Killer Angels". Being an American and a Civil War Reenactor I have seen the word "Rebel" used in several messages. A lot of people in the North and South wanted to get on with their lives after the War between the States. In my opinion the Alliance is like the Northern States after the War. Many high government officals wanted to punish the South for starting it in the first place. The South was desimated during the war and even today 150 years later we have a lot less railroad tracks. The Southern people had to endure many hardships after the war and did what they had to, to survive. After a time they came up with a nasty club called the Klu Klux Klann a very bad thing.
Mal reminds me of a unreconstructed Rebel a person who never really surrendered but just quit fighting after the independance gave up. He would be the first to say the war is long over.
By the way I fight for the Union in the 75 Ohio Vol Inf as my Great,Great Uncle fought with the 2nd Tenn U.S. a union inf unit.
I guess morality depends on which side you fought for. As far as Iraq, only history will tell if We were right or wrong about that. Do you realize the U.S. still has bases in Germany, Italy and Japan. I spent 20 years as a U.S. Submarine Sailor and had the order came down I would have launched the weapon, Nuke or Conventional without hesitation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:00 PM

ROCKETJOCK


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

If an attack helicopter is shot down after attacking a village in Iraq, one that the crew believed was a terroist camp, does the pilot deserve to be summerially executed? Not asking what would happen, just whether the pilot would deserve it.



The question here isn't whether he deserved it, but whether he should expect it. Consider:

1. Under the usages of war, no one is required to accept an enemy's surrender. It's generally considered a wise thing to do, when feasible, as it offers your opponent an option other than fighting to the death, but it is not required.
(Specifically, if accepting an enemy's surrender would place your command at risk, you are not to do it. That's standard doctrine.)

2. That pilot either knew he was flying an illegal mission under unlawful orders, or he thought it was a legal mission -- in which case, the rules of warfare apply. In other words, he knew, going in, that if grounded, he should expect death.

Moving out of the hypothetical modern-day, and back to the movie, Mal was operating under the condition of war--an illegal war declared against Mal and anyone who'd ever offered him a huddling place, however tenuous the connection, by the Parliment, through their designated Operative.

That Alliance pilot was a member of enemy armed forces. Mal was not only within his rights to to kill him, but, as taking him prisoner would have increased the risk to his command, (he's had enemies escape from his makeshift hoosgow before, and had his ship endangered by loose cannons aboard ship), he was arguably obligated to.



"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 12:42 AM

CITIZEN


Jaytee:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jaytee:
There, I've said it. I expect to catch some flack for that for those people here that call themselves Browncoats but are really just poser purplebellies so if I've offended you then all I can say is.....bite me! see ya in 2008 when the tables finally turn.


Not only do your assertions not follow, in fact they’re nonsensical, but:
I’m sorry some disagree with you, and don’t fall into what your narrow view of what a ‘good’ Browncoat should be, I guess them, and I suppose myself, should all roll over so you can live in YOUR perfect fandom.
Did YOU not learn anything from the series or the movie? And you call YOURSELF a ‘good’ Browncoat .

Rocketjock:
Quote:

Originally posted by RocketJock:
The question here isn't whether he deserved it, but whether he should expect it.


No the question is whether he deserved it, since many people here are throwing out the moral relativism of “it was okay to kill him because he deserved it”.
Quote:

1. Under the usages of war, no one is required to accept an enemy's surrender. It's generally considered a wise thing to do, when feasible, as it offers your opponent an option other than fighting to the death, but it is not required.
(Specifically, if accepting an enemy's surrender would place your command at risk, you are not to do it. That's standard doctrine.)


This is flagrantly false. Have you not heard of the Geneva Convention?
Quote:

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.


Please note the fact that under the Geneva convention a member of the armed forces who is under the power of an adversary (just like the Alliance officer) is a prisoner of war, and that it is forbidden to murder a POW.
Quote:

2. That pilot either knew he was flying an illegal mission under unlawful orders, or he thought it was a legal mission -- in which case, the rules of warfare apply. In other words, he knew, going in, that if grounded, he should expect death.

Both covered by the Geneva Convention. Breaking the rules of the convention does not mean that a combatant is automatically unprotected, and the rules of warfare blatantly forbid it.
Quote:

That Alliance pilot was a member of enemy armed forces. Mal was not only within his rights to to kill him, but, as taking him prisoner would have increased the risk to his command, (he's had enemies escape from his makeshift hoosgow before, and had his ship endangered by loose cannons aboard ship), he was arguably obligated to.

Not by any recognised rules of war.




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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 12:50 AM

CAPTBRYAN


As far as governments go they can only go as far as people let them.

Freedom has a cost,everyone knows this,some just dont wanna pay it.{or they wanna bum freedom from others}

The cost may differ according to the stances.

Power hungry people only want one thing POWER.
Freedom Hungry people only want FREEDOM.
Hungry people want FOOD.

Each of these has its own price.Some times the price is the same but has taxes added.

If I were living under a oppressive government I would find a way to live if I WANTED to live.
I would do what I needed,to get what I needed.

I feel I need to say this...Power hungry people fear an armed People.They also fear any person of free will.



+++===================+++

Saying that God authored confusion by creating Lucifer is like saying my sniper rifle goes out all by itself and shoots people 2 miles away so I dont get into trouble.

Ridin the Ocean's boring when there aint no waves


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:35 AM

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.
Citizen, please.

Is America an evil empire?
Any business gets too big is just full of corruption.
But we can make new rules making certain corruption legal.
Britan and Canada, join us. You don't know the power of the corporate side!

Sorry for sounding snarky, it's not usually my way, but when it comes to talking on civilization (seizing power in a well-educated and faux-polite manner), I get all on the edge.

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.

Rant-like Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 4:47 AM

CHRISISALL


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:42 AM

QUEENOFTHENORTH


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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:03 AM

CYBERSNARK


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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:09 AM

CHRISISALL


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

*Wiping Tears From Eyes Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 6:16 AM

CHRISISALL


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:19 AM

BEAR1313


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!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 7:55 AM

CITIZEN


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's you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 8:18 AM

QUEENOFTHENORTH


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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 9:30 AM

CITIZEN


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 12:09 PM

AGENTROUKA


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 12:52 PM

QUEENOFTHENORTH


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
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.]



We could be arguing different things. I just like to argue and hear myself talk. Although what I'm trying to say is that Mal himself may not have seen anything wrong with what he was doing, regardless of what anyone else thinks.


Quote:

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. ]



It is a bit of a murky issue. I think that what Mal did for that guy was the best thing he could have done for everyone, AT THAT POINT. Besides, that guy was to blame for putting himself in that situation too. If he'd just gotten in the vault like everyone else, he would have lived. Since he didn't, the only way Mal could have saved him would likely have involved some of Mal's own crew getting killed. Mal always looks out for his own crew first. He wasn't about to let them die cuz that guy was too dumb to stay behind.


Quote:

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. ]


You coward, Agentrouka. Hiding behind Citizen's arguments, are you? Just kidding.


"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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 1:07 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:

You coward, Agentrouka. Hiding behind Citizen's arguments, are you? Just kidding.





Hey, let someone have her little random and impersonal fangirling moment, will you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 1:13 PM

QUEENOFTHENORTH


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by queenofthenorth:

You coward, Agentrouka. Hiding behind Citizen's arguments, are you? Just kidding.





Hey, let someone have her little random and impersonal fangirling moment, will you?



Well . . . if you must.

"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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:04 PM

CHRISISALL


Okay, I'll say it.
The surrendering soldier deserved to die. If heard by an impartial jury and judge, he'd be found guilty of murder himself, it's unfortunate that Mal was left with the unpleasant job of dispatching that shmoe. Mal didn't feel good about it, but then, he really didn't have time to feel much of anything at the moment, he had another job to do.

That's my story, I'm stickin' to it Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 5:46 PM

INFAMOUSX


Quote:

Originally posted by FollowMal:

It's really easy to brand people crooks and brigands when you are comfortable and well fed, but when life is rough ( a rough most folks where I'm from have never seen) the rules change.


That's pretty much how I feel about it. I ain't led an easy life, but I'm damn lucky to have lived it when and where I have. I can't say with conifdence I'd've been as honorable as some given harsher circumstances.

I wish I could write well enough to write about aircraft.
-Ernest Hemingway

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 20, 2006 11:25 PM

BELOWZERO


OK, we are forgetting something here: context.
We are dealing with frontier justice.
We are dealing with a place and time where not too many lawyers and courts seem to exist and not a few planets have their own systems of justice (i.e. Patience's world would be different from, say, Persephone).

Frontier justice in our own American history was rough and quick and to the point. Lynching. Shooting. Gunfights. That's where we pretty much are here. And as for Mal and crew being heroes...well, folks, sometimes being a hero has nothing to do with rescuing small children from burning houses and such. Sometimes it is just managing to live through another day with your sanity and your honor code intact. We do it every day, we are all faced with choices where we can choose to do the honest thing or the easy one.

I suspect Mal, in harboring River and Simon even though it would make more financial and practical sense to turn them over to the Alliance, is truly heroic by a lot of definitions regardless.

"Do not go gentle into that good night....
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. . .

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night. . ."
--Dylan Thomas

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:19 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

The ship looks like it was at least the size of Serenity, which is large enough to have a galley. You don't know what he did, I don't know what he did, and Mal didn't know what he did. He shot him for wearing an Alliance uniform.

You're reaching here Citizen. I watched and paused to study it last night; even if what was on the ground was half of the original ship, it's still a fighter-sized craft, not even half the size of Serenity.

Also, what we have here is what I call the 'Dirty Harry Syndrome'. Do we want cops walking around with that kind of power? The ability to be like Judge Dredd? Obviously not.
But the particular and precise circumstances privy to us through the movie medium show us actions that are just and/or understandable by the hero, and if events were to play out similarly in real life, a court would dismiss any charges against him.

We can never know everything about real-life events, but in this case, knowing most of the facts, we can say Mal did no wrong in shooting that pilot/gunner/stowaway boyscout- whatever he was.

Can we agree that that man's appearance at that time was adding an element of possible danger to the crew had he been allowed to take up their time with the tying up and lookin' after and tending to, taking at least one of them out of action for the urgent work needed for their escape from Haven and such?


Chrisisall, trying to make sense

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:25 AM

DECKROID


If loving The Crew is wrong I don't wanna be right
If being right means being without The Crew I'd rather be wrong during life
Your mama and daddy say it's a shame, it's a down right disgrace
but 'long as I got The Crew by my side I don't care what Those people say
Your friends tell The Crew it's no future in loving a married man
if I can't see The Crew when I want I'll see The Crew when I can

Chorus
If loving The Crew is wrong I don't wanna be right
If loving The Crew is wrong I don't wanna be right


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:13 AM

CITIZEN


Chris:
Look at the size of the wreckage compared to the guy crawling out of it. There's easily enough room for two decks in there, fighters aren't that big. It's closer in size to Serenity than it is to a fighter. In fact it doesn’t look too far of the size of a Second World War U-Boat.
Quote:

Originally posted by Chrisisall:
But the particular and precise circumstances privy to us through the movie medium show us actions that are just and/or understandable by the hero, and if events were to play out similarly in real life, a court would dismiss any charges against him.


I think I've already shown that his action constitute a war crime under the Geneva Convention, so today if he was put on trial for a comparable action then he wouldn't be let of if there was no doubt that he had done it.
Quote:

We can never know everything about real-life events, but in this case, knowing most of the facts, we can say Mal did no wrong in shooting that pilot/gunner/stowaway boyscout- whatever he was.

So if an Alliance officer had turned up after Serenity crashes on Mr Universe's planet, and shot Mal as he left the ship everyone would recognise that there was nothing wrong with that?
Quote:

Can we agree that that man's appearance at that time was adding an element of possible danger to the crew had he been allowed to take up their time with the tying up and lookin' after and tending to, taking at least one of them out of action for the urgent work needed for their escape from Haven and such?

We can't agree that either I'm afraid. It would have taken nothing to incapacitate him and leave him on the planet.

It doesn't matter what the motivations are for doing something that is wrong, it's still wrong, murder doesn't become right whether it's because you got up that morning and gosh darn it felt like killing someone, or if they were threatening your life, it becomes justifiable. Like I said, Mal may have been justified in killing the officer, I'm not arguing that either way, I just don't like the moral relativism of, “since our side (the crew) did it, it must be right”. If that had been a comparable scene from the unification war and an Alliance officer had shot some independent I'm willing to bet people would be saying: “see, see, the Alliance is evil, they shot an injured and surrendering soldier!”

It's the same thing as when people cheer on the valiant Air Force for levelling some sector of Baghdad, saying 'well civilian casualties are to be expected' but denigrate anyone who is 'evil' enough to kill westerners. Something is wrong whether it is done by the hero or the villain.
Quote:

The surrendering soldier deserved to die. If heard by an impartial jury and judge, he'd be found guilty of murder himself, it's unfortunate that Mal was left with the unpleasant job of dispatching that shmoe. Mal didn't feel good about it, but then, he really didn't have time to feel much of anything at the moment, he had another job to do.

Just remember the implications of that statement, because it means that it wouldn’t be wrong for an Iraqi to kill you or me. We’re complicit in the deaths of innocent Iraqis, even if we didn’t support the war in Iraq. So back to my original question:
If an American or British Aircraft is brought down in Iraq, irregardless of whether the pilot should expect to be killed do they deserve it?




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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:38 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:


So back to my original question:
If an American or British Aircraft is brought down in Iraq, irregardless of whether the pilot should expect to be killed do they deserve it?



It would depend upon whether they had just been targeting and killing defenseless civilians, if so, then yes (My appologies to Mr. Collateral Damage).

There has to be some responsibility at the action level.

And the fighter weren't that big Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Okay, I tried hard to think outside my box, and came up with this:
That soldier is in the fighter monitoring reactive containment pressures or whatever, and hates his job, and dislikes his missions under the Operative, and plans to get out as soon as he can, and personally never pulls the trigger. He also can't suggest to the pilot (his superior) that they shouldn't be doing this kind of work, or he might be shot.

The man I just described- all right, he doesn't deserve to die. Just wrong time, wrong place.
I guess it is possible he was like that, I just doubt it is all.


Acknowledging Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 21, 2006 8:44 AM

FLETCH2


Just as an aside, the concept art for the Alliance attack ship in the Visual Companion shows it to be a BIG ship. We only see the front of it for movie budget reasons :)

Mal says in the series that most of the legal work being handed out is for the Alliance, since he has no wish to be under their thumb he chooses not to take it. So he's made the choice that smuggling and petty theivery is better than working "for the man." To my mind that makes him independent but it does remove the argument that he can either do what he does or starve. He has other choices he just refuses to accept.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 21, 2006 10:32 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Chrisisall:
It would depend upon whether they had just been targeting and killing defenseless civilians, if so, then yes (My appologies to Mr. Collateral Damage).


What if they didn’t know that it was a civilian settlement?
Quote:

There has to be some responsibility at the action level.

Yes but what people tend to be missing here is that a soldier tends not to know what the hell their doing or why.
Quote:

And the fighter weren't that big

He tasks me, he tasks me and I shall have him…
Ok:
I’ve got this picture from the movie, it’s kinda hard to make everything out, so I’ve quickly added fake colour to make things easier.

Here’s the same picture without colour:


From these I’ve managed to measure the craft as 186px high. Given that it’s partially buried, and that I was a little conservative in my measurement I’d say it was about 190px minimum, so a value between 180 and 200px is reasonable I think.

The Alliance officer is approximately 42px high in the picture, but only about half his body is visible, so at a guess I’d say his height is roughly 84px, so at a guess I’d say between 80 and 90px. Let’s take a guess at his height as being 1.828m (6ft) which means an individual pixel is ~2.2cm – 2cm.

With these values the height of the ship comes out as roughly ~3.6m – ~4.4m. We can’t really know the length of the ship, since it has very obviously lost a considerable section at the rear. The height though is larger than the Concord passenger aircraft, whose fuselage is 3.32m. That’s a little larger than a fighter, especially given that there is easily room to stand up inside the fuselage.

This helicopter seems to have a similar height:
http://members.aol.com/mh53e/stats.htm

I’d say that was a really conservative estimate though, for the same reasons Fletch gives.

Also a fighter would operate in a wing, so there should be more than one, and there’d have to be a carrier in orbit. By the very fact there’s only one unsupported ship indicates it’d have to be quite a large interplanetary vessel.

Also Book calls it a ship.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:29 AM

CHRISISALL


All right, gorram it! You win, Citizen, IT WAS A BIG ATTACK SHIP!!!!
Quote:

Originally posted by Chrisisall:
It would depend upon whether they had just been targeting and killing defenseless civilians, if so, then yes (My appologies to Mr. Collateral Damage).

What if they didn’t know that it was a civilian settlement?
what people tend to be missing here is that a soldier tends not to know what the hell their doing or why.

If they don't know what they're doing, well, then... they should!

I think many times they do.

I hava a friend who was a marine in Grenada. In one of the few moments of action, a bunch of grenades were thrown into the windows of a building where it was suspected 'bad guys' were hiding, armed and dangerous. He said the windows blew out, and all inside were killed. He said it was a sad way to go, with no chance like that.
Execution on orders.
But it was war...or something...

Deep down, many know what they're doing.



Crow-eating Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:50 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Chrisisall:
All right, gorram it! You win, Citizen, IT WAS A BIG ATTACK SHIP!!!!


It's true, I really can wind anyone up without wanting to, even you...
Sorry, I mean it.

The only thing I can say is theres a difference between putting a grenade through a window killing armed troops, preventing casualties on your side, and shooting them as they come out the door with their hands up.

All I'm saying is that there is a big difference between justification and right and wrong.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:06 AM

CHRISISALL


...Well, if I recall correctly, they actually weren't very well armed...a few hanguns and rifles and such, they had expected rocket launchers or something...

And I ain't wound up, just trying to cling to my thought that Mal was doing the right thing, I guess absolute 'justice' was not possible at that moment...

Not so inflexable Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:09 AM

TOPGUN


My view is that they only steal when it is needed, yes that can be alot of the time. But they need to keep Serenity in the air

I liked it in The Trainjob where Mal finds out what's in the boxes he was given the job to steal, he take them back as people whould have died if he had not

You Can't take the sky from me

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:28 AM

CITIZEN


The thing that I think people are missing is that I don't think Mal is a bad person. But at the same time I don't think the guy he shot crawling out of the wreckage was either.

But they have both done wrong.

One thing I'd like people to think about though is that I think Joss showed us him shooting that officer not because it was the right thing to do but because it was the wrong thing to do. Good people, even real heros, can still do terrible and wrong things. Sometimes they become heros for just that reason.

Remember, both GWB and Osama are hero's to some, and villians to others.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:37 AM

TOPGUN


Yes I suppose it's all down to a persons point of view. I mean One man's Traitor is another nman's Hero

You Can't take the sky from me

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:01 PM

CITIZEN


Think about it, how do you think the powers that be of the British empire felt about Ghandi.

I'm saying Right and Wrong are absolutes, but that sometimes the wrong thing to do is justifable, or not as bad as the alternatives...

But it is still wrong.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
76th Independent Battalion Part 48
Fri, December 4, 2020 11:01 - 2325 posts
Brenda? Are You Watching FBI: Most Wanted?
Thu, December 3, 2020 17:10 - 52 posts
Joss out
Thu, November 26, 2020 04:57 - 1 posts
What's a Libertarian? (A MUST READ)
Mon, November 16, 2020 14:53 - 19 posts
R.I.P. Alex Trebek.
Tue, November 10, 2020 15:40 - 6 posts
Who should replace the great Alex Trebek
Tue, November 10, 2020 15:39 - 1 posts
Genetic Detective TV Show
Mon, November 9, 2020 17:42 - 3 posts
Sean Connery dies at age 90
Mon, November 2, 2020 17:24 - 5 posts
Play the great new game that's sweeping the nation. Bootlicker Bingo!
Mon, November 2, 2020 17:12 - 1 posts
Firefly - The Ghost Machine
Tue, October 13, 2020 03:17 - 5 posts
STAR TREK: Lower Decks
Mon, September 21, 2020 19:39 - 13 posts
I think we've lost Oonjerah
Thu, September 10, 2020 20:40 - 8 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL