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

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

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

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 04:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 32528
PAGE 4 of 4

Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:04 PM

RIVER6213

I wish I could send your sorry azz to Niska, so he could find out Who You Really Are.

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

Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:14 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverR6213:
I wish I could send your sorry azz to Niska, so he could find out Who You Really Are.

I'm sure you would troll boy, I'm sure you would.

I mean what are you 12? Are you going to sneak into any more threads and post with the single purpose of trying to insult me with an infantile comment?

I mean it's flattering and all but your bizarre attempt at cyber stalking is just getting boring now.

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 4:57 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I mean it's flattering and all but your bizarre attempt at cyber stalking is just getting boring now.

What's this, Citizen? An anti-matter fan you never told us about?

No worries; the rest of us love ya

Now that I think on it, in the theatre there was dead silence when Mal shot that guy, no cheers. We were all shocked as to how cold he'd gotten.
In the deleted scenes he even tells his crew to put Book out in front [of Serenity's nose], that might have been too much, but it did show that he was being hard without discrimination.

Chrisisall with the chills

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

Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:14 PM

INFAMOUSX

All of this is a moot point since Mal had just been told by his enemy that committing massacre to prevent your target from going to ground was justified. There's your rules of war right there. Kudos to Mal for shootin' Mr. Baby Killer out of his big damn ship o' death.

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

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 4:45 AM

CITIZEN

So it's okay for Iraqis to kill American Civilians, remembering that American's are killing Iraqi civilians?

Oh and remember what the Operative says, "I'm a monster, Mal."

So it's right for Mal to become a monster because the Operative started it? The Operative started killing Civillians, so it's the right thing to do for Mal to do the same if they get in his way?

Chris:
Yes, our strange friend above seems to appear out of nowhere, post one short post as an insult (this one was actually quite tame though) and then dissapear.

I keep expecting binoculars on my front lawn...

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 8:24 AM

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
[In the deleted scenes he even tells his crew to put Book out in front [of Serenity's nose], that might have been too much, but it did show that he was being hard without discrimination.

Chrisisall with the chills

I thought this was just out of the outtakes, something Nathan Fillion was saying to be funny, because it's followed shortly thereafter by telling Jayne not to steal too much of their shit. I didn't think this was an actual scene. I could be wrong though.

"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

Monday, January 23, 2006 8:28 AM

BOWIE

(Quote) Mal: "I don't kill children."

When does Mal ever kill Civs? Mal never kills Civs?

Killing Civilians is always wrong. That is, if it happens by accident, the person get in the way of a bullet right as the shooter pulls a trigger and such, thats just unfortunate, but to seek and kill civs is wrong, and Mal doesn't do that.

and that scene is definatly an out take, not a real scene. Mal messes up his line, but instead of stopping he goes into a joke scene. The clue was when you were looking at the botton called Bloopers, not the one labelled deleated scenes.

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

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 10:40 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Bowie:
and that scene is definatly an out take, not a real scene. Mal messes up his line, but instead of stopping he goes into a joke scene.

Ooops!
Thanks for the correction, people.
(It did seem harsh to me, kinda nice to find out I was mistaken)

Standing corrected Chrisisall

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 10:51 AM

JHANCE11

I believe the line settles in right about here. Do you Kill because you can. Do steal because you can.Do you dominate others because you can.

After the Cival War in america there were many southern warriors to took to stealing from northern industrys. Some did it strike back against the north while at the same time taking care of their needs finacially.

In time we have come to realize some did it because they believed they were on the side of right. Some just liked doing it. I have only seen the Movie Serinity and have just now order the first season of firefly. But from what I've seen, Mal and his people believe in what they do and do'nt just do it for the fun.

jhance11

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 11:49 AM

INFAMOUSX

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So it's okay for Iraqis to kill American Civilians, remembering that American's are killing Iraqi civilians?

Oh and remember what the Operative says, "I'm a monster, Mal."

So it's right for Mal to become a monster because the Operative started it? The Operative started killing Civillians, so it's the right thing to do for Mal to do the same if they get in his way?

Heck, if one of the suicide bombers/pilots from 9/11 survivied the attack, would you have condemned onlookers for killing him? Or the bombers in Spain, England, Jordan, or elsewhere? Are civilians truly expected to sit back and calmly consider the legal ramifications while they've just witnessed mass murder?

Baby killers are baby killers, whether they're American or not. The rule of engagement for American soldiers in Iraq is to respond to enemy fire, not instigate it. My friend was in Afghanistan, and was on orders not to fire unless shot at. This resulted in an incident I can't discuss, but clearly displays the different situation soldiers there face, and why the comparison between the two simply doesn't fit.

Mal said you'd see something different when he went to war, and he was then engaged in a war in which the enemy actively kills civilians in mass numbers. It's pretty hard to judge a man in that situation without having been in his shoes.

Besides, the idiot in the Alliance craft shoulda stayed hidden, because the crew certainly weren't military personnel. He shouldn't have expected any type of Geneva convention treatment from civilians who just witnessed the intentional murders of children and a preacher. Definitely a Darwin Award nominee.

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

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:23 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by infamousX:
Heck, if one of the suicide bombers/pilots from 9/11 survivied the attack, would you have condemned onlookers for killing him?

I'm not condemning anyone. Like I've said a number of times through out this thread.
I suspect that you'd condemn an Alliance officer for doing what Mal did though.

Quote:
Or the bombers in Spain, England, Jordan, or elsewhere?

Well if you want to talk about situations that don't fit.

Let's go for a more cogent analogy, German airmen were taken prisoner by British civilians when bombers were shot down during the Blitz AFTER bombing innocent civilians.

Quote:
Are civilians truly expected to sit back and calmly consider the legal ramifications while they've just witnessed mass murder?

Are they supposed to summarily decide in the heat of the moment, who is allowed to live and who is should die?
What if the mob turns on you, what then?

Quote:
The rule of engagement for American soldiers in Iraq is to respond to enemy fire, not instigate it.

Something they ignore on a daily basis. British army units have come under fire from American troops, for instance. Do you think they gave them enemy fire to respond to?

Quote:
but clearly displays the different situation soldiers there face, and why the comparison between the two simply doesn't fit.

Aircraft are being tasked with launching strikes on civilian areas all the time in Iraq. White Phosphorus was deployed in a civilian sector of Fallujah.
During the opening attacks in Baghdad buildings where civilians were hiding were targeted and levelled by missiles and strike aircraft. Civilians are being killed in Iraq; the situations are more similar than you're admitting.

Quote:
Mal said you'd see something different when he went to war, and he was then engaged in a war in which the enemy actively kills civilians in mass numbers. It's pretty hard to judge a man in that situation without having been in his shoes.

Why must I keep repeating myself? I'm not judging him, I said his actions were wrong, that's very different from judging him, you are the one who is judging him by saying that he was right to do what he did.

Quote:
Besides, the idiot in the Alliance craft shoulda stayed hidden, because the crew certainly weren't military personnel. He shouldn't have expected any type of Geneva convention treatment from civilians who just witnessed the intentional murders of children and a preacher. Definitely a Darwin Award nominee.

Firstly he was crawling out of wreckage completely unaware of the crew until just before Mal started shooting.
Secondly if he was unaware who the targets really are he'd have any reason to expect that reaction, how?

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

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:33 PM

QUEENOFTHENORTH

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Something they ignore on a daily basis. British army units have come under fire from American troops, for instance. Do you think they gave them enemy fire to respond to?

Yeah, four Canadian boys were killed by American fire while doing a training exercise in Afghanistan. Not saying that the Americans did it on purpose, but they didn't seem very sorry afterwards. They didn't even apologize to the families of the slain men, which was the least they could do. I mean, I know it was an accident, but they didn't have to take the blame, just say that they were sorry for what happened, and they couldn't even do that. That was what really got me about that one. And you can bet if some Canadian soldiers had accidentally killed Americans, there would have been hell to pay. Just the way the world works I guess.

"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

Monday, January 23, 2006 10:52 PM

INFAMOUSX

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not condemning anyone. Like I've said a number of times through out this thread.
I suspect that you'd condemn an Alliance officer for doing what Mal did though.

Really? You know what I would think now from 2 internet posts?

Quote:
Let's go for a more cogent analogy, German airmen were taken prisoner by British civilians when bombers were shot down during the Blitz AFTER bombing innocent civilians.

Don't people drag effigies with nooses around their necks through the street every year to celebrate the foiling of the gunpowder plot?
The British preferred to bomb at night during world war 2, flying in zig zag patterns, which resulted in an large numbers of civilian casualties. Americans, on the other hand, had the idea to bomb during the daytime while flying in a straight pattern, resulting in more accurate bombing and less civilian deaths. Both sides inflicted intentional civilian casualties in the war, though, anyways.

Quote:
Are they supposed to summarily decide in the heat of the moment, who is allowed to live and who is should die?

What has that got to do with the point of the debate? It's a hypothetical situation, in which the baby-killer is clearly defined.

Quote:
What if the mob turns on you, what then?

If I'm the baby killer, I'd deserve it.

Quote:
Something they ignore on a daily basis. British army units have come under fire from American troops, for instance. Do you think they gave them enemy fire to respond to?

Show me daily reports from credible resources. I'm not saying american troops are infallible, but wild accusations without proof are just that.

Quote:
Aircraft are being tasked with launching strikes on civilian areas all the time in Iraq. White Phosphorus was deployed in a civilian sector of Fallujah.

All the time? Fallujah wasn't attacked for a substantial period of time, the military stayed outside the city in a holding pattern. But then some of them got in trouble when they were pushed in by politicians, who pushed the forces positioned outside to rescue, to which they lost one of their generals in protest.

Quote:
During the opening attacks in Baghdad buildings where civilians were hiding were targeted and levelled by missiles and strike aircraft. Civilians are being killed in Iraq; the situations are more similar than you're admitting.

Civilians weren't targeted on purpose. The civilian casualties caused directly by american fire are less than 1% those caused by the Allies alone in Europe during WW2. However, that being said, if a US soldier showed up at the site of a US bombing with children's bodies lying on the ground, I wouldn't really call a summary execution on the spot wrong. Wrong time to be there.

Quote:
Why must I keep repeating myself? I'm not judging him, I said his actions were wrong, that's very different from judging him, you are the one who is judging him by saying that he was right to do what he did.

Right and Wrong are judgements, dependent upon point of view. There are some basic principles everyone should know, but situations like these aren't as clear.

Quote:
Firstly he was crawling out of wreckage completely unaware of the crew until just before Mal started shooting.
Secondly if he was unaware who the targets really are he'd have any reason to expect that reaction, how?

His awareness on his culpability is in question, and pretty much subjective opinion, but not his awareness of the presence of other people. He raised his hands in surrender, when he coulda ducked back down and hoped noone came to get him. Heck, modern pilots carry sidearms, even. Darwin Award nominee.

I grew up with a childhood friend from Afghanistan, whose father showed us pictures of the resistance against the soviets. So you can imagine my horror at knowing Osama was the obvious suspect, and the realization that my country would go to war there. I was against the Iraqi war. I dont like to get into fights, and I even think sports like boxing are too violent. Just a baseline for my stance on violence here.

That said, had the 9/11 suicide pilots somehow survived and magically arrived in my face, i have no doubt I wouldn't have held back. If someone killed someone I loved, and they were right there when I found out, they'd die if I could kill them. And in that moment, I'd be right. From my perspective.

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Something they ignore on a daily basis. British army units have come under fire from American troops, for instance. Do you think they gave them enemy fire to respond to?

Yeah, four Canadian boys were killed by American fire while doing a training exercise in Afghanistan. Not saying that the Americans did it on purpose, but they didn't seem very sorry afterwards. They didn't even apologize to the families of the slain men, which was the least they could do. I mean, I know it was an accident, but they didn't have to take the blame, just say that they were sorry for what happened, and they couldn't even do that. That was what really got me about that one. And you can bet if some Canadian soldiers had accidentally killed Americans, there would have been hell to pay. Just the way the world works I guess.

"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!

A training exercise is by nature a military engagement, which precludes the shoot first scenario. Americans have killed our own soldiers on accident. The british have, and yes, even Canadians. There were over 1000 during the first Gulf War.

That said, I personally apologize for it. I'm extremely sorry that our neighbors and allies died at American hands. I have nothing but love and respect for Canada, and wished we hadn't started this stupid war since before it began.

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

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

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 2:08 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted infamousX:
Really? You know what I would think now from 2 internet posts? I don't remember making any assumptions about you. Wave good bye to the high ground.

I was making a supposition, and plainly stated it as such. Which means it's not quite as bad as you putting words in my mouth and continually stating that is 'what I said'.

Quote:
Don't people drag effigies with nooses around their necks through the street every year to celebrate the foiling of the gunpowder plot?

No, they don't actually.

Quote:
Didn't the British prefer to bomb at night during world war 2, flying in zig zag patterns, which resulted in an appalling number of civilian casualties. Americans, on the other hand, bombed during the daytime and flew in a straighter pattern, resulting in more accurate bombing and less civilian deaths.

Didn't the Americans have a far larger air force and could afford to lose planes at a ridiculous rate? Oh and I think you’ll find the American air force switched to night bombing and British tactics later on.

Quote:
Don't act like your @#$% dont stink.

And here we go with putting words and intentions in my mouth again. That's a comparable situation no matter which way you cut it, I could easily have said German civilians after the bombing of Dresden, but since I'm British I used an example closer to home.
I'm not saying 'our shit don't stink' mate, I'm stating a fact, one you seem woefully unable to argue against within context, since you dragged up a whole heap of stuff that had nothing to do with the point.

Quote:
I never said they should do that, but then I wouldn't consider them bad people if they just witnessed the murder of children.

Okay I'll repeat myself again, maybe it'll get through to you this time. No. Neither would I. No
I wouldn't think they're bad people. They wouldn't be bad people necessarily. That doesn't make what they do automatically good. That is good people can still do bad things, and the things that they do can still be wrong.

Quote:
If I'm a baby killer, I'd deserve it.

The goodies triumph over the baddies?

Quote:
Show me daily reports from credible resources. Otherwise, nothing more than an empty claim. Woulda been safer to say it happens on occaision.

What like your wholly substantiated claim from 'a friend' which 'you can't talk about'. But since your holding me to a higher standard than yourself here’s a few of the instances that have made the mainstream press:

Quote:
He said: "There was a boy of about 12 years old. He was no more than 20 metres away when the Yank opened up.
"He had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy. There were four or five that I noticed earlier and this one had broken off and was on his own when he attacked us. He'd just gone out on a jolly."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926237,00.html

Quote:
The video graphically illustrates US rules of engagement in practice. Unlike British troops, if the Americans perceive anybody or anything to be a threat it is attacked, particualrly in Fallujah, particularly in April.

http://channel4.co.uk/news/2004/10/week_2/05_iraq.html
I’ve seen that video, there’s no obvious indication of weaponry, and I believe that children were amongst the casualties, so when’s this baby killer going to be brought to justice?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4504589.stm
There's more I've heard that I can't find links for, and more I've seen that isn't in the news.

Beyond that you know I can't show you daily reports, because they're military reports, not publicly released. If you think the rules of engagement are being rigorously enforced you need to learn some more.

Quote:
All the time? Fallujah wasn't attacked for a substantial period of time, the military stayed outside the city in a holding pattern. But then some of them got in trouble, and the politicians pushed them in, to which they lost one of their best generals in protest. Half truths seems to be your forte.

And arguing side issues rather than the point and missing the main point entirely seems to be yours. You've not quite grasped the concept of an example now have you?
White Phosphorus was deployed in an illegal manner, against civilian areas of a city, but it is also illegal for use against military personnel.
I’m interested to hear your reasoning as to how the reasons forces went into the city (despite the fact they were always going to enter Fallujah, actually) changes the illegal use of White Phosphorus in civilian sectors in anyway.

Quote:
Civilians weren't targeted on purpose.

How do you know that? I want credible sources, not press releases mind; I want the military sources that give the targeting priorities.

Quote:
The civilian casualties caused directly by american fire are much lower in comparison to all previous wars.

Rough estimates of total casualties in Iraq: 320,000. Estimates of civilian casualties: 100,000. That's a ratio of civilian casualties of roughly 31%. The First World War had a civilian casualty ratio of 5%.
The rest I suspect is based on some spin-doctor report you've decided to take as gospel.

Quote:
However, that being said, if a US soldier showed up at the site of a bombing with children's bodies lying on the ground, I wouldn't condemn or judge the people dragging him through the streets as doing something inherently bad or evil. It'd be a normal human reaction.

So by you're standards there is no right and wrong, it's a normal Human reaction to follow orders under military circumstances, that's how militaries work. So how can you condemn that Alliance officer?
Just to go back in time a bit:

Quote:
Mal said you'd see something different when he went to war, and he was then engaged in a war in which the enemy actively kills civilians in mass numbers. It's pretty hard to judge a man in that situation without having been in his shoes.

We can’t judge Mal, because we’re not in his shoes, but its fine to judge the Alliance Officer even though we’re not in his shoes, because he’s on the other side I guess, must be evil.

Quote:
Oh, you are. Equating him with someone who just killed children for shooting the baby killer is just that. Judgement.

I didn't do that. The closest I came was in taking someone else’s argument to its logical conclusion.
You're throwing around the baby killer label around as if he walked up to children and pulled the trigger with a gun to their head.

Quote:
I will not intentionally kill civilians to make a point, nor will most people. I suspect thats the same difference between Mal and the man he shot.

No, that's the difference between the operative and Mal. The only difference we can be certain about is that the officer had his hands up and Mal had a gun in his.

Quote:
He had enough time to put his hands up, and was visible on screen for longer than you'd like to admit.

Not really, it's about fifteen seconds, if that, for most of which he's probably quite disoriented. He's just survived an air crash you know.

Quote:
Hold on there, you just said it was a training exercise. That means military engagement, which precludes the shoot first scenario.

Yeah, it means the 'you don't shoot the other troops dead' scenario.
But actually in that incident it was the Canadians who were on live fire training near Kandahar, no US personnel were involved in the exercise. A US Jet dropped bombs on them, despite the training exercise being well publicised and taking place within a well known training area.

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

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 2:32 AM

INFAMOUSX

I began to edit my comments before you posted your response, because they were written in the heat of emotion. However, you started to write your reply before then, as the time stamps will indicate. So, I now direct you to the post above yours for reply.

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

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

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:32 AM

CITIZEN

I'll re-read over your post and edit mine acordingly as I get time, probably later today.

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

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:32 AM

TOMSIMPSONAZ

America meddles.....we were the ones that put saddam in power in the first place.

Alliance = America

Mal isn't a cop or judge dredd, he is a citizen. Did you see him shooting folks for lynching Simon and River? No, that is their lifestyle on their little moon, so he just left them there. He will only intervene when someone's rights are infringed upon...like Saffron, till she suckered him.

Libertarian Celebrities: See if your favorite people are libertarian
http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html

I am libertarian, click here for a brief summary of how I feel on our country's major political issues
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE