*SPOILERS* The shot that killed My Love for Anime

[xXPainful SmilexX]

Ha! You wish!

What. It's true, you *****.

I didn't find it anywhere, I decreed it.

Then it MUST be true.

This fact proves that Euphemia is good enough and more than good enough to be trusted with military and political power -- the only Code Geass character who is good enough to be trusted with a command. Thus she is the only character in the series worthy of being a protagonist that the audience cares about.

She actually didn't send them because her sister ordered her not to.

The idea of making a series about characters like Lelouch, second-season Suzaku, CC, Kallen, Nunnally, Rollo, Cornelia, Charles, Schneitzel, Kaguya, etc., etc., who don't care if they kill a lot more people than they have to to achieve their goals, and having the audience care about most of them, is disgusting to me.

I can admit that Lelouch does some evil stuff, but nothing to bad. Suzazku isn't any different in season 2 really. How exactly is CC evil? And Kallen, what does she do? And Nunnally? And Kaguya? She isn't even evil, she's just a kid.
The reason that disgusts you is because you're a hopeless idiot.

He uses F.R.E.I.J.A. to destroy much of Tokyo and kill millions of Britannians and Japanese, in episode 18 of R2, I've heard.

If you'd actually seen that, you'd know it was because of the Live On geass.

Towards the end he works with Lelouch and does nothing to prevent the evils that Lelouch does in order to become universally hated. Unless Lelouch can use geass on everyone using television, he would have to kill hundreds of millions of people to become universally hated for the Zero Requiem.

Besides killing terrorist, he mostly just threatens them and controls them. He ddoesn't go massacre civilians.

Now do you see what I am trying to say?I suppose the survivors of the people that Suzaku let Lelouch kill will not be very pleased by the idea that Suzaku only did so in order to have a chance to kill Lelouch and thus avenge those Lelouch killed as part of the Zero Requiem. I'm sure the survivors would rather have their loved ones alive and thus have no need to be avenged.

Excuse me, they did it to save the world. Who cares about the innocent people involved?

Now do you see what I am trying to say?

Nope, still dumb to me.

Goro Taniguchi and Ichiro Okouchi have pushed on thousand and millions of persons the idea that someone can kill people he clearly sees that he does not have to kill and still be worth liking. An idea which I find disgusting and dangerous.

No they did not. They just wrote the story. They didn't say you HAD to agree or that the people who thought otherwise were wrong.

So you can have the pleasure of enjoying Code Geass without thinking about how evil its ideas are?

I sure can.

I can't stop thinking about Euphemia's murder,

No, I should write professionally and get paid for it, as partial compensation for the suffering that Code Geass has caused me.

Considering that I have proven that the massacre did not make it necessary for Lelouch to kill Euphemia and it was still necessary for Lelouch to keep her alive for his plans to have any chance of working, it seems really pessimistic for you to imagine that Euphemia would be killed a lot in alternate universes in which the massacre, the poor excuse for killing her, does not take place.

Well depression will make you pessimistic. I never said there was no massacre.
Lelouch agreed to help the SAZ, and he didn't end up using Geass on her. However, she said the word "Lelouch" too loudly once. And of course, VV hears this and decides that Lelouch being alive would complicate things.
So without speaking with Charles, he explains to the Black Knights that Zero was a prince. Afterward, they get furious, think the SAZ was a plan by the empire, so they decide to kill Zero, who is in the SAZ.
When they attack, the military, without Cornelia to direct them(And since Euphy is not a good military leader.) panics and starts a war with the Black Knights. Lelouch panics, but Euphy drags him and Suzaku to safety and tells them to wait for Corenelia. Suzaku says that he'll protect them in the Lancelot and leaves. Lelouch tries to comfort Euphy, and she pretends to be calm.
However, the Black Knights come in, and they're following Diethard's orders. They try to kill Lelouch, buyt Euphy saves him,. getting shot in the process.

That's just one of them.

I think that this was just a cheap trick by the creators to fool the viewers into not realizing how evil Euphemia's murder was.

Well then you're an idiot.

Sarcasm.

No...

[wolfgirl90]

Again proEuphie, for the sake of argument (and because I admittedly have nothing else better to do, just getting off work and all), I am going to condense some things since you are having problems understanding.

"Euphemia died. I'm upset." Okay there. There's your argument.
"Euphemia died. You're upset. So what?" There's my argument.

I agree that Euphemia was a naive, innocent person with a kind, (sickeningly) sweet, and gentle personality. I also agree that her death was shocking (actually only the circumstances of her death was "shocking" to me; its no coincidence when a character named after a martyr dies, its just not). So I understand if a Euphemia fan got upset over her death. Makes perfect sense. Happens all the time. Not a problem to me. I believed you had a valid argument to address that made sense (for the most part) to anyone who had seen the series.

HOWEVER proEuphie (and I shouldn't have to keep saying this), but you are presenting your argument the WRONG way. First off, ranting with no clear logic for months on end will not garner respect for you (I can tell by your rep points that its not working and you have been here for over a year). You may not care what other people say about you (I don't know if you are really trying to be a troll or not, but you are REALLY acting like one), but so long as nobody cares, you are accomplishing nothing, valid argument or not. Second, I may not be able to speak for everybody, but what are some things have you done to me since we met? Let's see:
-Called me out three times for nothing (once after me specifically telling you NOT to)
-Called my morals into question (because I don't agree with you on a freaking cartoon)
-Implied that I should be murdered (twice)
-Implied that I would be more likely to kill someone than the average person
So its no wonder why I do not take you seriously and why I treat you the way I do. I don't care anymore (and I am not the only one who feels this way).

So, I know your position on this; WE ALL DO. And we have known for months. What is your point, exactly (please confine point to about three paragraphs)?

There is nothing I can do about Euphemia's death (there is nothing I WANT to do about Euphemia's death; at this point, I personally do not care). There is nothing ANYONE HERE can do about her death. Is there something you want us to do? Is that why you have been ranting for a year?

[proEuphie]

She actually didn't send them because her sister ordered her not to.

I quote my post # 344:

No, try again. Euphemia didn't move because of the field hospital that was ahead, the fact that the G-1 was basically the command center AND because HER SISTER told her NOT TO MOVE. Civilians were never part of the equation. By participating in the battle, instead of outright protesting it (and she wasn't dragged along; she volunteered to be there), she has a hand in every death (civilian or otherwise) that occurred because of Britannia.

How do you know there was a field hospital ahead (and not inside the G1 as you used to say)? Because Euphemia said so, citing it as a reason not to move the G1. In the SAME sentence where she said that the civilians had been evacuated to the area ahead of the G1, citing it as another reason not to move the G1, and MAKING THE CIVILIANS PART OF THE EQUATION. After giving the reasons that she cared about, she then added that Cornelia had ordered her not to move the G1, remembering that military officers were much less willing to disobey orders than civilians. (And considering how often military officers disobey orders, there is no reason to believe that a civilian like Euphemia would consider Cornelia's orders more sacred than Cornelia's life.)

I say that by being at Narita to prevent Cornelia from committing any massacres and slaughters Euphemia had a hand in preventing every excessive death that did not happen there, and gave life to everyone (civilian or otherwise) who otherwise would have been massacred by Cornelia's orders.

According to your (wolfgirl90) standards, by joining the US military you (wolfgirl90) have had a hand in every death in the past, the present, and the future, happening because of the US -- including hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in war crimes in 1945.

I can admit that Lelouch does some evil stuff, but nothing to bad. Suzazku isn't any different in season 2 really. How exactly is CC evil? And Kallen, what does she do? And Nunnally? And Kaguya? She isn't even evil, she's just a kid.
The reason that disgusts you is because you're a hopeless idiot.

How can you say that killing Euphemia was not to bad? how can the deliberate and senseless murder of someone who he could have captured alive easily be not to bad? And what about the geass directorate massacre which Lelouch ordered of his own free will? How can that be not too bad? That was just as terrible as the Fuji massacre which Euphemia ordered when the geass command forced her to. If Euphemia was too dangerous to live, Lelouch was even more so. To say nothing of suzaku who you say was forced by a geass command to kill millions and might be forced again to do so.

CC helps Lelouch murder Euphemia, a girl much less than a thirtieth of her age, when she knows that Euphemia is innocent. That is like you murdering a baby. And she helps Lelouch with the geass directorate massacre, I hear.

Kallen is a rebel! And her group is described as terrorists in the first episode. All terrorists are evil. And she is very much like a serial killer, pretending to be an innocent school girl by day and sneaking out at night to fight and kill Britannians. She does that to feel powerful and in control of her destiny, just like serial killers kill people to feel powerful and in control of their destinies. Kallen's group had no plan or realistic hope of success until the totally unexpected and unpredictable sinister miracle of destruction which gave Lelouch a geass power and connected him with them. They were just killing for emotional satisfaction.

And later Kallen may have participated the geass directorate massacre, too.

I have read that in the second season Nunnally unleashes F.R.E.I.J.A several times, killing thousands or millions of people. One reason I don't want to watch the second season is that I liked Nunnaly and thought she was innocent in the first season. If I watch the second season I will probably be forced to believe that Nunnally was an evil mass murderer for using F.R.E.I.J.A., while now I still have a tiny hope that someone she might be innocent of mass murder.

Possibly Nunnally did it in what I would call a good cause, such as conquering the world to end independent nations forever and thus put an end to war forever. But Britannia had seemed to be well on its way to conquering the world without using F.R.E.I.J.A., so Nunnally may have slaughtered millions without a sufficient reason.

You say that Kaguya was not evil, she was just a kid. In the second season Kaguya was the same age as Nunnally the mass murderer and just two years younger than Euphemia was when killed. If there was even the slightest justification for killing Euphemia, then maybe Kaguya was old enough to be executed if she did something evil. Of course I believe there was not the slightest justification for killing Euphemia, in part because of Euphemia's youth, so I would not want to execute Kaguya, merely imprison her.

But Kaguya was a rebel leader, and in the first season she was a nominal leader of the Kyoto Group, an organization which supported various rebel groups. Some of those rebel groups were terrorists and thus evil. An organization which supports terrorists is evil. Unless you can quote some dialog in which Kaguya tried to get the Kyoto Group to stop supporting terrorists I consider her to be evil.

If you'd actually seen that, you'd know it was because of the Live On geass.

I remember reading an online discussion in which someone was trying to convince his readers that Suzaku was not evil because he was controlled by his life one geass when he slaughtered millions. This proves that it is not obvious that Suzaku was controlled by the geass, that it was a subject of controversy at the time the post was written. Thus it is possible that if I did watch R2 I would not see any proof or strong evidence that Suzaku was controlled by his live on geass when he killed millions.

That geass seems to be a strictly one time affair in the first season. It seems to me that it returned to affect Suzaku in the second season because of the analogy with Euphemia's similarly vague geass command which the the audience otherwise might expect would have worn out in a day or so, and to make Suzaku innocent of killing millions. I am a little surprised that all the fans didn't say that Suzaku should have been killed anyway because he was a warrior with access to deadly weapons of mass destruction who had already used one when his survival geass activated when he was pushed into a corner, and thus he was too dangerous to live.

Besides killing terrorist, he mostly just threatens them and controls them. He ddoesn't go massacre civilians.

Is that how Lelouch gathers all the hatred in the world to himself? Using his geass on people though television would be the best way to get everyone in the world to hate him. But I don't think that would work. If so, then Lelouch had to do evil deeds to make himself hated by everyone.

In medieval times Genghis Khan and Tamerlane slaughtered millions in their massacres. In the Twentieth Century Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao each slaughtered millions and tens of millions of people. And each of them died.

And guess what, wars and violence did not die with them. And there was no vanishing of hatred when they died either.

So Lelouch would have to kill many times as many people as any of them had killed n order to become universally hated and draw all the hatred in the world to himself and for the Zero Requiem to have even the slightest chance of success.

And that should mean killing hundreds of millions of people.

To get the most hatred for the least amount of killing, Lelouch should not massacre entire groups of people, leaving few survivors to hate him, but should kill people uniformly distribted among the population of the world. That way most of his victims would be survived by tens or hundreds or thousands of friends, relatives, coworkers, etc. who would hate the evil Emperor Lelouch.

Assume that the world's population is two billion to ten billion. If killing one person out of a thousand would be sufficient Lelouch would have to kill about two million to ten million people. If killing one person out of a hundred would be sufficient Lelouch would have to kill about twenty million to one hundred million people, if killing one person out of ten was sufficient Lelouch would have to kill two hundred million to one billion people.

If it was not possible for Lelouch to use his geass on everyone via television, and if Lelouch was not seen having one person out of very thousand, or one person out of very hundred, or even one person out of every ten, killed, how could the evil Emperor Lelouch become hated so much more than Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao that everyone in the world would hate him and hatred would die with him?

Unless Lelouch and Suzaku and the Black Knights killed tens or hundreds of millions of people to make the Evil Emperor Lelouch universally hated, I don't see how he could possibly have gained enough hatred for the Zero Requiem to work. And I don't see how anyone could justify executing so many people because of a wacky theory that making one person universally hated would free the world of hatred and thus of war (actually hatred is more a result of war than an cause of it) when it would have been just as practical to simply administer the world justly and kindly and work to educate people out of their old national antagonisms.

Excuse me, they did it to save the world. Who cares about the innocent people involved?

I do. And of course the survivors of the innocent people killed cared.

They had a better alternative. Simply rule the world kindly and justly and humanely and give the people of the various regions and former independent nations a lot of freedom but absolutely no power to have any kind of military. And defeat all rebellions which did happen with negotiation, concessions, or ruthless force, depending on the circumstances. And that might kill a lot less people, and over a much longer span of time, and many of those people killed might have been rebels who chose to risk their lives instead of victims selected for execution.

And they did not save the world. Wars are a result of the existence of independent nations with the power to make war on other independent governments. Wolfgirl90 and I agree that there will be no peace as long as independent nations continue to function. Where we disagree is that woldgirl90 believes there always will be independent governments and nations and there always should be nations,and thus there always will be and always should be war, while I believe that the life of even a single innocent child is worth more than the independence of all the nations that were, are, or will be, and that giving up independent governments for the sake of peace is necessary.

I think that the whole concept of the Zero Requiem is nonsense designed to give the audience a feeling that all the horror and suffering and death and destruction was worth watching since there was a happy ending of sorts.

Nope, still dumb to me.

No they did not. They just wrote the story. They didn't say you HAD to agree or that the people who thought otherwise were wrong.

They wrote a story in which the viewers came to know and like Lelouch and other characters over several episodes and then made Lelouch and other characters do terrible, evil things. Unlike me, almost everyone in the audience continued to like Lelouch after the geass directorate massacre, after he senselessly killed Euphie, after he murdered the JLF leaders, after he unleashed a landslide on Britannians, JLf, and the town of Narita, and after he murdered Clovis who was begging for mercy.

If they expected that everyone in the audience would come to hate Lelouch they must have been surprised by all the people who said that they wee saddened by Lelouch's death.

I sure can.

[/COLOR]






Well depression will make you pessimistic. I never said there was no massacre.
Lelouch agreed to help the SAZ, and he didn't end up using Geass on her. However, she said the word "Lelouch" too loudly once. And of course, VV hears this and decides that Lelouch being alive would complicate things.
So without speaking with Charles, he explains to the Black Knights that Zero was a prince. Afterward, they get furious, think the SAZ was a plan by the empire, so they decide to kill Zero, who is in the SAZ.
When they attack, the military, without Cornelia to direct them(And since Euphy is not a good military leader.) panics and starts a war with the Black Knights. Lelouch panics, but Euphy drags him and Suzaku to safety and tells them to wait for Corenelia. Suzaku says that he'll protect them in the Lancelot and leaves. Lelouch tries to comfort Euphy, and she pretends to be calm.
However, the Black Knights come in, and they're following Diethard's orders. They try to kill Lelouch, buyt Euphy saves him,. getting shot in the process.

That's just one of them.[/quote]

Well then you're an idiot.

[/COLOR]

No...

[/quote]

[kimi no kioku]

I remember reading an online discussion in which someone was trying to convince his readers that Suzaku was not evil because he was controlled by his life one geass when he slaughtered millions. This proves that it is not obvious that Suzaku was controled by the geass, that it was a subject of controversy at the time the post was written.

Actually, it is obvious. He's getting beat by Kallen and he says "This is atonement." Then, all of a sudden, his eyes get the red glow and he says, "I must live!" A fires it.

Thus it is possible that if I did watch R2 I would not see that Suzaku was controlled by his live on geass when he killed millions.

It is possible, but you'd have to be a blind idiot.

[Hollow Lelouch]

I think she is closer to the Artificially Intelligent Data Anomaly (AIDA).

Nah. Cubia was Kite's shadow, and whatever he believed or wanted, Cubia wanted or believed the opposite. Kite wanted to destroy The Wave, so Cubia wanted to protect them. Kite wanted to talk to Aura, So Cubia never gave him a chance. Kite wanted to save the coma victims, so I think you get the picture.

AIDA was fragments of Morganna's data that wanted to fuse with the Epitaphs so she could come back to life, and be God again. Although, if you were infected with AIDA, it did make you take the game, (Something that does not matter.) too seriously, and make you completely freaking insane, so I guess I see your point there.
Also, on a side note, Would Proeuphy think that Ovan was evil for

 

Killing Aina?

Or was Haseo evil for beating Sakaki, which ended in

 

Azure kite putting him into a coma,

and he was like ten, so it was unjust to

 

be rid of that psycho?

Also, after reading your whole post that was directed at me, proeuphy, playing the pity card isn't going to make me agree with you. Imagine being alive, but dead at the same time, like if the anesthetic you got was too strong, and you went into a coma. Then, picture there was no apparent way you would ever wake up with current medical science. Would it be murder to pull the plug on you?
Also, on the subject of .Hack, you should watch the animes, and play the games. You'd love it. There are over ten series of it, and (As far as I've seen, I haven't read the novels.) only two people actually die, and one of them dies before .Hack\\SIGN (The first in the .Hack timeline.)
Give it a try, then get back to me.
(I'm attempting to be nice, even though you insulted me.))

[wolfgirl90]

How do you know there was a field hospital ahead (and not inside the G1 as you used to say)?

Eh...I don't care anymore.

According to your (wolfgirl90) standards, by joining the US military you (wolfgirl90) have had a hand in every death in the past, the present, and the future, happening because of the US -- including hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in war crimes in 1945.

Again, I do not assign guilt by association. YOU do, which was my point. Since I do not assign guilt by association, your point is moot. Also, keep bringing that up and I will be sure to report it. One thing I do not tolerate is the use of such tragedies to prove a point about a FREAKING cartoon. Keep it up. My treatment of you can get worse. Ask Mavericker, it can get worse.

How can you say that killing Euphemia was not to bad?

Personally, one's feelings toward Euphemia (and Lelouch) and their overall feelings of the situation will determine if they thought her death was "bad" or not. For example, despite your "every-second-of-every-life-is-precious" philosophy, you let Lelouch get away with murder again and again and again and again and again. Not all of his killings had justification to them, so there is really no excusing them if one has that philosophy (that says something about you). You only really cared about Euphemia AFTER she died and I suspect that you only cared because a person LIKE Euphemia died, rather than the death of the character in and of itself.

Conversely, I do not care about Euphemia's death. First, I knew she was going to die. Simple as that. Second, your constant whining about it has made me care less and less about her death.

They were just killing for emotional satisfaction.

Well...that. And because they were fighting for the freedom of their country. Freedom that was stripped away from them when a military superpower run by an absolute monarchy and fueled by Social Darwinism decided to invade the hell out of their country to cull out the weak, ruled by a man who believed that internal struggle and military conquest were the only ways to facilitate human evolution and that Ten Commandments-esque ideology and morality was counter-productive.

Unless you can quote some dialog in which Kaguya tried to get the Kyoto Group to stop supporting terrorists I consider her to be evil.

Conversely, unless you ALSO have dialogue to prove that she IS evil (which should have done anyway, but whatever), then I can't think of her that way.

Anyway, Kaguya, like Euphemia, didn't not wholly support the actions of the Six Houses of Kyoto (or Kyoto House...let's learn the proper names of the organizations that we are bashing, shall we?). She understood the rebellions but did not support the actions that some of those rebel groups took. Of course, ALSO like Euphemia, she didn't separate from the group, so let's not point fingers.

Wolfgirl90 and I agree that there will be no peace as long as independent nations continue to function.

Pardon? You are mistaken on that.

Where we disagree is that woldgirl90 believes there always will be independent governments and nations and there always should be nations,and thus there always will be and always should be war, while I believe that the life of even a single innocent child is worth more than the independence of all the nations that were, are, or will be, and that giving up independent governments for the sake of peace is necessary.

Wow, do you have it wrong. My stance is that so long as there are cultural differences, we are going to have divides. This is not a bad thing, so long as one is not ignorant of the existance of other cultures, their distinct customs and traditions, and gives those cultures due respect. THEN we can live together. When you decide to cause war and conflict for NO OTHER REASON other than "peace" (which may have existed anyway), to destroy another country's culture just so that we can all be the same, THEN that's a problem and that's the divide we have.

I do not believe a country should invade another country (or countries) just to prevent conflict (it hasn't worked before and its not going to work again), conflict that may or may not have been in existence in the first place.

Of course, why are we discussing this? Do you not care about this thread anymore? I mean, I know I don't.

AIDA was fragments of Morganna's data that wanted to fuse with the Epitaphs so she could come back to life, and be God again. Although, if you were infected with AIDA, it did make you take the game, (Something that does not matter.) too seriously, and make you completely freaking insane, so I guess I see your point there.

Yeah, the comas and insanity (oh, the insanity) were what I was getting at.

[proEuphie]

Also, on a side note, Would Proeuphy think that Ovan was evil for

 

Killing Aina?

Or was Haseo evil for beating Sakaki, which ended in

 

Azure kite putting him into a coma,

and he was like ten, so it was unjust to

 

be rid of that psycho?

Well, whenever I see fictional person A kill fictional person B without having seen what went before I tend to give person B the benefit of the doubt and believe that person B was a good person who was murdered by person A. If I was ever on a jury in a murder trial I would have to at least try to consider the defendant innocent until and unless proven guilty, but in fiction I would consider the person who killed guilty until and unless extenuating evidence turned up. So I say that I would probably consider Ovan, whoever he was, evil for killing Aina if I knew the facts in the case.

Also, after reading your whole post that was directed at me, proeuphy, playing the pity card isn't going to make me agree with you.

I wasn't paying the pity card. I speculated that my unhappiness might have been the result of pain from an operation, but I think I made it clear that I don't know if I was feeling any pain and was not claiming that I was in agony or anything. In fact, my point was that the night seemed endless to me, and in my imagination it almost seems possible that all my life since then was merely a brief dream and I might wake up to find myself back in that hospital bed.

I wrote that thousands, and millions, and billions, of men, and women, and children, have suffered pain and unhappiness tens of times, and hundreds of times, and thousands, of times, as intense as I did, and not for a night, but for days, weeks, months, years, or decades, before dying, or killing themselves, or being killed to put them out of their misery, or getting better and living happier lives.

Imagine being alive, but dead at the same time, like if the anesthetic you got was too strong, and you went into a coma. Then, picture there was no apparent way you would ever wake up with current medical science. Would it be murder to pull the plug on you?

Yes.

As long as I was in a coma I would not be suffering any humiliation, shame, or discomfort, being unconscious. If I died in the coma I would not be any worse off than if the pug had been pulled at the beginning. If I woke up from the coma after weeks, or months, or years, or possibly even decades, it would seem like I had drifted off to sleep and then gradually awoke after an unusually dreamless night. And I would try to live my life as best as I could despite having been unconscious for so long.

I say that I would have nothing to gain and possibly something to lose if someone pulled the plug to put me out of his misery merely because medical science at the time had no way to force me out of the coma and back to consciousness.

Saying that a real or fictional person would be better off dead may make grammatical sense but it makes no logical sense.

Also, on the subject of .Hack, you should watch the animes, and play the games. You'd love it. There are over ten series of it, and (As far as I've seen, I haven't read the novels.) only two people actually die, and one of them dies before .Hack\\SIGN (The first in the .Hack timeline.)
Give it a try, then get back to me.
(I'm attempting to be nice, even though you insulted me.))

Thank you. I have seen .Hack//Sign and .Hack//Legend of the Twilight, and judging by how much I liked them, I am sure you are trying to be nice and not malicious. (I suspect the person who advised me to watch Gundam 00 because "nobody gets killed in it" might have been malicious).

[proEuphie]

I guess it depends on the cartoon/comic then
but from my experience it rarely (If ever) happens

Check out this article on Professor Moriarty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Moriarty

In Without a Clue(1988) Moriarty is apparently blown up.
In The adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939) Holmes throws an unconscious Moriarty off the Tower of London. Which seems like murder to me.
in Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1943) Professor Moriarty falls sixty feet into the sewers.
in The Woman in Green Professor Moriarty falls of a high building when a drain pipe that he is clutching onto breaks.

The last two movies were part of the same series so apparently they took place in alternate universes within a bigger fictional universe.

In the canonical Holmes stories there are inconsistencies which suggest that some take place in alternate universes to others.

Holmes supposedly learned about Moriarty just a few months before they apparently fell to their deaths at Reichenbach Falls according to "The Final Problem". In "The Empty House" Watson learns that Hlmes is alive and only Moriarty fell to his death.

But in The Valley of Fear Moriarty is alive and a Scotland Yard inspector says that Holmes has been trying for years to convince them that Moriarty is a criminal mastermind. That puts the novel in an alternate universe to "The Final Problem" and "the Empty House".

Don't forget the part about bringing blance to the force yadda yadda
Remember he was the chosen one

[Your movie idea was terrible and so deleted]

So you prefer to see story where a planet with billions of civilians gets blown up and then a planet with a few thousand warriors on it saved?

lol at petty insults

Good for you! That's the spirit! You may be misguided about some things but at least you are not quick to anger.

bit late for that init?

Why? Was there a statute of limitations for mass murder, or did the Jedi have a rule against treating anyone for something which happened more than a few weeks ago? My point is that if Annakin had sought psychiatric treatment for his crime he might not have betrayed the Jedi and turned into Darth Vader and might not have massacred more children in the Jedi Temple and might not have helped the Death Star blow up billions of people on Alderaan.

Not being forced into it by circumstances?
how was he not?

Annakin Skywalker massacred the group of Sand People after his mother's death, to get revenge. He had the physical power to just walk away. he had the physical power to organize a posse to arrest the Sand People and try them for murder and execute or imprison those who were found guilty. In his fury he chose to massacre all of them including the innocent children. He was not forced to massacre them. He didn't have to choose between killing those Sand People and letting other people die.

ahahahahahaha
seriously?
so you think that in a war it is the pacifists you want in charge?

Any person who is patriotic would want the pacifists in charge of the other side's forces, wouldn't they? And anyone who cared about the good of the world would want pacifists in charge of both sides during a war, wouldn't they?

What about others?
The ones fighting to save their homeland no matter the cost
the ones caring about all of the elevens and trying to set them free?
Why do they not count?

No, It is evil to fight for any cause no matter the cost. No one has the authority to endanger, for his purposes, the lives of countless strangers who have not chosen to fight in the conflict.

That is why Euphemia refused to do what she desperately wanted to do and charge ahead to try to save Cornelia. Euphemia knew that the lives of thousands of strangers were worth more than her personal desire to save her sister. Euphemia knew that she didn't have the ethical authority to chose an increased risk of death for those who had not chosen to take part in the fighting.

And if the rebels really cared about the elevens perhaps they would not fight to set them free. Remember there are two kinds of freedom, freedom to, and freedom from. Giving people too much freedom to can reduce their freedom from. And giving institutions with a record of doing evil deeds too much freedom to do what they want, no matter how evil, takes away the rights of living people to have freedom from death, freedom from injury, freedom from destruction of property, freedom from fear, freedom from being drafted and forced to fight and die, etc. etc.

Evey nation and every independent government has a record of behaving like a psychopath, sometimes going to war and taking away freedom from fear, and death, and injury, and sorrow, from its people and the people of other lands. If you give freedom and independence to a national government you enslave the people of the land to it and take away their freedom from fear, death, injury, and sorrow.

When Britannia conquered Japan it took away freedom from oppression from the Japanese but gave them freedom from their previous slavery to the independent Japanese government and thus restored their freedom from fear, freedom from death, freedom from injury, freedom from sorrow, so long as there were no rebellions. The rebels sought to give back independence to Japan and so re enslave the Japanese to their nation, given them freedom from oppression but taking away their freedom from fear, freedom from death, freedom from sorrow.

But Euphemia sought to give the Japanese what the rebels promised, freedom from oppression, and also what Britannia had given them by freeing them from the curse of an independent national government, freedom from fear, freedom from injury, freedom from death, freedom from sorrow.

That is one reason why the rebels do not count. Their goals were more evil and less good than Euphemia's goals.

But I said that Euphemia refused to do anything even slightly evil such as risking the possibility that her actions might (not certainly, might) endanger civilians, even when it meant not doing what she desperately wanted to do for personal reasons. Euphemia was the only character in Code Geass who showed that it was safe for the world as a whole for her to be in command of military operations. Many other characters proved that it was not safe for the world for them to have any command authority.

And thee is no evidence that any of the rebel characters ever had any problem with fighting for the same cause as various terrorists groups. And thus they apparently did nothing to change the tactics of the terrorist groups on their side. And thus the rebels were all as evil as the worst of the terrorists on their side.

That is another reason why the rebels don't count.

this has to be the most epic quote ever
most peaceful way possible
beautiful just beautiful

depends how you define better?

 

in Tengen Toppa Gurrenn Lagann they massacred the beastmen to free humanity

it was a good excuse (even if it turned out to be later a bad idea)

No it wasn't. By definition, if they massacred the beastmen they had the power to not massacre them, to defeat them without massacring them. Thus they could have freed Humanity without massacring the beastmen and thus massacring the beastmen was an evil mass murder without any reason. No cause, however good, can ever justify unnecessary violence such as massacres.

Euphemia's massacre at Fuji was totally unnecessary. But she believed that it was somehow necessary, like those who ordered thousands of other massacres. But unlike other real or fictional people who ordered massacres, Euphemia did not come to believe it was necessary by accepting the evil ideas of her society, or by rejecting the good ideas of her society, or by listening to someone who appealed to her darker emotions, or reading an evil political essay, or any of the other ways which other people come to accept evil ideas at least partially of their own free will. Instead she was given a supernatural command to order a massacre against her wishes which she resisted as much as she could. Thus she has a much better excuse than the characters you mention.

yes
but in a WAR ANIME people tend to.......you know...die and get killed and kill others even.

Yes. But some characters only kill when it is justified, and others don't a care how many people they kill as long as they win. Characters in the second group are evil and it is wrong to make the audience have any sympathy for them.

I don't know who allelujah is (Didn't bother reading that part)

but what lelouch did is peanuts compared to many characters

If so those other characters must be very evil since what Lelouch did is enough to make him very evil.

[proEuphie]

I don't know how to delete this post.

[Hollow Lelouch]

Thank you. I have seen .Hack//Sign and .Hack//Legend of the Twilight, and judging by how much I liked them, I am sure you are trying to be nice and not malicious. (I suspect the person who advised me to watch Gundam 00 because "nobody gets killed in it" might have been malicious).

Yeah, they most likely were. There's an episode of season 2 where 3 characters die at once. As for .Hack, Try the books, games, and the other anime. The main characters are usually good (Save for Haseo, but he's more of a jerk than actually evil. GU is entirely him becoming a good person.)
Just stay away from LINKS. It has a... Horrible plot twist that proves it's a bad fanfic.

As for Euphy; I agree with you in some ways. I wish Euphy didn't have to die, but she did. I can't do anything about it. (Well, except continuing Eucalyptus of The Revelation. She comes back in it.)
Also, I'm very sorry if I belittled something really terrible that happened to you. Something very similar happened to someone I love, and my comments may have been insensitive, and if I crossed the line, I apologize. I have a bad habit of doing that.

[MangaFanGuy]

Check out this article on Professor Moriarty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Moriarty

I never read Sherlock holmes
plus it isn't a comic/cartoon so is hardly relevant to my point

So you prefer to see a planet with billions of civilians get blown up and then a planet with a few thousand warriors on it saved?

Yep
cos it was interesting

Good for you! That's the spirit! You may be misguided about some things but at least you are not quick to anger.

Again with the petty insults
Why you gotta be hatin me

Why? Was there a statute of limitations for mass murder, or did the Jedi have a rule against treating anyone for something which happened more than a few weeks ago? My point is that if Annakin had sought psychiatric treatment for his crime he might not have betrayed the Jedi and turned into Darth Vader and might not have massacred more children in the Jedi Temple and might not have helped the death Star blow up billions of people on Alderaan.

Might
but probably not
The point was that at that point he was consumed by the dark side
he was betrayed by his emotions and became pretty irrational

In his fury he chose to massacre all of them including the innocent children. he was not forced to massacre them.

However if you take both his mental and emotional states into account he was exssentially crazy and psychotic at the time (Not to mention corrupted by the will of Palpatine)

Any person who is patriotic would want the pacifists in charge of the other side's forces, wouldn't they?

Possibly
Actually I would want a psycho
Someone who can easily be made to do stupid things and lose all control

And anyone who cared about the good of the world would want pacifists in charge of both sides during a war, wouldn't they?

Not my side
If I was in a war I would want the person who could win

It is evil to fight for any cause no matter the cost.

So Euphemia fighting for her cause was wrong?

No one has the authority to endanger the lives of countless strangers who have not chosen to fight for his purposes.

Which Euphemia did
By bringing all of them together she risked all of their lives (Charles could easily have set a trap for Lelouch there)

And if the rebels really cared about the elevens perhaps they would not fight to set them free.

So you would prefer the evil dictatorship of a conquering nation?

If you give freedom and independence to a national government you enslave the people of the land to it and take away their freedom from fear, death, injury, and sorrow.

no
There have been many governments over the years that have had lots of power but still kept alot of freedom

When Britannia conquered Japan it took away freedom from oppression from the Japanese but gave them freedom from their previous slavery to the independent Japanese government and thus restored their freedom from fear, freedom from death, freedom from injury, freedom from sorrow, so as long as there were no rebellions.

So the systematic oppression of the Japanese, the stripping of their pride by taking away even their identity as a country and the systematic slaughtering of civilians confined to slums was supposedly keeping them free?

The rebels sought to give back independence to Japan and so re enslave the Japanese to their nation, given them freedom from oppression but taking away their freedom from fear, freedom from death, freedom from sorrow.

not even close
what proof do you have that the original government was bad?
or worse then the brittanians?

But Euphemia sought to give the Japanese what the rebels promised, freedom from oppression, and also what Britannia had given them by freeing them from the curse of an independent national government, freedom from fear, freedom from injury, freedom from death, freedom from sorrow.

lol
she wanted to restore the Japanese government
Essentially give Zero exactly what he wanted (Zero being different from Lelouchs goals of revenge here)

Euphemia was the only character in Code Geass who showed that it was safe for the world as a whole for her to be in command of military operations.

like when she procrastinated about sending out Suzaku?
Tell me how many soldiers died in that time?
IF she sent him out earlier how many could she have saved?

think about it
a military leader needs to not only think about his troops
but also be decisive
Hesitations in war cost lives

No it wasn't. By definition, if they massacred the beastmen they had the power to not massacre them, to defeat them without massacring them.

How?

Yes. But some characters only kill when it is justified,

Which I beleive you have claimed is never

and others don't a care how many people they kill as long as they win.

Generally the bad guys

If so those other characters must be very evil since what Lelouch did is enough to make him very evil.

Try Azrael from Gundam Seed

[wolfgirl90]

Again, I wonder what we will be talking about when this thread is eventually closed. Maybe Avengers: Assemble.

So I say that I would probably consider Ovan, whoever he was, evil for killing Aina if I knew the facts in the case.

That makes no real sense. Again, thinking that way assigns weight to human life, seeing which one "weighs more" than the other. Regardless of circumstance, assigning guilt without knowing the circumstances is rather ignorant and doing that only serves to stroke one's moral conscience. Since you do not know who Ovan is, who Aina is and the circumstance that occurred between them, you are basically passing judgment just to please yourself, which just laughable.

I wasn't paying the pity card.

Yes you were. Why did you bring it up? I'll tell you. You did it to gain sympathy for what happened to you, and since you used it as an allusion to Euphemia being under the control of the Geass, it was to get us to be sympathetic to what happened to Euphemia through you. Its called playing the pity card or the appeal to pity fallacy.

Its fallacious because, last time you told this story, you made it quite clear that nothing happened to you, just a bad night of sleep, which is to be expected coming out of anesthetics (if you woke up AFTER the surgery, its more than obvious that the anesthesia wore off; obvious cause of pain is obvious).

Using this as an allusion to people who DIED is rather disgusting and its no wonder why I am neither sympathetic to what happened to you (as it happens to pretty much everybody) nor your cause (as I have pretty much stopped giving a damn).

And anyone who cared about the good of the world would want pacifists in charge of both sides during a war, wouldn't they?

Allow me to take this moment to say...HELL NO!!

If the other side of a conflict is run by a pacifist, I would immediately wonder why they are fighting us in the first place. If they are comfortable attacking us (regardless of reason), then that is an issue and I could care less what their ideology was. If there was a pacifist in charge on my side, I would be concerned as to how they would handle the situation of being attacked. Will they go the Relena route and allow us to attack, knowing that fighting is sometimes necessary or take the Marina route and let us be attacked again and again, simply to allow us to be in the moral right? And if pacifists are on BOTH sides of a war, what the hell is going on?

[quote=proEuphie;2412137]If you give freedom and independence to a national government you enslave the people of the land to it and take away their freedom from fear, death, injury, and sorrow.[i/quote]

I would go on and point out how extremely broken your logic is, to the point where it is laughably ignorant and just screams of extreme bias and total idiocy, but I won't.

Of course, despite your feelings on governments, I bet you have done absolutely nothing to do something about it.

When Britannia conquered Japan it took away freedom from oppression from the Japanese but gave them freedom from their previous slavery to the independent Japanese government and thus restored their freedom from fear, freedom from death, freedom from injury, freedom from sorrow, so as long as there were no rebellions.

So let me get this straight. When Britannia conquered Japan, they took away the "oppressive government", only to replace it with another oppressive government? Again, your idiocy knows no bounds. The Britannians oppress the Japanese regardless of whether they support Britannia or not. The Japanese (any Numbers, really) are viewed as lower lifeforms to the Britannians, so they feel free to do whatever they want to them. Even Honorary Britannians are discriminated against (and very harshly), so I do not know what your point is.

When one is part of a nation, they have three choices if they do not like it: they do nothing and (should) be content with what happens, do something about what they hate or LEAVE. The Japanese were not living in an oppressive government (neither in the show or now), so again, I do not see your point.

No it wasn't.

Have you even SEEN Gurren Lagann? Have you? Did you even know about the show before this post?

Characters in the second group are evil and it is wrong to make the audience have any sympathy for them.

The problem is that your stupid self expects the audience to have sympathy for any character(s) in any story. In case you haven't noticed, or have haven't looked at books other than the children's section at Barnes and Noble, this is not always the case. In life, there is no clear "good" and clear "evil". Both sides are relative and are determined by perspective. Because of this, many stories want YOU (the audience) to figure it out.

In Code Geass, we have no clear good and no clear evil. This is something that you need to figure out on your own. The creators do not want you sympathize with Lelouch anymore than, say, Euphemia. None of the characters were made to be the "hero", the "villain" or even just that person you are "supposed" to relate to.

If you are so stuck in your immaturity that you NEED a hero, that you NEED a villain, that there MUST be someone that you need to project yourself into, that's your problem really.

[proEuphie]

Eh...I don't care anymore.

Or perhaps you noticed that my answer disproved a claim you made several times and you didn't want to admit it. You say that Euphemia didn't want to more the G1 because of the field hospital ahead, and the G1 was the local headquarters, and Cornelia had ordered her not to. You wrote that civilians were never part of the equation.

And I replied: "How do you know there was a field hospital ahead (and not inside the G1 as you used to say)? Because Euphemia said so, citing it as a reason not to move the G1. In the SAME sentence where she said that the civilians had been evacuated to the area ahead of the G1, citing it as another reason not to move the G1, and MAKING THE CIVILIANS PART OF THE EQUATION."

Again, I do not assign guilt by association. YOU do, which was my point. Since I do not assign guilt by association, your point is moot. Also, keep bringing that up and I will be sure to report it. One thing I do not tolerate is the use of such tragedies to prove a point about a FREAKING cartoon. Keep it up. My treatment of you can get worse. Ask Mavericker, it can get worse.

I do not assign guilt by association, I assign guilt by guilt.

Suppose that a member of the British Parliament or cabinet during World War II eventually died and faced a tribunal to decide his fate in the afterlife. If there are supernatural beings similar to the devils of Christian mythology, some of them would have been there and would have greeted him by saying they expected that he would soon be assigned to them for punishment.

If he asked why they expected him to be punished in the afterlife those devils would say that he was one of the people charged with making British policy during the war. If a majority of those decision makers had been opposed to the bombing of German cities those acts of mass murder would have been forbidden; therefore a majority of the decision makers must be guilty of mass murder and will be turned over to the devils for punishment after a fair trial. Thus the devils used statistical probability to anticipate that he would probably, though not certainly, be one of those convicted and turned over to them for punishment.

And the same goes for every member of the bombing units of the RAF which carried out those acts of mass murder.
They had free will. They could have protested their orders and even disobeyed their orders in an attempt to prevent acts of mass murder by their side. And the same goes for every other member of the British armed forces and every other adult member of the British population who was aware of of the massive bombings of civilian targets and did nothing to protest or try to prevent them.

And the same goes for every adult member of the government, the armed forces, and the citizenship of every country allied to the U.K. in World war II who learned about the massive bombings of cities at the time and did nothing to try to prevent them, or who learned about them later and made excuses for what the Allies had done, claiming that the evils and war crimes of the Axis had made Allied war crimes necessary.

That conclusion does not make me happy. People who I have loved have refused to condemn the Allied bombings of Axis cities. And so I believe that if there is any truth in Christianity they may be punished in hell for all eternity, or perhaps merely be punished in purgatory for ten thousand years or so before going to heaven. Or, if there is any truth in Hinduism or Buddhism they might be reincarnated as fruit flies or earthworms or bacteria for thousands of years.

I have personal reasons to want not to believe that all citizens of a nation are guilty of all the war crimes and atrocities which it openly commits if they do not protest or try to prevent those atrocities and crimes. But I am forced to believe that it is so, that no competent adult can be excused from guilt for letting evil deeds be committed by his nation merely because he is not the all powerful supreme leader of his nation and shares power with thousands and millions of his countrymen.

Almost all of the members of all of the rebel groups supported by the Kyoto Houses were volunteers who were not forced to join their groups and who may have had more or less power to quit depending on the rules of their group. And the support by the Kyoto Houses meant a lot to the rebel groups which got it, as "Black Knight" shows. Therefore, the Kyoto Houses had the power to strongly influence the actions of the groups they supported and could have done a lot to reduce acts of terrorism by some of those groups.

Personally, one's feelings toward Euphemia (and Lelouch) and their overall feelings of the situation will determine if they thought her death was "bad" or not. For example, despite your "every-second-of-every-life-is-precious" philosophy, you let Lelouch get away with murder again and again and again and again and again. Not all of his killings had justification to them, so there is really no excusing them if one has that philosophy (that says something about you). You only really cared about Euphemia AFTER she died and I suspect that you only cared because a person LIKE Euphemia died, rather than the death of the character in and of itself.

I thought that Euphemia's death was bad because I could see that Lelouch obviously could have captured her alive easily and safely.

I believe that every second of life is precious to the person who is living it and that his dying can never be good for HIM. I never wrote that every second of every person's life was precious to the world as a whole or that the world could never, in extremely rare situations, benefit from a person's death. Very, very, very, very rare situations. Certainly Euphemia does not qualify as someone whose death might be good for the world as a whole, though other Code Geass characters come much closer than she does to being persons whose deaths might be good for the world.

I stayed up until 2 AM to watch and tape Code Geass and thus was not thinking very clearly when I first watched the episodes. Thus I did not critically analyze the story or the ethics of the characters' actions. I just went with the flow and was only vaguely uneasy at all the evil deeds. Then the time was switched to 5 AM and I set the VCR to record episode 23 and went to bed and later watched the episode while I was not half asleep. Thus I was alert enough to observe that it would have been very easy for Lelouch to capture Euphemia alive.

That is why I let Lelouch get by with other murders previously. I watched the show when I was half asleep.

And I was not upset that a person like Euphemia was killed. At first I was upset that any person had been killed by the protagonist of a series when it would have been so easy to capture them alive. I was upset by the circumstances of Euphemia's death, the way it was so blatently obvious that Lelouch chose to kill Euphemia and did not need to kill her or have to kill her.

After becoming upset by the circumstances of Euphemia's senseless murder, I watched my tapes again when fully conscious and soon noticed that almost everyone else in the cast was evil by my standards and that Euphemia was clearly the best person in the cast. If I had not already been shocked by Euphemia's clearly senseless murder I would never have been interested in Code Geass enough to notice everything which makes her so superior to all the other cast members.

And I am upset by the murder of Euphemia as an individual, not as a character type. I have said that I do not consider the survival of other Euphemia's in other alternate universe to be adequate to make up for her murder, and thus the survival of other characters similar to her in some ways, characters like her, is not enough for me. I am interested in the individual character Euphemia and upset by her individual and specific death.

Conversely, I do not care about Euphemia's death. First, I knew she was going to die. Simple as that. Second, your constant whining about it has made me care less and less about her death.

Well...that. And because they were fighting for the freedom of their country. Freedom that was stripped away from them when a military superpower run by an absolute monarchy and fueled by Social Darwinism decided to invade the hell out of their country to cull out the weak, ruled by a man who believed that internal struggle and military conquest were the only ways to facilitate human evolution and that Ten Commandments-esque ideology and morality was counter-productive.

You say that the are fighting for the freedom of their country and for their personal freedom. These are somewhat inconsistent goals.

If a person lived within a universal government there would be no foreign governments with the power to make war against the territory that he lived in. Thus he would have freedom from attack by foreign governments.

If a person lives within a independent nation surrounded by other independent nations, the governments of those nations will have the power to attack him. And his government will have the power to attack foreign governments, thus inviting retaliation which may endanger him.

Thus every person who lives within an independent government with the power to fight wars surrounded by other independent governments with the power to fight wars is in greater danger of being killed in war than a person who lives within a universal government.

Thus gaining independence and freedom for your nation reduces your freedom from danger of death, injury, property damage, and sorrow for the loss of loved ones.

In any case, Kallen and her rebel group did not have any plausible expectation of winning before Lelouch became Zero, and thus were just killing people needlessly.

Serial killers seek out and kill people in order to feel powerful. I believe that a lot of rebels seek and and kill their enemies out of of desire to vent their frustrations and to feel powerful and in charge of their lives, and thus are acting out of motives similar to serial killers. If Kallen and her group didn't have a plan which seemed likely to succeed, I don't see why we should think that they had any better motive for killing than serial killers do.

Conversely, unless you ALSO have dialogue to prove that she IS evil (which should have done anyway, but whatever), then I can't think of her that way.

Suppose that you were a citizen of an Allied country during World War II. Wouldn't you believe that all the senior members of the German government and military and the Nazi Party were probably evil, based on the atrocities and war crimes you had heard about? But probably you would believe that if they were captured they deserved a fair trial before sentencing. And after the war you might be surprised that some of them were convicted of far more or fewer crimes than you had expected and received harsher or lighter sentences than you would have expected during the war, but you would accept the verdicts and sentences as being probably fair and reasonably correct.

Since she is imaginary, Kaguya is still in the at large and not yet tried stage like the Axis leaders were during World War II. I know that some of the rebel groups were terrorists and committed atrocities. I know that all the rebels wanted support from the Kyoto Houses and the Kyoto Houses thus had a large degree of control or influence over the behavior of the rebel groups which wanted support from them. And because a branch of the JLF, the largest and most famous rebel group, continued to commit terrorism up until the time of the series, the leadership of the Kyoto House did not enforce a no terrorism rule upon the groups they supported. And I know that Kaguya was a member of the very top rank of the Kyoto Houses.

Thus I have good reasons to consider Kaguya, a fictional character who cannot be harmed by my opinion, an evil person. Just as good a reason as any member of the Allied population had to consider a real person who could have been harmed by his opinion, such as a specific Axis leader like Herman Goering or Martin Bormann, evil during World War II before the presentation of evidence during the trials.

Anyway, Kaguya, like Euphemia, didn't not wholly support the actions of the Six Houses of Kyoto (or Kyoto House...let's learn the proper names of the organizations that we are bashing, shall we?). She understood the rebellions but did not support the actions that some of those rebel groups took. Of course, ALSO like Euphemia, she didn't separate from the group, so let's not point fingers.

Cornalia and her staff planned the Saitema Ghetto Massacre in "Attack Cornelia". Thus it is logical to assume that they would have used similar methods to attack the JLF at Narita, such as rounding up tens of thousands of inhabitants of Narita, condemning them for living in JLF-ruled territory,and executing them in groups until the JLF came out to try to save them and was trapped and slaughtered.

I think that Euphemia insisted on going to Narita despite Cornelia's objections in order to more or less force Cornelia to change her plans or lose a lot of respect from Euphemia. I think that Cornelia and her staff hurriedly came up and executed a brilliant plan to take the JLF by surprise and keep the civilians out of the fighting. They hadn't needed to massacre civilians at Saitema. They could still come up with great tactics to win without slaughtering civilians when Euphemia pressured Cornelia to do so.

In any case at Saitema, when Euphemia was not present, Cornelia and her staff massacred civilians when it would have been easy to come up with an equally successful but less violent plan. Days or weeks later, at Narita, when Euphemia was present, Cornelia and her staff never massacred any civilians that we know of. Thus there is strong evidence that Euphemia took action to prevent atrocities by her side.

Pardon? You are mistaken on that.

Okay, I was wrong. You don't believe that wars are inevitable as long as independent governments remain. You believe that nations, imaginary concepts with no life of their own, which have always behaved like psychopaths, can reform and be good. So therefore you believe there is no reason to abolish the independent status of national governments to try the save the lives of countless billions of real persons who might be killed in future wars.

Wow, do you have it wrong. My stance is that so long as there are cultural differences, we are going to have divides. This is not a bad thing, so long as one is not ignorant of the existance of other cultures, their distinct customs and traditions, and gives those cultures due respect. THEN we can live together. When you decide to cause war and conflict for NO OTHER REASON other than "peace" (which may have existed anyway), to destroy another country's culture just so that we can all be the same, THEN that's a problem and that's the divide we have.

Giving foreign cultures due respect means giving them very little respect, because all cultures, up to now, have been very imperfect. Thus everyone should disrespect all cultures equally, his own as well as foreign, valuing only the rare good elements within each culture. That is one reason not to force other people to accept one's own culture -- a rational person would see that his own culture is just as flawed and imperfect as any other and thus there is no improvement in making other people adopt it.

Wars are fought between governments. What do cultural differences have to do with war and peace except as one of many possible causes of war? You claim that conquering other governments to remove their ability to make war would result in taking away the cultures of the peoples of those nations. This implies that you believe that being ruled by one government homogenizes people's cultures and soon they all have exactly the same culture.

If you believe that political unification by negotiation or conquest results in homogenous societies, obviously you would have to believe that everyone in the United States, everyone in Canada, everyone in the United Kingdom, everyone in Switzerland, everyone in the Russian Federation, everyone in India, everyone in the Sudan, etc. etc. has exactly the same culture as everyone else in their country.

I do not believe a country should invade another country (or countries) just to prevent conflict (it hasn't worked before and its not going to work again), conflict that may or may not have been in existence in the first place.

So when, where, and how did Britain attack the US in 1812, Mexico in 1846, Spain in 1898, Germany in 1917, North Korea in 1950? When, where, and how did Vietnam and Grenada and Panama attack the US? When, where, and how did Iraq attack the US? It seems to me that in a number of those cases the US fought wars to gain territory, or to protect various national interests of varying degrees of importance, or to make peace, (even if there already was peace).

I suggest you look at the archaeological evidence from Western Europe before, the Roman conquests, during the Roman Empire, and during the centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Notice how much of the surviving evidence of major construction projects relates to war during those three periods and how much more evidence there is of unfortified prosperous civilian life during the Roman period.

It certainly looks like attacking and conquering foreign countries to prevent them from making war certainly resulted in centuries of peace and prosperity for the conquered provinces during the Roman era.

[MangaFanGuy]

Ok I gotta say something about this

If a person lived within a universal government there would be no foreign governments with the power to make war against the territory that he lived in. Thus he would have freedom from attack by foreign governments.

Depends on the government
Are we talking a UN Style of Universal Government or more of a Universal Absolute Ruler?
Both have their problems
Neither frees people from the fear of attack

If a person lives within a independent nation surrounded by other independent nations, the governments of those nations will have the power to attack him. And his government will have the power to attack foreign governments, thus inviting retaliation which may endanger him.

No
Plainly put no
This requires two things
1/The Nations will WANT to attack each other (Which is often not the case)
2/The Nations CAN attack each other (Which given the current military technology would be equally devastating for all involved)

Take modern day Europe
The countries there do not live in fear that one of the others will attack them
Why
Because there is no point
For them they will gain nothing from fighting each other and so have no reason to do so nor any will to do so

Thus every person who lives within an independent government with the power to fight wars surrounded by other independent governments with the power to fight wars is in greater danger of being killed in war than a person who lives within a universal government.

No
Try 1982
George Orwell for how a complete Unioversal Ruler can easily go Sour

Thus gaining independence and freedom for your nation reduces your freedom from danger of death, injury, property damage, and sorrow for the loss of loved ones.

No
Independant Natons don;t want to have to attack each other
not only that Nations that do attak each other are generally ones that WANT to attack other people
They aren't afraid to attack or be attacked back
Removing other goverments just gives people a single target to focus on

Wars are fought between governments.

Guerilla fighters?
Terrorists?
Civil Wars?
Wars of Independance?
all are wars where one or both sides can easily lack a government
Wars are not merely between governments

It certainly looks like attacking and conquering foreign countries to prevent them from making war certainly resulted in centuries of peace and prosperity for the conquered provinces during the Roman era.

Really
Lets look at the Roman war history shall we
396 BC: Roma conquers the Etruscan city of Veii
387 BC: the Gauls/Celts sack Roma
308 BC: Roma conquers the Etruscan city of Tarquinia
295 BC: Roma defeats the Gauls/Celts in northern Italy
264 BC: Roma and Carthage fight the first Punic war
264 BC: the Romans destroy the last vestiges of the Etruscan civilization (Volsinies)
225 BC: the Gauls invade Rome
222 BC: the invading Gauls are defeated
218 BC: Hannibal invades Italy and the Gauls of northern Italy ally with him
214 BC: War machines designed by Greek mathematician Archimedes save the city of Syracuse, an ally of Carthage, from a Roman naval attack
202 BC: Scipio defeats Hannibal and Roma annexes Spain
196 BC: the Romans defeat the Macedonian king Philip V at Cynoscephalae
189 BC: Antiochus III, king of the Seleucids, is defeated at the battle of Magnesia and surrenders his possessions in Europe and Asia Minor
181 BC: the Gauls of northern Italy are definitely subjugated
175 BC: the Celts of Spain are subjugated
171 BC: The Third Macedonian War begins
167 BC: At the end of the Third Macedonian War the romans divide Macedonia into four republics
149 BC: Roma attacks Carthage
149 BC: Roma conquers Greece after winning the battle of Corinth (and destroying Corinth)
146 BC: Roma destroys Carthage
138 BC: Slave revolt in Sicily (crucifixion of 4,500 slaves)
135 BC: Second slave revolt in Sicily ("first servile war")
106 BC: the Romans led by newly elected consul Marius defeat Jugurtha, king of Numidia
105 BC: the Teutones and the Cimbri defeat the Romans at Arausio/Orange
104 BC: Slave revolt in Sicily ("second servile war")
102 BC: consul Gaius Marius defeats the Teutonic army at Aix-en-Provence, killing about 100,000 of them
101 BC: consul Gaius Marius defeats the Cimbri at Vercelli, killing more than 100,000 of them

Ok I'm gonna stop at 100bc
But you get the idea
ALOT of war going on with the Romans
And remember that Rome would have levied Soldiers from their conquered provences to act as Auxilliaries
So Rome dragged many nations into conflicts they would never have been in on their own

[wolfgirl90]

Or perhaps you noticed that my answer disproved a claim you made several times and you didn't want to admit it.

ACTUALLY its because, in Japanese, Euphemia says "the field hospital is here" (check the show for yourself). What does that mean? Is it just outside or in the G1? WHERE the field hospital is located is rather irrelevant, so I use both interchangeably, since I don't care and it doesn't matter. Does the location of the field hospital change Euphemia's intentions? Does it change my argument or yours? No. So, the position doesn't matter. Are backed into a corner so badly that that is the ONLY thing that you can contest?

Also, bare in mind that I have zero respect for you. I am not really trying to prove myself right or prove you wrong, so I really have no obligation to answer anything from you. I am just laughing at you and your ridiculously long posts which I barely pay any attention to (I skip most of what you say). You DO know that barely pay any attention to your posts right? Why bother making extremely long posts that you KNOW I am not going to read?

I do not assign guilt by association, I assign guilt by guilt.

You DO assign guilt by association. You do this making people ASSOCIATED with the guilty party guilty. For example, if a police officer killed somebody, you don't make just that officer guilty. You make ALL of the surrounding officers guilty, plus the one who gave the order, plus ALL of the officers who are merely part of the same organization as the first one.

For Code Geass, Britannian soldiers and Japanese rebels are not the only ones who are guilty. Its those that support them, directly or indirectly, or don't condemn their actions (with you fallacious thinking that not condemning equals supporting), regardless of what they actually do. For you Kaguya is guilty of ALL of the actions that the Japanese rebels have done simply because she is a member of the Six Houses of Kyoto.

That's called guilt of association, idiot troll, and its a logical fallacy.

People who I have loved have refused to condemn the Allied bombings of Axis cities.

This is mostly because of the crap that the Axis countries were doing, you ignorant idiot.

The Axis countries weren't exactly innocent during the war, so I honestly do not see your point. If you want to condemn the Allied bombings of Axis cities, go right ahead, but you had better condemn the Axis bombings of Allied cities. Don't pick a side because one was "worse" than the other (that would just be messed up).

That is why I let Lelouch get by with other murders previously. I watched the show when I was half asleep.

You let your morals slip THAT badly? You are actually using that as an excuse? Yeah, I don't think so. You gave Lelouch the benefit of the doubt since he was the protagonist. That's your problem.

Thus gaining independence and freedom for your nation reduces your freedom from danger of death, injury, property damage, and sorrow for the loss of loved ones.

So let me get this straight. If I live in an independent nation that is near other independent nations, regardless of the peace that we already have, I am in constant danger of being attacked? So, to alleviate this problem of POTENTIALLY being attacked, I should attack THEM and conquer them and incorporate them into my culture for NO OTHER REASON than to prevent from being attacked in the first place?

Yeah, that's retarded. I'll continue laughing at you now.

I think that Euphemia insisted on going to Narita despite Cornelia's objections in order to more or less force Cornelia to change her plans or lose a lot of respect from Euphemia.

This is only what you THINK, not what you KNOW. The only reason why Euphemia went to Narita (that we know of, since its stated in the series) is because she "wanted to see actual combat for herself" (Cornelia stated this; again watch the episode for yourself). Anything else is just speculation.

You believe that nations, imaginary concepts with no life of their own, which have always behaved like psychopaths, can reform and be good and therefore there is no reason to abolish the independent status of national governments to try the save the lives of countless billions of real persons who might be killed in future wars.

Is every country in a war right now? Are we all fighting each other? Even in the case of the United States, we are not in a war with any one particular country, so I do not know where you are getting this sentiment. The thing I am REALLY apposed to is the having a huge war to prevent a war when there is nothing wrong in the first place. What you are proposing is a preemptive strike against independent nations to prevent future wars, which is again very stupid and easy to say when you have never seen war beyond a television.

[NearLawliet]

i only just saw that episode this night. I have to say i was very suprised. I never realized how important Euphenia was until she died. I felt so sad for Suzuka. I actually think this episode was a very big turning point in lelouchs conquest.. cant weait to see new eps to come

[xXPainful SmilexX]

This has gone on long enough, seriously...

[proEuphie]

Ok I gotta say something about this

Depends on the government
Are we talking a UN Style of Universal Government or more of a Universal Absolute Ruler?
Both have their problems
Neither frees people from the fear of attack

We are talking any style of universal government that has sufficient power to stop any wars or civil wars. And if that government is created by negotiations, then the agreements which create it will presumably have some limitations on its powers to keep it from becoming too despotic. Like the US constitution created in 1789, for example.

But if you do not take any steps to advocate creating a universal government during your lifetime, when you can have some input into its form and degree of power, you will be unable to prevent either the possible extermination of Humanity in a totally devastating future war or the possible conquest if the world and establishment of a universal absolute dictatorship sometime in the future.

Obviously the UN does not have enough power to prevent wars. It would have to have a standing military funded by UN taxation, and a gradual but steady reduction in the size of the armies of the member states down to a safe size and power.

You say that a universal absolute ruler would cause problems. You no doubt fear a universal tyranny. But many people believe that war is the most oppressive tyranny of all with its crushing rates of taxation and conscription to provide the cannon fodder for the armed forces.

And I remind you that the archaeological record from Western Europe shows that the populations were relatively poor and lived in defensible sites during the pre-Roman and post-Roman eras, but were relatively rich and prosperous and felt safe living in comfortable, undefended cities during most of the Roman period, as much during the reigns of "bad" emperors like Caligula, Nero, Domitian, and Commodus as during the reigns of the "Five Good Emperors".

Despite the tyranny of many Emperors and officials and local elites, most of the people of the Roman Empire seemed free from fear of attack during the centuries between being conquered and the terrible crisis of the third Century AD.

No
Plainly put no
This requires two things
1/The Nations will WANT to attack each other (Which is often not the case)
2/The Nations CAN attack each other (Which given the current military technology would be equally devastating for all involved)

No nation wants to attack every other nation all the time.

But many wars start in ways which are not easy to describe in simplified form as one nation attacking another.

A nation which is at war in one year out of a hundred is obviously less aggressive (or luckier) than one which is involved in war one year out of every ten. A nation which is involved in war one year out of every thousand is obviously less aggressive (or much luckier) than one which is involved in war one year out of every hundred, and so on.

Saying that nations often do not want to fight each other is rather misleading. It is the horrors which occur when they do want to fight each other which are so terrible and should be avoided.

If a nation retains an independent government for a thousand years, there would have to be many other independent nations in the world for those thousand years. If there was one other government ruling the rest of the world for a thousand yeas that hypothetical nation would be too weak to stand against the government of the rest of the world and would certainly either join the world government, destroy it, conquer it, or be conquered by it.

Thus the existence of one independent national government for a thousand years implies the existence of many other independent nations for that thousand years. And those nations would fight wars more or less frequently,

If you assume that in the average year the population of the world is between two billion and ten billion and between 0.001 and 0.000001 of the world's population is killed in whatever wars may be fought, then in the average year between two thousand and ten million people will be killed in wars. And after a thousand years, the total will be somewhere between two million and ten billion people killed in all the wars.

After a million years, the total will be between two billion and ten trillion people killed in all the wars. And after a billion years of independent national governments the total will be between two trillion and ten quadrillion people killed in all the wars.

You say that nations might not be able to attack other nations, and that with present technology such attacks would be equally devastating to both sides. But in the last three decades the United states has attacked Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again without suffering much counter devastation in return.

Take modern day Europe
The countries there do not live in fear that one of the others will attack them
Why
Because there is no point
For them they will gain nothing from fighting each other and so have no reason to do so nor any will to do so

And possibly that has something to do with the fact that in the thirty one years between 1914 and 1945 Europe suffered a number of minor wars and the two biggest, bloodiest, and most devastating wars in its history and the Europeans have learned the lesson that war does not pay (too much so in the opinion of some commentators who believe they are not doing enough to fight various present menaces).

They learned their lesson the hard way and have followed it for sixty five years. And no doubt they will continue to follow it for several more decades or even several more centuries. But what are several more centuries compared to the eons that most people hope that the human race will survive for?

And for about forty five of those years of European peace the European nations were part of two rival alliances armed to the teeth and their people lived in fear of the most terrible war ever breaking out and destroying Europe. Fear of World War III starting in your backyard does tend to make you appreciate the benefits of peace.

No
Try 1982
George Orwell for how a complete Unioversal Ruler can easily go Sour

Really? Did you ever read 1984? As I remember, in 1984 the world had three great powers that were almost constantly at war, not one universal government. And would there have been a universal ruler, even if the realm where Winston Smith lived had ruled the entire world? Winston Smith never knew if Big Brother was a real man or how powerful Big Brother was if he was real -- for all Winston Smith or the readers knew, Big Brother might have been a powerless puppet ruler controlled by the highest party members or even completely imaginary and thus even less likely to cause trouble for them.

Part of 1984 is a satire of the British socialist movement and the constant squabbles over socialist theory and communist theory and purging of party ranks and selective rewriting of party history. Orwell, a socialist, was fed up with that kind of monkey business and hoped that 1984 would show his comrades that if they didn't clean up their act they would make a terrible mess of things when and if they ever gained power. And part of it was complaining about the rundown state of post-war Britain with rationing and shortages, while post-war America was enjoying an economic boom.

It was not entirely a warning against the horrors of totalitarian dictatorships like Nazi Germany or the USSR. And certainly not a warning that a totalitarian government which ruled the entire world would be worse than war, since its world was ruled by three rival superpowers usually at war.

No
Independant Natons don;t want to have to attack each other
not only that Nations that do attak each other are generally ones that WANT to attack other people
They aren't afraid to attack or be attacked back
Removing other goverments just gives people a single target to focus on

Guerilla fighters?
Terrorists?
Civil Wars?
Wars of Independance?
all are wars where one or both sides can easily lack a government
Wars are not merely between governments

But weapons of mass destruction require powerful governments to create them.

Suppose that about 1800 the French revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars started a movement in Europe advocating uniting the world under a super national peace keeping organization and that the movement succeeded after a century, by about 1900. If that organization worked there would have been no World war I, and thus no World War II.

Atomic bombs would not have been created in vast top secret ultra expensive projects by governments in the 1940s. Poison gas would not have been introduced in the 1910s. Germ warfare would never have been invented by national governments in expensive projects. Military tanks and airplanes and rockets would never have been developed in costly arms races.

So even if rebels and guerrillas and terrorists imagined such weapons of mass destruction, there would not be a lot of information available on how to make them, nor vast stockpiles which they might get their hands on.

And more ordinary weapons like assault rifles, which have killed millions in various conflicts in the Third World since World War II, would be produced in much smaller quantities and would be more carefully guarded. They would not be sold or given away in vast quantities by rival superpowers seeking to destabilize opposing governments.

So rebellions and guerrilla war and terrorism would not be nearly as bloody as they have been in our world.

Really
Lets look at the Roman war history shall we
396 BC: Roma conquers the Etruscan city of Veii
387 BC: the Gauls/Celts sack Roma
308 BC: Roma conquers the Etruscan city of Tarquinia
295 BC: Roma defeats the Gauls/Celts in northern Italy
264 BC: Roma and Carthage fight the first Punic war
264 BC: the Romans destroy the last vestiges of the Etruscan civilization (Volsinies)
225 BC: the Gauls invade Rome
222 BC: the invading Gauls are defeated
218 BC: Hannibal invades Italy and the Gauls of northern Italy ally with him
214 BC: War machines designed by Greek mathematician Archimedes save the city of Syracuse, an ally of Carthage, from a Roman naval attack
202 BC: Scipio defeats Hannibal and Roma annexes Spain
196 BC: the Romans defeat the Macedonian king Philip V at Cynoscephalae
189 BC: Antiochus III, king of the Seleucids, is defeated at the battle of Magnesia and surrenders his possessions in Europe and Asia Minor
181 BC: the Gauls of northern Italy are definitely subjugated
175 BC: the Celts of Spain are subjugated
171 BC: The Third Macedonian War begins
167 BC: At the end of the Third Macedonian War the romans divide Macedonia into four republics
149 BC: Roma attacks Carthage
149 BC: Roma conquers Greece after winning the battle of Corinth (and destroying Corinth)
146 BC: Roma destroys Carthage
138 BC: Slave revolt in Sicily (crucifixion of 4,500 slaves)
135 BC: Second slave revolt in Sicily ("first servile war")
106 BC: the Romans led by newly elected consul Marius defeat Jugurtha, king of Numidia
105 BC: the Teutones and the Cimbri defeat the Romans at Arausio/Orange
104 BC: Slave revolt in Sicily ("second servile war")
102 BC: consul Gaius Marius defeats the Teutonic army at Aix-en-Provence, killing about 100,000 of them
101 BC: consul Gaius Marius defeats the Cimbri at Vercelli, killing more than 100,000 of them

Ok I'm gonna stop at 100bc
But you get the idea
ALOT of war going on with the Romans

And remember that Rome would have levied Soldiers from their conquered provences to act as Auxilliaries
So Rome dragged many nations into conflicts they would never have been in on their own

Yes. the Romans were very warlike and surrounded by very warlike peoples. But the Romans claimed that they usually did not just start wars because they wanted to invade and conquer foreign lands. And in fact most of their wars began though the usual confusing process, with it being rather had to say that one war was 45% the fault of the Romans and 55% percent the fault of the other side and that another war was 60% the fault of the Romans and 40% the fault of the other side.

You may have noticed that your lists includes a number of cases where you say that other groups invaded or attacked the Roman republic.

And as I said, the archaeological record in the Western Roman Empire shows that during the Empire millions of people were more prosperous and secure than in the centuries before and after.

[MangaFanGuy]

We are talking any style of universal government that has sufficient power to stop any wars or civil wars. And if that government is created by negotiations, then the agreements which create it will presumably have some limitations on its powers to keep it from becoming too despotic.

here is the problem
If the Governments power is limited to prevent it gaining too much power and being corrupt then it will probably lose it's abiltity to control everyone and stop the potential infighting of all the seperate entities that make it up (Especially if it is a group of nations)
However give it too much power and you merely open it to exploitation through totalitarian means

You no doubt fear a universal tyranny. But many people believe that war is the most oppressive tyranny of all with its crushing rates of taxation and conscription to provide the cannon fodder for the armed forces.

none of which are prevented by giving power to one man
and spreading it around merely weakens it

Despite the tyranny of many Emperors and officials and local elites, most of the people of the Roman Empire seemed free from fear of attack during the centuries between being conquered and the terrible crisis of the third Century AD.

Then tell me
Why did so many feel it necessary to reject the rule of the Roman Empire?

If there was one other government ruling the rest of the world for a thousand yeas that hypothetical nation would be too weak to stand against the government of the rest of the world and would certainly either join the world government, destroy it, conquer it, or be conquered by it.

all of which merely is perpetuating the war which you seem so adamant to stop

You say that nations might not be able to attack other nations, and that with present technology such attacks would be equally devastating to both sides.

yes

But in the last three decades the United states has attacked Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again without suffering much counter devastation in return.

All countries which lack any real form of modern warfare capability

But what are several more centuries compared to the eons that most people hope that the human race will survive for?

What makes you think we will still even be on earth at that point?

Fear of World War III starting in your backyard does tend to make you appreciate the benefits of peace.

exactly
you don't need to fight wars
Neither side wanted a war
Neither side got a war
Both sides showed how equally powerful opponents with nothing to gain will merely back down from a fight
Wars are not necessary particularly in the more modern era

Many of the reasons for fighting wars are disappearing

As I remember, in 1984 the world had three great powers that were almost constantly at war, not one universal government.

not quite my point
I do know the book
but it is the theory of the overwhelming big brother state
that could be the sort of future for a Total Universal government

So rebellions and guerrilla war and terrorism would not be nearly as bloody as they have been in our world.

And what else?
Remember alot of technological advancements are made during war
What would we have lost along with all of that?
Alot of modern nuclear theory?
Mechanical innovtions?

And even if your Government Succeeded who says it would have lasted?
How do we know it wouldn't have simply collapsed into an even bloodier multi opponented world wide civil war?

But the Romans claimed that they usually did not just start wars because they wanted to invade and conquer foreign lands

The Romans "Claimed" alot of things
And as I said, the archaeological record in the Western Roman Empire shows

that during the Empire millions of people were more prosperous and secure than in the centuries before and after.

How many people were reduced to Slavery?
How many Killed in brutal campaigns and political upheavals?
How many people suffere under the rather harsh Roman rules?

Romans helped by bring modern technologies to others
But at the same time they also brought alot of negatives along with them

Rome was not a shining example of Virtue and greatness and could be rather harmful to many of the lower classes

[proEuphie]

ACTUALLY its because, in Japanese, Euphemia says "the field hospital is here" (check the show for yourself). What does that mean? Is it just outside or in the G1? WHERE the field hospital is located is rather irrelevant, so I use both interchangeably, since I don't care and it doesn't matter. Does the location of the field hospital change Euphemia's intentions? Does it change my argument or yours? No. So, the position doesn't matter. Are backed into a corner so badly that that is the ONLY thing that you can contest?

Go back and read again the section of post 363 you are answering. You missed my point and answered another matter which has very little to do with the point I made in that section of post 363.

Also, bare in mind that I have zero respect for you. I am not really trying to prove myself right or prove you wrong, so I really have no obligation to answer anything from you. I am just laughing at you and your ridiculously long posts which I barely pay any attention to (I skip most of what you say). You DO know that barely pay any attention to your posts right? Why bother making extremely long posts that you KNOW I am not going to read?

Yes, you should ask yourself what my purpose is.

You DO assign guilt by association. You do this making people ASSOCIATED with the guilty party guilty. For example, if a police officer killed somebody, you don't make just that officer guilty. You make ALL of the surrounding officers guilty, plus the one who gave the order, plus ALL of the officers who are merely part of the same organization as the first one.

For Code Geass, Britannian soldiers and Japanese rebels are not the only ones who are guilty. Its those that support them, directly or indirectly, or don't condemn their actions (with you fallacious thinking that not condemning equals supporting), regardless of what they actually do. For you Kaguya is guilty of ALL of the actions that the Japanese rebels have done simply because she is a member of the Six Houses of Kyoto.

That's called guilt of association, idiot troll, and its a logical fallacy.

And where did I write that?

Most shootings by police in the United States are pretty much legally and ethically justified. However, in many times and places the police have used wrongful violence and even murdered people.

Policemen in various locations who routinely savagely injure and even kill striking workers or anti-government protesters are guilty of assault and murder. And if another policeman learns about their regular practice of brutality and doesn't try to prevent future murders, by at least protesting anonymously, if not finding a stronger way, and is merely glad that he is not involved, he may be a lot better than the ones who commit the assaults and murders but he is guilty of letting those assaults and murders continue and thus is guilty of murder.

In some Brazilian cities shopkeepers use to hire off duty policemen to clean up their neighborhoods (a worthy goal in itself) by exterminating the homeless children who hung around and made pests of themselves and scared away a lot of customers. I admit that any civilian or policeman who learned abut the practice and did not try to stop it was not as evil as the businessmen and policemen involved. But do you want to claim that any such person was not guilty of murder or not an evil person?

I say that together the adult leaders of the Six Houses had the power to cut of funds to any rebel organizations whose methods they considered too evil. Apparently as a group they did not consider terrorism too evil, and did not cut off funds for terrorist organizations.

And perhaps maybe Kaguya was not yet allowed to vote for her house. But she could still have spoken her objections, if any, to funding terrorism. And if the producers of the show wanted everyone to know that Kaguya was not guilty of supporting terrorism they could have filmed a scene in which she did so.

Kaguya was not merely associated with rebels, guerrillas,and terrorists, she did not just attend school and go to picnics with the children of rebels and guerrillas and terrorists, she did not just live next door to rebels and guerrillas and terrorists, she was at least nominally one of the supreme heads of the umbrella organization which supported and perhaps to a degree coordinated all the important groups of rebels and guerrillas and terrorists in Japan.

This is mostly because of the crap that the Axis countries were doing, you ignorant idiot.

The Axis countries weren't exactly innocent during the war, so I honestly do not see your point. If you want to condemn the Allied bombings of Axis cities, go right ahead, but you had better condemn the Axis bombings of Allied cities. Don't pick a side because one was "worse" than the other (that would just be messed up).

What do the war crimes of the Axis have to do with the war crimes of the Allies, except to make some of the Allied spokesmen and propagandists hypocrites when they condemned Axis wars crimes that the Allies also committed?

If Person A fights brutally against Person B, Person B may feel he is right to fight back just as brutally. And possibly he may be right in a fight between two individual persons. But a war is a conflicts between groups of people, and each nation contains people with many different degrees of guilt and responsibility for the way their nation fights.

It may be right to fight enemy soldiers as savagely as they fight your soldiers. But there is no right in attacking enemy children, and enemy senile persons, and enemy retarded persons, and other members of the enemy population who can not be considered guilty of the war crimes committed by their nation's armed forces.

If I did pick a side because one side was worse than the other, I would be on the side of the Allies and not the Axis. The Allies were, on the whole, much better than the Axis. But being many times better than the Axis is not enough to make the Allie good enough to be considered good instead of evil.

Is it a compliment to say that someone was so evil that he was only ten times as good as Hitler or so evil that he was only a hundred times as good as Hitler?

You let your morals slip THAT badly? You are actually using that as an excuse? Yeah, I don't think so. You gave Lelouch the benefit of the doubt since he was the protagonist. That's your problem.

Partially. and I feel humilitated about it. And I don't see why other viewers do not also feel humiliated and resentful about that.

So let me get this straight. If I live in an independent nation that is near other independent nations, regardless of the peace that we already have, I am in constant danger of being attacked? So, to alleviate this problem of POTENTIALLY being attacked, I should attack THEM and conquer them and incorporate them into my culture for NO OTHER REASON than to prevent from being attacked in the first place?

Yeah, that's retarded. I'll continue laughing at you now.

Suppose that about 600 AD you warned Romans and Persians that soon a new religion would unite Arabia and the Arabs would conquer most of the near East. Do you think that you would be believed?

suppose that about 1200 AD you warned people in Eastern Europe that in a few decades the Mongols would invade and devastate their lands. Do you think you would be believed?

Suppose that about the year 1400 you told people in Ceylon that in a few decades a great Chinese Fleet would sail into the harbors and the king would treacherously attack the Chinese and be defeated and forced to become a tributary of China. Do you think that you would be believed?

Suppose that in 1500 you warned people in the Americas that small groups of conquisatores would soon conquer their populous realms. Do you think that you would have been believed?

Suppose that about 1900 AD you said that a hundred years in the future the United States would have thousands of bombs powerful enough to destroy entire cities and thousands of giant rockets to carry them anywhere in the world, and yet the government of Afghanistan would permit a group centered there to attack the United States and kill thousands of its citizens, thus inviting an American attack. Would you be believed?

Most realms are at peace most of the time, but the peace does not last forever.

This is only what you THINK, not what you KNOW. The only reason why Euphemia went to Narita (that we know of, since its stated in the series) is because she "wanted to see actual combat for herself" (Cornelia stated this; again watch the episode for yourself). Anything else is just speculation.

Yes, but Cornelia probably does not always tell the whole truth. and Euphemia might sometimes put things diplomatically. So there is no certainty that Cornelia accurately passed on all of Euphemia's motives for her very surprising presence at Narita.

Is every country in a war right now? Are we all fighting each other? Even in the case of the United States, we are not in a war with any one particular country, so I do not know where you are getting this sentiment. The thing I am REALLY apposed to is the having a huge war to prevent a war when there is nothing wrong in the first place. What you are proposing is a preemptive strike against independent nations to prevent future wars, which is again very stupid and easy to say when you have never seen war beyond a television.

And I say it is very stupid to just sit around and wait to be attacked, then clobber the enemy, and wait around and be attacked and then clobber the enemy, over and over again for all eternity, while mean while other wars between other nations also happen on and off for all eternity.

At the very least a policy of waiting around for others to commit aggression against you, and then clobbering them, AND THEN annexing their nations, would be better. If the United States had annexed Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea, after World War Ii, for example, it would have made a good start on eventually uniting the whole world in just a few centuries.

[Aku no Hikari]

This has gone on long enough, seriously...

Noooooo, it's not NINE THOUSAND posts yet.

I am enjoying this epic thread.

ProEuphie, you deserve a place on Eris's mini-Encyclopedia Dramatica of AF. Someone document it plz?

[procrastinator_zerokiryuu]

Noooooo, it's not NINE THOUSAND posts yet.

I am enjoying this epic thread.

ProEuphie, you deserve a place on Eris's mini-Encyclopedia Dramatica of AF. Someone document it plz?

Why settle for nine thousand when you can have TEN? XD

Also, they have a mini-Encyclopedia Dramatica in AF? I am intrigued...

[Aku no Hikari]

Also, they have a mini-Encyclopedia Dramatica in AF? I am intrigued...

Yeah. But just so you don't get disappointed, it's nothing close to the real ED. But it'll probably amuse you for some time:

http://www.eris.name/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

[wolfgirl90]

Yes, you should ask yourself what my purpose is.

Why the hell should I? I honestly do not care about your opinion, I don't care about you and am really only responding because of the lulz (I select your post and hit "delete" in random areas and respond to the remains). Why should I care what your "purpose is" when I have said over and over that I honestly don't care (I have given up trying)? Haven't I made it clear that I REALLY do not take you seriously and am only answering your posts because they are so gosh darned stupid?

And where did I write that?

I didn't say that you wrote it. Did I say that you wrote that? No, I don't think so. However, I do believe I was talking about your beliefs, which you have confirmed already (merely saying that you didn't write something doesn't change the validity of the statement that was made), so that doesn't change the validity of what I said about you in the first place. I fact, you just proved my point.

What do the war crimes of the Axis have to do with the war crimes of the Allies, except to make some of the Allied spokesmen and propagandists hypocrites when they condemned Axis wars crimes that the Allies also committed?

Pardon me, but you were talking about condemning the Allied bombings of Axis cities, not war crimes. I said go ahead and condemn them; I don't care. HOWEVER, so long as you were doing that, you might as well condemn the Axis bombings of Allied cites as well, as it doesn't make any sense to pick one side when BOTH sides were bombing each other. You were upset that some of your loved ones didn't condemn the Allied bombing of Axis cities. Of course, there is a reason for this: because of the crap that the Axis was pulling off during the war (they weren't exactly innocent little lambs). If you ask someone who is living is a formally-Allied nation, you are bound to get bias, so why the hell does that surprise you?

And I don't see why other viewers do not also feel humiliated and resentful about that.

About...what, exactly? I understood what was going on. I knew this was a Sunrise anime, something that was going to make me think, since they never really have a clear "good" and "bad" side when it comes to conflicts (they just present different sides; you pick which is "good" or "bad"...if you must). Now, considering that you are rather steadfast in your standards of characters and their actions, the fact that you let your morals slip and gave Lelouch the benefit of the doubt when he was murdering people because of lack of slip is rather hilarious and yes, you should feel rather humiliated.

Yes, but Cornelia probably does not always tell the whole truth. and Euphemia might sometimes put things diplomatically.

Unfortunately for you, this is cartoon with a script and a limited universe. Outside of this realm is speculation, which is not prove of a damn thing. Why did Euphemia go to Narita? Because she wanted to see combat. How do we know this? Because Cornelia told Guiliford, and therefore the audience, that that is what Euphemia herself said (as the Chief-General, what point would there be in lying?). Your speculation doesn't disprove my point.

Also I do not know what you mean by "Euphemia might sometimes put things diplomatically". Her being there had nothing to do with diplomacy (even as a Sub-Vicereine, diplomacy had nothing to do with anything).

And I say it is very stupid to just sit around and wait to be attacked, then clobber the enemy, and wait around and be attacked and then clobber the enemy, over and over again for all eternity, while mean while other wars between other nations also happen on and off for all eternity.

Its equally stupid to assume that any and all nations will attack you. Just because a nation is not attacking anybody doesn't mean they are just waiting to be attacked. That makes no sense. Maybe, just maybe, the reason they don't want to attack anyone is because they have no reason to do so? The "clobbering" wouldn't occur in the first place if the aggression was never there. If one wants to go off attacking people to prevent themselves from being attacked, that's their call, but once they attack, its on; the other guy is going to fight back.

And THAT'S the reason why I am against that ideal of yours. There is no point in attacking to prevent from being attacked if you yourself cause the other side to attack you anyway by attacking them. You just defeated the purpose.

If the United States had annexed Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea, after World War Ii, for example, it would have made a good start on eventually uniting the whole world in just a few centuries.

Ooookaaaaay...but, in case you haven't noticed, the United States is allies with Japan and South Korea and is freaking NATO allies with both Germany and Italy so again, what's your point? We are even allies with all those countries that Germany once occupied, so again, I do not see your point.

Also, why in the hell are we talking about this? Do you enjoy arguing or what? Don't you want to get back to the point or does it not matter to you anymore (it sure as hell doesn't matter to me, but this isn't my thread)?

[proEuphie]

Pardon me, but you were talking about condemning the Allied bombings of Axis cities, not war crimes. I said go ahead and condemn them; I don't care. HOWEVER, so long as you were doing that, you might as well condemn the Axis bombings of Allied cites as well, as it doesn't make any sense to pick one side when BOTH sides were bombing each other. You were upset that some of your loved ones didn't condemn the Allied bombing of Axis cities. Of course, there is a reason for this: because of the crap that the Axis was pulling off during the war (they weren't exactly innocent little lambs). If you ask someone who is living is a formally-Allied nation, you are bound to get bias, so why the hell does that surprise you?

How can you claim that the allied bombings of Axis cities were different from war crimes?

I quote the Hague Convention of 1907:

Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Delivering bombs via rockets, missiles, artillery and aircraft should be prohibited as a form of "Attack or bombardment, by whatever means".

And how often did the Allies do all in their power to warn the authorities before bombing an Axis city? Was it one hundred percent of the time?

I do not see how the world can benefit from deciding in the 1940s that something which was declared a war crime in 1907 is no longer a war crime. The world can only benefit from increasing and tightening the restrictions on what behavior is legal during war, not by relaxing and loosening those restrictions.

One could say that it is not prohibited to attack or bombard defended cities and that World war II air raids were carried out against cities defended by searchlights, anti-aircraft fire, and fighter aircraft. But which came first, the air raids or the defenses against them? And how would one side know of an enemy city was defended against air raids without launching an air raid to find out? And launching an air raid to find out if an enemy city was defended against air raids would be a war crime.

And of course the diplomats who created the Hague Convention of 1907 were thinking of cities, villages, and buildings which were or were not defended against attack from the ground and which were or were not being used as fortifications against ground attack. The creators of the Hague convention envisioned tactical attacks or bombardments against cities or dwellings or buildings which were fortified and defended against ground attack or were not fortified against ground attack. They believed it would be a crime to launch a tactical attack or bombardment by whatever means against any cities or villages or single buildings which were not defended against ground attack.

It is obviously irrational to declare one type of action a war crime because it was too cruel and brutal and let a somewhat similar but even more cruel and brutal type of action continue to be considered legal.

Obviously a strategic attack or bombardment of a city, village, or single building would be usually much more severe than a tactical bombardment of a city or building and would involve far more civilian casualties and loss of shelter than a tactical attack on that city, village, or single building to support ground military operations. Thus laws of war which prohibit tactical attacks or bombardments under certain circumstances imply that strategic attacks and bombardments are also prohibited under those circumstances.

Since the drafters and signers of the Hague Convention of 1907 believed it would have been a war crime to launch a tactical attack by whatever means against a city or village or single building that was not defended against a ground attack, they obviously would have believed that it was a war crime to launch a strategic attack against a city or village or single building that was not defended against ground attack.

Since almost all the Allied and Axis cites that suffered air raids in World war II were far behind the battle lines and not being defended against ground attack (since the enemy armies were far away), almost all the Axis and Allied air raids against cities in World War II were war crimes in violation of Article 25.