StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This is the comment that pissed me off more then ANYTHING else in the entire movie.

Shinzan was talking to Picard about the Reman rebellion against the Romulans, the one for their FREEDOM to be libereated from a life of BRUTAL FORCED LABOR as Romulan SLAVES. Picard has the NERVE to say to Shinzan "And how many Romulans DIED for your freedom (last word said with hint of contempt)?" in his ultra-moralizing tone (you know the one I'm talking about).

This comment pissed me off so much that I was grinding my teeth after I heard it. Nothing I have heard Picard utter up to this point has driven the Statist mentality of Picard and the Federation as much as this one comment has. If your enslaved by a group of people, they have taken your life away from you..... you have EVERY right to try and take it back by ANY means necessary... even if it costs your oppressors their lives, in fact I would argued that they forfeited it when they forced you into chains. If Shinzan had said to me what he said to Picard I would have congradulated him.
More then anything else, in the movie, Picard's comment places a huge glaring spotlight on the statist/collectist mentality of the writers of Star Trek, they clearly place the value of the state higher then that of the Individual. They have no idea what Freedom really is, and what it can cost to keep it. God I hate those collectivist assholes....

Picard finds murder to be morally reprehensible. Here is Shinzon, a man who says he's so much like Picard, taking pride in the fact that he killed his slave-masters for his freedom. Picard would not take pride. He would think it regrettable that he had to do such a thing (as should most moral people) and he was making a point to Shinzon that they are not alike; that where Shinzon took pride in his conquest, Picard would find regret.

Picard wasn't saying "You bastard, how dare you murder those Romulans", he was saying "You say we're alike, yet you take pride in the fruits of murder. We're not alike."

Thats exactly my point, Picard dosen't see any difference between a freedom fighter and a murderer, when in reality there is a HUGE difference between the two.

Uh, okay, so "freedom fighters" should take pride in killing people, like Shinzon did? I don't think so.

Killing should be a last resort, and it is not wrong to regret taking other people's lives, nor is it wrong to regret the necessity of doing so.

To be frank, there's always been this gung-ho shoot-em-up faction of sci-fi fans that has always irritated me... and you can easily know them by their (typically poorly worded) critique of TNG that usually reads "OMG Picard was so dumb he should have shot first and asked questions later" or something similar in intent.

An IRL analogy would be a cop that shot and killed everyone who made even a slightly threatening move towards them. While not everyone is so stupid as to come up to the level of the analogy, those people are out there and they're probably the most irritating faction of people out on the 'net.

Consider Picard's comment in the context of our times. In the current environment, Trek couldn't have adopted the pro-'freedom fighter' position for fear of being labeled pro-terrorism.

While I think it clear that killing is necessary under such circumstances, I also find it strange that Shinzon, who is just like Picard, didn't even care that he had done it.

On the other side of the coin, I find it astonishing that for a group sworn not to interfere with anything is so incredibly judgemental of other cultures. Picard seems to take pleasure in morally guiding every group he's ever come across, even if their culture is completely dissimilar to that of humans and many of the other UFP races.

Enlightenment wrote:Consider Picard's comment in the context of our times. In the current environment, Trek couldn't have adopted the pro-'freedom fighter' position for fear of being labeled pro-terrorism.

Even today, I suspect that actual slaves who killed their oppressors would not be cast in a bad light ... unless, of course, their oppressors are economic benefactors of major American multinational corporations

Darth Wong wrote:Even today, I suspect that actual slaves who killed their oppressors would not be cast in a bad light ... unless, of course, their oppressors are economic benefactors of major American multinational corporations

I suspect the kind of people who'd get upset over a comment like that wouldn't have the attention span to hear 'slave.' They'd just hear the concept of fighting for freedom and assume that the writers were either anti-semetic or expressing support for Osama bin Laden's struggle to 'free' Islamics from western influences. By no means am I talking about rocket scientists here....

Never mind the fact that they actually showed the mines they were forced to slave in.............

Uraniun235 wrote:Picard finds murder to be morally reprehensible. Here is Shinzon, a man who says he's so much like Picard, taking pride in the fact that he killed his slave-masters for his freedom. Picard would not take pride. He would think it regrettable that he had to do such a thing (as should most moral people) and he was making a point to Shinzon that they are not alike; that where Shinzon took pride in his conquest, Picard would find regret.

Picard wasn't saying "You bastard, how dare you murder those Romulans", he was saying "You say we're alike, yet you take pride in the fruits of murder. We're not alike."

Except for the fact that the fruits of the deaths was freedom. Something to take pride in. Unless, it wasn't taking pride in the fruit but in the murder part.

If I was in that situation I wouldn't revel in the deaths. But I wouldn't feel remorse for it either.

I think Picard was trying to gauge him. Remember, Skippy's acting as the praetor of the Romulan Empire, and claims he wants full peace. Picard was probably testing his reaction to being reminded of the fact that he killed Roms to see whether he cared about them or not. If he didn't care, Picard would know it would be difficult to attain peace with a man who'd probably murder Roms all the time.

Sounds like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to me...

Actually, it doesn't sound like the Israeli/palestinian conflict, since the palestinians aren't slaves. Personally, I find the israeli/palestiniean conflict to be more like the early solutions to nazism, with the target populations being relocated to refuge camps *cough*ghettos*cough* Its just that the palestinians are putting up more resistance.

Also, remember the difference between "Freedom Fighters" and "Terrorists."

Who wins.

Singuler Quartet wrote: Also, remember the difference between "Freedom Fighters" and "Terrorists."

Who wins.

No, the difference is who they actively seek to kill.

Graeme Dice wrote:No, the difference is who they actively seek to kill.

Yeah. Terrorists kill Americans. Freedom Fighters kill for America.

Enlightenment wrote:

Graeme Dice wrote:No, the difference is who they actively seek to kill.

Yeah. Terrorists kill Americans. Freedom Fighters kill for America.

Yep Or another way to put it. Terrorists Kill American's, Freedom Fighter's kill with Funds from the west. (During the Cold War it would be Terrorists kill American's. Freedom Fighter's kill Communists but we live in slightly changed times...)

In addition to "terrorism" (killing "good" civilians in order to demand concessions) and "freedom fighters" (killing "bad" civilians in order to demand concessions), we have "collateral damage" (casual disregard for civilian life and use of indiscriminate weapons that kill more civilians than combatants), and "strategic bombing" (deliberately killing civilians who are part of the enemy's military/economic infrastructure, which is to say ANY civilians who committed the crime of having jobs).

All make sense from the standpoint that they may help achieve larger political goals. But for some reason, they are regarded as being dramatically different from a moral perspective.

Darth Wong wrote:In addition to "terrorism" (killing "good" civilians in order to demand concessions) and "freedom fighters" (killing "bad" civilians in order to demand concessions), we have "collateral damage" (casual disregard for civilian life and use of indiscriminate weapons that kill more civilians than combatants), and "strategic bombing" (deliberately killing civilians who are part of the enemy's military/economic infrastructure, which is to say ANY civilians who committed the crime of having jobs).

All make sense from the standpoint that they may help achieve larger political goals. But for some reason, they are regarded as being dramatically different from a moral perspective.

Well if it makes any difference strategic bombing has only ever happened in a time of declared war between to known belligerents.

The first two are items generally limited to times of peace by irregular forces not directly controlled by a central government.

The third "collateral damage" is an unfortunate side effect of using large powerful weapons around fragile human beings.

DocMoriartty wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:In addition to "terrorism" (killing "good" civilians in order to demand concessions) and "freedom fighters" (killing "bad" civilians in order to demand concessions), we have "collateral damage" (casual disregard for civilian life and use of indiscriminate weapons that kill more civilians than combatants), and "strategic bombing" (deliberately killing civilians who are part of the enemy's military/economic infrastructure, which is to say ANY civilians who committed the crime of having jobs).

All make sense from the standpoint that they may help achieve larger political goals. But for some reason, they are regarded as being dramatically different from a moral perspective.

Well if it makes any difference strategic bombing has only ever happened in a time of declared war between to known belligerents.

Its called bombing your opponenet's factories. This has happened in every single war, whether declared or not declared. Now quite being such an ignorant optimist.

The first two are items generally limited to times of peace by irregular forces not directly controlled by a central government.

The third "collateral damage" is an unfortunate side effect of using large powerful weapons around fragile human beings.

Actually, my point was that, terrorists are people who are in the process of a revolt, or where put down. Freedom Fighters are if you win. It all depends on who writes the history books.

Singuler Quartet wrote:
Its called bombing your opponenet's factories. This has happened in every single war, whether declared or not declared. Now quite being such an ignorant optimist.

Whats your point? I was merely pointing out that Strategic Bombing was not a terrorist item. Also it has not happened in every war.

It is purely a creation of the 20th century. In fact while it happened to a tiny amount in WW1 between Zepplin attacks on London and Super Artillery assaults on Paris, it was really WW2 where strategic bombing came into existance.

Also I would like to point out that Strategic Bombing has really not been used that heavily in conflict since then.

The Korean War sw it some but most weapons used by North Korea were made in China and or the USSR, neither of which were bombed.

The same can be said for Vietnam, there were some strat bombing actions like Big Week but again most weapons were built in China or the USSR where the factories were out of reach.

[quote="Singuler Quartet]
Actually, my point was that, terrorists are people who are in the process of a revolt, or where put down. Freedom Fighters are if you win. It all depends on who writes the history books.[/quote]

Yes and no.

While it is the victors that write the history not all revolutions are the same. Modern terrorists quite often go out of their way to avoid engaging military targets and instead focus 100% on defenseless civiliar targets.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm commenting on this one quote out of context. With that disclaimer out of the way, yes, ever since the very first TNG episode the Federation has had this annoying Neville Chamberlain-style "peace at all costs" view that irritates the hell out of me. I don't think this is what Picard is trying to say though: his point seems to me to be that Shinzon was more interested in killing Romulans for the sake of the killing rather than any high-minded ideals. Like y'all have been saying in the freedom fighters vs. terrorists discussion, it's what seperates the one from the other: a terrorist is just out to cause fear and mayhem amoung the general populace without regard for who they kill or why. Judging from some spoilers I've caught about the weapons on the Scimitar, I'd say that Picard made a pretty accurate evaluation of Shinzon's character. It could have been better written, but then that comment's being made quite frequently about this film.

As an aside, I got the impression that strategic bombing was the result of the inaccuracy of WW2 bombers: lacking the precision we do now, they grouped a wave of heavy bombers together and hit an area in the hopes of destroying the actual target in the process. (and before the flames come my way if I got that wrong... art was my major, not history)

Yes it was an evolution during WW2. When the war first started people believed that several dozen bombers could inflict enough damage to level a city like London, Paris, or Berlin.

Not only did this prove to be wrong but also they learned that their accuracey was horrible. At one point British Bomber Command sent a flight to nail a factory in Germany and instead hit a completely different country (Denmark if I remember correctly).

So the only solution to these two problems was mass formations of bombers though they were not always used the same. The US Army Airforce launched day raids and still tried to focus on industrial targets. British Bomber Command focused on night attacks and didnt bother to aim at anything smaller than the city itself.

beyond hope wrote: As an aside, I got the impression that strategic bombing was the result of the inaccuracy of WW2 bombers: lacking the precision we do now, they grouped a wave of heavy bombers together and hit an area in the hopes of destroying the actual target in the process. (and before the flames come my way if I got that wrong... art was my major, not history)