What if you were in Anakin's shoes ?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The comparison between the Obi-Wan/Grievous and the Obi-Wan/Vader fight is erroneous. Yoda and the rest of the Jedi did not view Grievous as a terrible threat to the Order the way Yoda saw Anakin and Palpatine, that's why in the Grievous incident, the Code still had to be obeyed. And what I said was that the failure of a sneak attack, as well as the lecturing, is proof of hesitation, and the only logical reason for hesitation is Obi-Wan's desire to try to turn him back and only kill im if that failed, and any sane perosn does not try to bring someone back from the wrong side if they are resigned to kill them from the start. And for Yoda to order two assasinations, and to participate in one of them, is a break from the Code! Remember the fight between Windu and Palpatine. Windu says that he has to kill Palpatine because he is too dangerous to be left alive and Anakin's response is that it's against the code! Case closed on that one.

Whether Obi-Wan's reluctance to sneak attack is the result of the Jedi Code or not, you plainly ignore that it is simply not in his nature to do so. Obi-Wan has never expressed characteristics of someone who would avoid direct confrontation and resort to sneak attack tactics. You simply cite Obi-Wan's lack of a sneak attack as proof that Obi-Wan went there without any intention of killing Vader. It's a rather black-white world you live in. You can't seem to figure in that there was conflict in Obi-Wan as to whether or not he should kill Vader. I already said that Obi-Wan probably had a glimmer of hope that Anakin would be redeem as observed by his lecturing but his shitty "reasoning" indictates that he is mostly resigned to killing him.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

I expect you support this claim with evidence.

That's a stupid thing to say, My statement was a postulation based on common sense. No evidence can be given except logical posulation, a faculty you seem to be missing.

Oh, I won't call you a hypocrite for that; I'll call you an immoral asshole who praises Anakin's decision because he was consistent, and ignores the fact he condemned the entire fucking galaxy.

Whoa, touched a nerve, huh. I'm sorry (not really) if it offends you that my morals and principles say that I do anyhting for the people I love, including damning an entire Galaxy. I guess morals are like assholes, everyone has them and there are different kinds.

You've never had a relationship and then been involved in a breakup, have you?

Been in a relationship? Check. Pretty heartwrenching breakup (where she did the dumping)? Got one of those under my belt. Pertains to this situation? Bzzz. Error. It wasn't a breakup, it was in essence a lover's argument, and if Padme was in love with Anakin (which she was) then she should have tried to do anyhting for him (like helping him). And the most clear way to do that is...join him!

What the fuck are you smoking, moron? The Empire existed before Padme's choice!

In name only. I wasn't until after Yoda failed to kill Palpatine and Obi-Wan spared Vader that they both were able to solidify their hold on the government. If Padme had joined Anakin, they would have killed Palpatine and Palpatine's Empire would have just been an Empire of words.

She had loyalty enough that she was willing to give up her job, give up everything you claim she held above Anakin, for him

Not everything. She still held democracy above Anakin, or else she woulda joined him and became a Sith Queen (for a time.)

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

You simply cite Obi-Wan's lack of a sneak attack as proof that Obi-Wan went there without any intention of killing Vader.

Do you people even read my posts? I said that he went there hoping to convince Anakin to come back to the Light Side, but he was willing to kill Anakin if he failed! This is what I cite the lack of sneak attack as proof of. If you say there is a glimmer of hope in Obi-Wan and that he doesn't want to kill him from the start then I totally agree with you. I am combating the notion, put forth by seom people in the thread, that Obi-Wan went to Mustafar without any intention of atempting to turn Anakin back the the Light Side.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Do you people even read my posts? I said that he went there hoping to convince Anakin to come back to the Light Side, but he was willing to kill Anakin if he failed! This is what I cite the lack of sneak attack as proof of. If you say there is a glimmer of hope in Obi-Wan and that he doesn't want to kill him from the start then I totally agree with you. I am combating the notion, put forth by seom people in the thread, that Obi-Wan went to Mustafar without any intention of atempting to turn Anakin back the the Light Side.

Whether Obi-Wan wanted to kill Vader or not is entirely irrelevant. The matter of fact is you assert that Obi-Wan decided that he had to kill him after his conversation with Vader. On the contrary, Obi-Wan had every intention of killing Vader the moment he stepped out of the ship. For his own personal sake, he had to ensure that the boy he trained is truly gone.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

Whether Obi-Wan wanted to kill Vader or not is entirely irrelevant. The matter of fact is you assert that Obi-Wan decided that he had to kill him after his conversation with Vader. On the contrary, Obi-Wan had every intention of killing Vader the moment he stepped out of the ship. For his own personal sake, he had to ensure that the boy he trained is truly gone.

Wrong! The fact that he lectured for several minutes at Anakin is a sign that he didn't have every intention of killing Anakin. Otherwise, he would have come out swinging. He had the intention of killing Anakin if his atempts to turn him back failed. And because the actions on the screen lend credence to my interpretation of Obi-Wan's intentions, the burden of proving otherwise rests with you. Until you can come up with some canon evidence to the contrary (and remember that because observable actions are higher up the canon chain than dialogue, you have to show some evidence of Obi-Wan's thoughts from the novelization that supports your theory) I consider this discussion over, otherwise we'll merely go back and forth forever.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Wrong! The fact that he lectured for several minutes at Anakin is a sign that he didn't have every intention of killing Anakin. Otherwise, he would have come out swinging. He had the intention of killing Anakin if his atempts to turn him back failed. And because the actions on the screen lend credence to my interpretation of Obi-Wan's intentions, the burden of proving otherwise rests with you. Until you can come up with some canon evidence to the contrary (and remember that because observable actions are higher up the canon chain than dialogue, you have to show some evidence of Obi-Wan's thoughts from the novelization that supports your theory) I consider this discussion over, otherwise we'll merely go back and forth forever.

Again, you fall back on this "He didn't swing out attacking means he didn't have any intention of killing him!" bullshit. Consider this discussion over if you will. However, you have proven nothing other than your pitiful hypocrisy in claiming your observation of Obi-Wan's actions are somehow more canonical than mine. And in the end, it is revealed that the crux of your argument rests on your idiotic premise that Obi-Wan's lack of swinging out at Vader means he had no intention of killing him even after I had already established the fact that it is not in Obi-Wan's character to swing out like that.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

Wrong! The fact that he lectured for several minutes at Anakin is a sign that he didn't have every intention of killing Anakin. Otherwise, he would have come out swinging. He had the intention of killing Anakin if his atempts to turn him back failed. And because the actions on the screen lend credence to my interpretation of Obi-Wan's intentions, the burden of proving otherwise rests with you. Until you can come up with some canon evidence to the contrary (and remember that because observable actions are higher up the canon chain than dialogue, you have to show some evidence of Obi-Wan's thoughts from the novelization that supports your theory) I consider this discussion over, otherwise we'll merely go back and forth forever.

Again, you fall back on this "He didn't swing out attacking means he didn't have any intention of killing him!" bullshit. Consider this discussion over if you will. However, you have proven nothing other than your pitiful hypocrisy in claiming your observation of Obi-Wan's actions are somehow more canonical than mine. And in the end, it is revealed that the crux of your argument rests on your idiotic premise that Obi-Wan's lack of swinging out at Vader means he had no intention of killing him even after I had already established the fact that it is not in Obi-Wan's character to swing out like that.

For the Absolute Last Time: He didn't come out swinging + the minutes long lecture. These both combined prove that my theory is more closely matching with what we see onscreen. I understand that you might be too thick to understand this. If that's the case, then I suggest you refrane from entering discussions that require any abstract thinking or indepth anaylsis. If that's not the case, and you're only looking at part of my argument so you can come out on top, then I suggest that you keep dishonest debating tactics like that out of these discussions because they don't belong here (or anywhere.)

[Pint0 Xtreme]

For the Absolute Last Time: He didn't come out swinging + the minutes long lecture. These both combined prove that my theory is more closely matching with what we see onscreen. I understand that you might be too thick to understand this.

Obi-Wan's lecture is hardly evidence that he was trying to reason with Vader. His scolding is more characteristic of confirming that his former padawan is dead. I've already said this before but it apparently, "conveniently" escaped your memory. Your logical conclusion of both premises are completely flawed and you've yet to address my points on why they are. Do you think that if you continue to mundanely repeat your argument, that my rebuttals would somehow disappear?

If that's the case, then I suggest you refrane from entering discussions that require any abstract thinking or indepth anaylsis. If that's not the case, and you're only looking at part of my argument so you can come out on top, then I suggest that you keep dishonest debating tactics like that out of these discussions because they don't belong here (or anywhere.)

Dishonest debating tactics? You mean like pointing out how your "He didn't come out swing" premise proves jackshit? Wow, sure makes me look dishonest doesn't it? You sure have a funny image of Obi-Wan Kenobi since you think that he would have suddenly come out swinging contrary to his entire behavior pattern in the entire fucking saga.

[Cykeisme]

It's pretty clear from Yoda and Obi-Wan's conversations that they were planning to kill the two Sith Lords.

I think that Obi-Wan still had lingering doubts about Anakin, so he had to confirm that Anakin was irredeemable. I mean, if Anakin suddenly turned back and said, "Whoa, what am I doing? The Sith are evil! What have I done?" or something, then obviously they wouldn't have gotten down to the lightsaber-swinging business. As it is, Obi-Wan knew that Anakin wouldn't turn back. He just had to be absolutely sure, and remove all doubt, before he got to work.

It is dangerous to have any reservations whatsoever (much less compassion) for your opponent, when engaged in mortal combat. Whether Obi-Wan himself would admit it, the "lecture" was just a matter of getting that out of the way.

[Darth Wong]

No, no, no. Anakin's choice destroyed the Jedi, but if Padme had said yes, the Republic would have been recreated under Padme's guiding hand.

I expect you support this claim with evidence.

That's a stupid thing to say, My statement was a postulation based on common sense. No evidence can be given except logical posulation, a faculty you seem to be missing.

No, it is a faculty that you seem to be missing. If you state that A would lead to B and someone challenges you, you cannot simply wave your hand and say "it's logic!" You have to show how this logic works, ie- how you know that A would lead to B and not to any other outcome.

In short, you made a claim, you were challenged to back it up, and you refused. We have rules here; the kind of no-evidence no-logic bullshit that flies at other forums is not allowed. When challenged, you are supposed to explain your reasoning: the same requirement that is tacked onto the end of countless school assignments, so don't pretend you've never seen it before.

[Noble Ire]

Horribly erroneous comparison. Your hypothetic cop killer doesn't have a shred of good intentions in him, Anakin did. Your hypothetical cop choked because the killer had a hostage, not because of some "cute off your nose to spite your face" reason (see previous posts.)

And what if the killer did have some good intention, and he was forced to kill cops to accomplish it? Would it make his actions justified? If said killer was blackmailed into hunting down cops as the only way to save a loved one, would you still laud his actions? And your assertion that Padme is somehow trying to spite Anakin is ridiculous. In a sense, he was literaly insane on Mustafar. Why would you even think of attempting to base a rational plan (like the one you keep harping on, and would have been virtually impossible for anyone to forment without some time to think about it, and in-depth knowledge of the dynamic between Anakin and Palaptine) on the actions of a person who has just started murdering people for a reason unknown to you?

Plus, I'd love for you to show me where and how Anakin knew that Palpatine had been manipulating him for a decade (we know, but that's part of the 20/20 hindsight crap I've been fighting against in this thread) and show me where Anakin would know about Palpatine's genocidal plans

He admitted he was a Sith lord, and had the intent to destroy the Jedi. He had cultivated Anakin's growth in the Order, and arranged his placement on the council. Even Anakin isn't stupid enough to miss that, even if he might still follow Palpatine, since he has something he needs.

Please read my previous posts where I use the movie to debunk the idea that Anakin became Vader prior to Padme's rejection. If you're gonna believe that he became Vader when he committed the atrocities at the Jedi Temple, you have to believe that he became Vader when he killed all the Sand People (men, women, and children) way back in Episode II (same principle slaughter of innocents), but you won't see anyone trying to advance that theory. Case closed on that one. As to wether Padme would know Anakin would be a better ruler than Palpatine, she's been with the guy for years now. She knows, even when laying on the operating table after giving birth, that there is good left in Anakin/Vader (she's proven right by her son in ROTJ), so right there she'd know she could reach out to that good and help him be a better ruler than Palpatine. Case closed on that one.

I would love for you to explain why you are so sure that your assessement of his downfall is the correct one. Certainly, the point on Mustafar is a possibility, Padme's betrayal and all, but it could have just as easily been on Coruscant. Think about it; Anakin didn't even consider the Tuskens to be "people", and he still felt horrible after what did, almost debilitatingly so. The Jedi are different; he's served with them, trained with them, is probably friends with more than one. He knows they aren't savages, and yet you claim that this same Anakin would gladly go about slaughtering every single one he could find, including children, merely to save the life of one, no matter how much he loved her? I can see him killing Mace impulsively to save her, but not what he did after. No, either that was Vader in the Temple, or Anakin was insane from the beginning (which I do not believe.)

Please read by previous posts where I lay out how a "yes" answer from Padme would first lead to a Sith Empire under Anakin (which wouldn't be a genocidal reign like Palpatine's) and then would transition into a New Republic under Padme's guiding hand. Not to mention that, as I've stated earlier, Anakin's fall does not doom the Galaxy without Padme's rejection.

How can you prove that Padme's presence would redeem him, especially since he had already tapped so deeply into the dark side just to save her. Perhaps, the Empire would be better for a time, but it is entirely possible that Anakin might simply become absorbed in the power of the Dark Side, and not take to kindly to any effort to spawn a new Republic from it. For all your assertions, you cannot prove, as you claim so often, anything.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

Your logical conclusion of both premises are completely flawed and you've yet to address my points on why they are. Do you think that if you continue to mundanely repeat your argument, that my rebuttals would somehow disappear?You sure have a funny image of Obi-Wan Kenobi since you think that he would have suddenly come out swinging contrary to his entire behavior pattern in the entire fucking saga.

First of all, My theory might not be perfect, but you fail to cite any part of the movie or part of the novelization that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS my theory using reasonable logic, while I have given several parts of the movie that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your theory using reasonable logic (see below)

Obi-Wan just found out his best friend just killed a bunch of younglings. What fucked up logic do you use to think that he would act according to "his entire behavior pattern in the entire fucking saga" after finding this out and being ordered to kill him by Yoda? We can even see parts of his hysterics during the fight.

The simple fact is that my theory, coupled with what we see onscreen, requires a lot less convoluted and retarded thinking on Obi-Wan's part than yours does. That's why YOU are required to furnish proof of this convoluted "I'll spend time to A) lecture an already lost student before killing him (which was, according to you, his plan from the start) or B) lecture my student to make sure that he's definitely lost (which proves my point that Obi-Wan was not resigned from the start to kill him, or else he would have killed him even if his lecturing showed that Anakin was savable, which is retarded.)

Gee, which one is is more logical and reasonable: One that jumps through no hoops to conform to what we see onscreen, or one that must jump through several convoluted, and often retarded, theory loops to conform to what's onscreen? I can't decide! (For those who are thick, I'm being sarcastic)

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

I expect you support this claim with evidence.

That's a stupid thing to say, My statement was a postulation based on common sense. No evidence can be given except logical posulation, a faculty you seem to be missing.

No, it is a faculty that you seem to be missing. If you state that A would lead to B and someone challenges you, you cannot simply wave your hand and say "it's logic!" You have to show how this logic works, ie- how you know that A would lead to B and not to any other outcome.

In short, you made a claim, you were challenged to back it up, and you refused. We have rules here; the kind of no-evidence no-logic bullshit that flies at other forums is not allowed. When challenged, you are supposed to explain your reasoning: the same requirement that is tacked onto the end of countless school assignments, so don't pretend you've never seen it before.

Momentary lapse of debating etique on my part. Point conceded. Though it might help if I said that Padme's personality and burning desire for democracy would lend credence to, though not prove, this point.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

And what if the killer did have some good intention, and he was forced to kill cops to accomplish it? Would it make his actions justified? If said killer was blackmailed into hunting down cops as the only way to save a loved one, would you still laud his actions?

Yes, because I would do the same in his place. That might turn a lot of people off, but that's how much I love the members of my family.

He admitted he was a Sith lord, and had the intent to destroy the Jedi. He had cultivated Anakin's growth in the Order, and arranged his placement on the council. Even Anakin isn't stupid enough to miss that, even if he might still follow Palpatine, since he has something he needs.

Point conceded, but Anakin's principles and desire to save Padme dicate that he still takes this path.

I would love for you to explain why you are so sure that your assessement of his downfall is the correct one. Certainly, the point on Mustafar is a possibility, Padme's betrayal and all, but it could have just as easily been on Coruscant

Because we see that he still thinks like Anakin, abet an Anakin tainted by the Darkside. With this train of throught, I think I'll even propose that he doesn't truly become Vader until the Emperor tells him he killed her (after the operation) because after the operation, and after acknowledhing that he can here the Emperor, his first thought is of Padme, not charateristic of the Vader we know from ANH.

How can you prove that Padme's presence would redeem him, especially since he had already tapped so deeply into the dark side just to save her. Perhaps, the Empire would be better for a time, but it is entirely possible that Anakin might simply become absorbed in the power of the Dark Side, and not take to kindly to any effort to spawn a new Republic from it. For all your assertions, you cannot prove, as you claim so often, anything.

EU presidence, where Luke goes to the Dark side under a clone of the Emperor and is brought back by the love of Leia and his friends. While it isn't proof (I'll concede the point that none of this can be "proven" because it is pure hypothesis) it lends credence to my position.

[Noble Ire]

Because we see that he still thinks like Anakin, abet an Anakin tainted by the Darkside. With this train of throught, I think I'll even propose that he doesn't truly become Vader until the Emperor tells him he killed her (after the operation) because after the operation, and after acknowledhing that he can here the Emperor, his first thought is of Padme, not charateristic of the Vader we know from ANH.

Of course, Vader still demonstrates some Anakin-like characteristics in Dark Lord, as well as at times in the OT, too a lesser extent. I wouldn't maintain he's still Anakin at that point, obviously, but simply going by personality traits isn't enough. Of course, it's kind of difficult to determine what is a good enough indicator to definatively say.

EU presidence, where Luke goes to the Dark side under a clone of the Emperor and is brought back by the love of Leia and his friends. While it isn't proof (I'll concede the point that none of this can be "proven" because it is pure hypothesis) it lends credence to my position.

True. Nevertheless, Vader/Anakin would be the Dark Lord at that point, and no Sith master has ever been converted, by love or otherwise (save a full mind wipe). Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. But as you say, its impossible to know for sure.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

Of course, Vader still demonstrates some Anakin-like characteristics in Dark Lord, as well as at times in the OT, too a lesser extent. I wouldn't maintain he's still Anakin at that point, obviously, but simply going by personality traits isn't enough. Of course, it's kind of difficult to determine what is a good enough indicator to definatively say.

I've always put the bench mark as what the person's priorities are. In this case Anakin still prioritizes Padme over everything else (as shown by his worry for her right after he gains lucidity) as opposed to ANH where he prioritizes the Empire over everything else. Now granted, Padme's dead, but that's one of my points, he truly becomes Darth Vader when he looses that last anchor. I use personaliy traits and actions as reflections of his principles and priorities.

[Sidewinder]

Sidious claimed he knew how to use the force to make people immortal-- in other words, to save Padme. After Anakin severed Mace Windu's hand, Sidious admitted he didn't know this secret, but if Anakin worked together with him, they'd find the secret.

After hearing Sidious admit this, I'd kill him, then try to take over the Republic. I'd tell the Jedi Council that Sidious killed Mace Windu-- that's not a lie, is it?-- and convince them to grant me the title of "Master" and, eventually, appoint me to the Council. I'd convince them that the Jedi should take control over the Republic, as the galaxy needs peace, order, and justice, and the ends justify the means. I'll accept the role as figurehead of the Republic government, with the Jedi Council as the real political power-- of course, the Council doesn't know that my role is not simply that of a figurehead.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

First of all, My theory might not be perfect, but you fail to cite any part of the movie or part of the novelization that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS my theory using reasonable logic, while I have given several parts of the movie that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT your theory using reasonable logic (see below)

And which parts of the movie directly contradict my conclusions? The fact that Obi-Wan didn't mount a sneak attack on Vader? The fact that Obi-Wan lectured him? None of these prove anything nor do they contradict anything I said, a point I've been making for the past three posts, which I noticed you continue to ignore.

Obi-Wan just found out his best friend just killed a bunch of younglings. What fucked up logic do you use to think that he would act according to "his entire behavior pattern in the entire fucking saga" after finding this out and being ordered to kill him by Yoda? We can even see parts of his hysterics during the fight.

Non-sequitur. Just because Obi-Wan borders on a nervous breakdown does not mean he will suddenly pick up cowardly tactics, which contradict Obi-Wan's character such as your ridiculous "sneak/surprise attack" proposition. In order for your theory to work, Obi-Wan would resort to attacking Vader outright if he thought Anakin was dead, which is a position I noticed you haven't bothered defending well at all.

The simple fact is that my theory, coupled with what we see onscreen, requires a lot less convoluted and retarded thinking on Obi-Wan's part than yours does. That's why YOU are required to furnish proof of this convoluted "I'll spend time to A) lecture an already lost student before killing him (which was, according to you, his plan from the start) or B) lecture my student to make sure that he's definitely lost (which proves my point that Obi-Wan was not resigned from the start to kill him, or else he would have killed him even if his lecturing showed that Anakin was savable, which is retarded.)

Just because Obi-Wan is resigned from the start to kill him doesn't mean he has no reservations whatsoever, you moron. Again, you display this simple-minded black and white thinking. You seem to think that if Obi-Wan feels that he must eventually kill Vader, he can simply disregard all feelings of hesitation towards his former padawan. If your brother becomes a serial killer and you know you're the only one that can stop him, do you suddenly have no feelings for him whatsoever?

Gee, which one is is more logical and reasonable: One that jumps through no hoops to conform to what we see onscreen, or one that must jump through several convoluted, and often retarded, theory loops to conform to what's onscreen? I can't decide! (For those who are thick, I'm being sarcastic)

It only appears convoluted when you can't think beyond your simpleton mentality that if someone is resigned to killing a loved one, that they can act as if that no remorse will come from killing them.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

Non-sequitur

This is not a non-sequitur. I merely gives a rational explination for a reason why, if he was so convinced that Anakin was truly lost, that he could try a sneak attack. It seems you're gonna start labling things that poke more holes in the probability of your theory non-sequiturs.

None of these prove anything nor do they contradict anything I said

They show the amount of improbabilities in your theory compared to mine. And I said it contradicted what's on screen unless given some dubious thinking on the part of Obi-Wan which you have yet to show proof for, something I had asked for several posts ago.

Just because Obi-Wan is resigned from the start to kill him doesn't mean he has no reservations whatsoever, you moron.

Are you retarded? You expect me that he lectured Anakin as a form of reservation? That's pretty laughable. Not to mention that it doesn't account for Obi-Wan sparing Anakin at the end of the fight. If he was so resigned as you said, you still haven't explained to me how this figures into your theory. And as for your hypothetical comparison (however erroneous), if I knew that I could only stop him I would try to talk him down and, if that failed, attempt to eliminate him. With terrible sorrow of course.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

This is not a non-sequitur. I merely gives a rational explination for a reason why, if he was so convinced that Anakin was truly lost, that he could try a sneak attack. It seems you're gonna start labling things that poke more holes in the probability of your theory non-sequiturs.

It is a non-sequitur, you idiot. Saying that Obi-Wan losing a brother leads to Obi-Wan adopting cowardly tactics he has never expressed in his entire life does not logically follow. You are plainly stating A leads to B without showing how or why.

None of these prove anything nor do they contradict anything I said

They show the amount of improbabilities in your theory compared to mine. And I said it contradicted what's on screen unless given some dubious thinking on the part of Obi-Wan which you have yet to show proof for, something I had asked for several posts ago.

What improbabilities? Your two premises have been effectively shot down and as far as I'm concerned, you haven't said anything to show otherwise. On the other hand, I merely made several observations based on Obi-Wan's character, which doesn't contradict what's shown on the screen contrary to your baseless claims and shameless attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Just because Obi-Wan is resigned from the start to kill him doesn't mean he has no reservations whatsoever, you moron.

Are you retarded? You expect me that he lectured Anakin as a form of reservation? That's pretty laughable.

What's so retarded about that? Is your brain that small that you can't comprehend the fact that Obi-Wan probably had reservations about killing his former padawan?

Not to mention that it doesn't account for Obi-Wan sparing Anakin at the end of the fight. If he was so resigned as you said, you still haven't explained to me how this figures into your theory.

At the end of the fight, Vader had become an unarmed being. It would violate the rules of the Jedi Code to kill Vader and be very unbecoming of Obi-Wan. But according to you, he should have since now that Obi-Wan's resigned to kill Vader, he suddenly disregards his jedi principles. Oh wait...

And as for your hypothetical comparison (however erroneous), if I knew that I could only stop him I would try to talk him down and, if that failed, attempt to eliminate him. With terrible sorrow of course.

It's funny how you missed the point and yet, assert that my comparison is somehow erroneous without explaining how. The whole point of the analogy was that attacking a loved one would instill feelings of reservation, even if you are resigned to kill them. Apparently, that concept somehow escapes your feeble mind.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

Then how do you explain him not killing Anakin when he flips from the lava driod to the bank...oh wait, according to your theory, it can't be explained because at that point he was still a threat! Plus the fact that he could still move and call on the force even with only on arm and no legs is enough to make a Sith dangerous (can you say Force Lightning!)

And I did get the point, and in my answer I purposely left out any indication of hesitancy, cause I wouldn't hesitate. And how did I shift the burdon of proof if I was the one who first asked for evidence to some of your claims, which were mostly ignored, before you brought up Obi-Wan's character (which in and of itself isn't proof considering how I gave a perfectly reasonable refuting retort.) and then demanded proof of my claims?

Plus, my "baseless" claims fit hand in glove with what's seen onscreen, while I have given several reasons (which you ignore) why yours doesn't unless you add in factors that you can't back up with canon proof!

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Then how do you explain him not killing Anakin when he flips from the lava driod to the bank...oh wait, according to your theory, it can't be explained because at that point he was still a threat!

What in blazes are you talking about? Obi-Wan nearly killed Vader defending himself!

Plus the fact that he could still move and call on the force even with only on arm and no legs is enough to make a Sith dangerous (can you say Force Lightning!)

I can't believe you're resorting to this bullshit. Vader clearly showed hatred towards Obi-Wan while laying there. If he could attack Obi-Wan, he would have. I think it's very safe to assume that he couldn't.

And I did get the point, and in my answer I purposely left out any indication of hesitancy, cause I wouldn't hesitate.

Oh, right. I'm talking to someone who condemned Padme for being selfish by refusing to join her husband in oppressing billions of star systems. Of course it would be easy for you to block out any reservations of killing a loved one.

And how did I shift the burdon of proof if I was the one who first asked for evidence to some of your claims, which were mostly ignored, before you brought up Obi-Wan's character (which in and of itself isn't proof considering how I gave a perfectly reasonable refuting retort.) and then demanded proof of my claims?

My claims are merely observations of Obi-Wan's actions and his character. I have no need to prove that my conclusions fit what is seen on the screen. You can see that for yourself. You, on the other hand, made the claim that my conclusions contradict what is seen on film based on shitty premises like "Obi-Wan didn't attack Vader outright" or "Obi-Wan was trying reason with Vader, even though he reasons so poorly despite being nicknamed 'The Negotiator'".

Plus, my "baseless" claims fit hand in glove with what's seen onscreen, while I have given several reasons (which you ignore) why yours doesn't unless you add in factors that you can't back up with canon proof!

Yeah, factors which I completely refuted many posts ago, which I noticed you haven't bothered defending. I also noticed that you ignored the idiotic non-sequitur you pulled earlier. You might want to start addressing those points if you don't want to look like someone who's evading counter-arguments, which doesn't bode well for you here.

[LordShaithis]

What's all this shit about Anakin taking over the government? Sure he talked about it, but how was it ever really going to happen? Okay, so he kills Sidious. Then what?

It took Palpatine decades of skilled political manuvering before he was in a position to take power. What's Anakin going to do? Chopping Palpatine's head off on the Senate floor and yelling "Ok, I killed him! So I'm king now!" isn't going to go very fucking far.

[Darth Cronos the Proud]

Obi-Wan could have swung towards whichever direction Anakin's neck was in. That's within the ability of a Jedi (I can point to any instance in the EU where it describes how a Jedi can read what direction a person is going into, that's why Jedi fights look so choreographed.)

The obervations you speak of directly impact the subject of this thread, so you do have to provide proof if you want your theory to be take seriously. You committed the same bad debating tatic Mike rightfully chastized me for several posts ago, namely the "I made a claim for which proof was demanding, yet I say I don't have to provide proof" stuff. I conceded my point then. Do you have the balls to do it now?

Plus, I'd like to see where you "refuted" one of my points without a prompt counter-refutement from myself and I'd be happy to provide one.

As for my supposed "bullshit" about Anakin and Force Lightning. There are two reasons why he didn't use it. 1) He was so consumed with rage towards Obi-Wan that he didn't think to use it, or 2) He didn't learn it from Palpatine. In the first case, there's no way for Obi-Wan to know that Anakin was too consumed with rage to not think clearly enough to use it (he could sense the rage level, but without being a Sith would not know the level of concentration required to use Force Lighning.) And in the second case, Obi-Wan had no way of knowing that Palpatine didn't teach Anakin that power. Either way, even with no legs and one arm, Anakin was a potential threat to Obi-Wan, and we both know why that would be relevant.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Obi-Wan could have swung towards whichever direction Anakin's neck was in. That's within the ability of a Jedi (I can point to any instance in the EU where it describes how a Jedi can read what direction a person is going into, that's why Jedi fights look so choreographed.)

And how do you know that striking at Vader's neck was a completely viable option? Just because Vader jumped over Obi-Wan makes his entire body completely defenseless now? Is it so inconceivable as to think that maybe Obi-Wan's viable choices in striking Vader was somehow limited considering that Vader still had his lightsabre in his fucking hand? Can you think beyond this simpleton mentality?

The obervations you speak of directly impact the subject of this thread, so you do have to provide proof if you want your theory to be take seriously. You committed the same bad debating tatic Mike rightfully chastized me for several posts ago, namely the "I made a claim for which proof was demanding, yet I say I don't have to provide proof" stuff. I conceded my point then. Do you have the balls to do it now?

What part of "observations of Obi-Wan's actions and character" don't you understand? Are you so thickheaded as to not see that the so called "proof" you are demanding is in the fucking movie? The conversations Obi-Wan had with Yoda and Padme directly implies that Obi-Wan intended to kill Vader when he sought Vader out in Mustafar. But of course you had to pull that "But Obi-Wan didn't use a sneak attack and he was trying to reason with Vader!" spin to argue that Obi-Wan had only decided to kill Vader after their conversation.

Plus, I'd like to see where you "refuted" one of my points without a prompt counter-refutement from myself and I'd be happy to provide one.

Your argument that my conclusions doesn't fit is based on two premises; that Obi-Wan didn't attack Vader outright and Obi-Wan spoke Vader before he fought as evidence that he was "reasoning" with Vader. Therefore, Obi-Wan had no intention of killing Vader until after the conversation.

A.) I pointed out that Obi-Wan using a sneak attack tactic is completely unbecoming of Obi-Wan's character and is something he would never do. Even after incapacitating Vader, he didn't kill him despite your claims that he would violate his own principles since the Jedi Order was in tatters.

B.) You refused to acknowledge that Obi-Wan's "reasoning" with Vader is hardly reasoning but rather his lecturing follows a characteristic of making sure the boy he trained was dead. Considering the fact that Obi-Wan is known as "The Negotiator" for his diplomacy skills, the conclusion that Obi-Wan was sincerely trying to bring Anakin back from the dark side is entirely unconvincing.

But of course, instead of addressing those points, you making passing comments about how my conclusion contradict what we see onscreen.

As for my supposed "bullshit" about Anakin and Force Lightning. There are two reasons why he didn't use it. 1) He was so consumed with rage towards Obi-Wan that he didn't think to use it, or 2) He didn't learn it from Palpatine.

Or maybe... 3.) Vader was too weak to mount an attack. GASP! Who would have thought of that?

In the first case, there's no way for Obi-Wan to know that Anakin was too consumed with rage to not think clearly enough to use it (he could sense the rage level, but without being a Sith would not know the level of concentration required to use Force Lighning.) And in the second case, Obi-Wan had no way of knowing that Palpatine didn't teach Anakin that power. Either way, even with no legs and one arm, Anakin was a potential threat to Obi-Wan, and we both know why that would be relevant.

Firstly, to assert that Vader was too consumed with rage to mount an attack is quite silly. I nominate that for the most silliest spin of the day. Secondly, it is commonly known that Vader lost the ability to use force lightning ever since he lost his limbs, which explains why he never used it in the old trilogy. Thirdly, he has the ability to force choke. If he had the power to do so, he would have certainly attacked Obi-Wan with it.

But fourthly (and most importantly), even if we assume for a second that Vader was too consumed with rage to think properly and had all his natural powers, including force lightning, the fact that he didn't mount an attack on Obi-Wan shows that for whatever reason, he couldn't. For all practical purposes, Vader was a defenseless being.

You're digging yourself into a hole with this one. Though, for entertainment purposes, I'd like to hear your next spin.