StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2002-07-25 10:27pm**

Acutal StromBringer thats incorrect he was excuted because he HAD be given the proper Training but blaimed it on his CO anyway
The exact quote in its full(uggh typing) length
On second thought no its not just the apporate parts

Thrawn: Your name?
"Cris Pieterson, sir the young man seated at the console answeared. his eyes wary.
"You where in charge of the tractor beam during our engagement with the fighter?"
Yes sir but what happened sir was not my fault"
Thran's eyebrows arched, just a bit "Explain"

(*Edit yada yada explains what he did, not relvant)
"I was never properly trained for such an occurrence sir." Pieterson said, a flicker of defiance touching his eyes. (*edit more what happend)
"You are in charge of this man?"
Colclazure swallowed visbily. "Yes sir" he said
"Was his training also your responsibility?"
"Yes sir" Colclazure said agian
"Did you, during that training, run through any scenarios similar to what just happned?"
"I... don't remeber sir" the ensign admitted "The standard traing package does inculde scenarios concerning loss of lock and subsequent reestablishment confirmation."
Thrawn threw(heh get it?) a brief glance back down at Pieterson. "Did you recruit him as well Ensign?:
"No sir. He was a conscript"
"Does that make him any less worthy of you training time than a normal enlistee?"
"Mo sir." Colclazuers's eyes flicked to Pieterson. "I've always tried to treat my subordinates equally."
"I see." Thrawn considered a moment, the half turned to look past Palaeon's shoulder "Rukh"
Pellaeon started as Rukh brushed silently past him; Thrawn waited untill Rukh was standing at his side then turned back to Colclazure. "Do you know the diffrance between an error and a mistake, Ensign
The entire bridge had gone deathly still. Colclazure swalloed agian, his face starting to go pale. "No Sir"
Anyone can make an error, Ensign. But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it"
He rasied a Finger-
And almost lazyily pointed"
Pellaeon never even saw Rukh Move. Pieterson certainily never had time to scream
(edit of bridge reactions)
"The error, Ensign, he told the other softly, "has now been corrected. You may begin training a replacement."

That shed a bit better light on the subject?

Posted: **2002-07-25 10:32pm**

Mr Bean:

I see how you can interpet it that way. I'm not sure I buy that interpetation my self, but it is possible. It still doesn't excuse his treatment of his troops on other occasions.

Posted: **2002-07-25 11:11pm**

No, the allies stopped a military aggresive force(s), which were invading other countries soverignty. I think you can see the difference, it is rather plain.

And the Rebellion wasn't a military agressive force??? It may not have been invading the sovereignty of other nations, but it WAS mounting an insurrection against an established government.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thrawn doesn't kill off his own men the way Vader does. That gives him a lot of points in my book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He does, when Luke escapes, he orders one of his bridge crewman killed. And it wasn't his fault, he simply hadn't been given the appropriate training.

The same situation is repeated later (more or less) except the crewman attempts to use a different tactic to latch onto luke. Because the crewman uses initiative, he gets promoted, despite his failure.

Posted: **2002-07-25 11:14pm**

Like when? (excluding the Noghri-slavery issue)

Posted: **2002-07-25 11:15pm**

"Like when" what?

Posted: **2002-07-25 11:23pm**

Sorry, didn't realize Lusankya would post.

"Like when" else does he kill subordinates?

Posted: **2002-07-25 11:45pm**

Originally posted by Lusankya
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the allies stopped a military aggresive force(s), which were invading other countries soverignty. I think you can see the difference, it is rather plain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the Rebellion wasn't a military agressive force??? It may not have been invading the sovereignty of other nations, but it WAS mounting an insurrection against an established government.

I knew you would say that! So let me explain the difference for you, seeing as though you are unable to see it for your self;

The rebellion was a civil war
The rebellion was not at any time interested in conquering worlds and subjecting them.
The rebellion's succesor, was the New Republic, whose members were free to leave and join without fear of military aggression.
The rebellion, was formed/supported and staffed by what you can technically call *subjects* of the Empire who wished freedom.

Any questions on the difference? Also I notice that your Cuban boy argument has been aborted...why? I have said it before and will say it again, everyone loves Thrawn, even me, however I am not blinded by it to the point where I would concede to all the inherently evil actions he did, and then return with but!. Let it go people.

Thrawn is an evil bastard...But he's our evil bastard!

Posted: **2002-07-25 11:50pm**

Sorry, didn't realize Lusankya would post.

"Like when" else does he kill subordinates

No other instances that I know of. I was also objecting to his allowing the mind rape of his officers and crew by C'boath. Thats just...... sick and creepy on a level I don't want to think about. For a specific example, look what happened to General Covell in The Last Command.

Posted: **2002-07-26 12:06am**

Yes, but it was the lesser of two evils. Better give C'boath some slack while plotting to get rid of him than oppose him directly and get shocked. That might not necessarily be the case, but I'm sure you see my point.

Posted: **2002-07-26 12:12am**

Why does the killing of an incompetent crewer mean he is evil. This is his command ship, there obviosly is a higher standard on that ship. it may have been a very harsh decision but he may have done it to show the crew that failure is inexcusable. The fear of death is a very good motivator. The Romans in order to keep armies from fleeing would kill every tenth man of the retreating force. This gave them a reason to fight harder and to win because their safety was not secure if they ran.

Posted: **2002-07-26 01:05am**

Mr. B wrote:Why does the killing of an incompetent crewer mean he is evil. This is his command ship, there obviosly is a higher standard on that ship. it may have been a very harsh decision but he may have done it to show the crew that failure is inexcusable. The fear of death is a very good motivator. The Romans in order to keep armies from fleeing would kill every tenth man of the retreating force. This gave them a reason to fight harder and to win because their safety was not secure if they ran.

Hence the term "decimating." BTW, this was only employed a couple of times, but it was an effective punishment for an army that had failed in combat. When the Romans lost to Spartacus and his former gladiators, a unit subjected to this was considered one of the best units in their next engagement, and "saved the day" according to many Romans.

Posted: **2002-07-26 05:22pm**

Yes, but it was the lesser of two evils. Better give C'boath some slack while plotting to get rid of him than oppose him directly and get shocked. That might not necessarily be the case, but I'm sure you see my point.

If C'boath hadf gotten off Wayland on his own, I'd concede the a point. But Thrawn let him loose. He didn't have to and shouldn't have let him out. He freed C'boath, helped him build up his power, and nearly handed him the entire galaxy. As it is his own monster got loose and he's at least indirectly responsible for C'boath's crimes.

Why does the killing of an incompetent crewer mean he is evil. This is his command ship, there obviosly is a higher standard on that ship. it may have been a very harsh decision but he may have done it to show the crew that failure is inexcusable.

It doesn't. What I have the problem with is the summarary execution of said crewman. He had the crewer killed when it was possible he was telling the truth. And it's possible that the training didn't cover the situation. Thrawn ought to have at least investigated the matter. If he did lie to hide a screwup kill him but at least check out the matter.

Posted: **2002-07-26 05:22pm**

Yes, but it was the lesser of two evils. Better give C'boath some slack while plotting to get rid of him than oppose him directly and get shocked. That might not necessarily be the case, but I'm sure you see my point.

If C'boath hadf gotten off Wayland on his own, I'd concede the a point. But Thrawn let him loose. He didn't have to and shouldn't have let him out. He freed C'boath, helped him build up his power, and nearly handed him the entire galaxy. As it is his own monster got loose and he's at least indirectly responsible for C'boath's crimes.

Why does the killing of an incompetent crewer mean he is evil. This is his command ship, there obviosly is a higher standard on that ship. it may have been a very harsh decision but he may have done it to show the crew that failure is inexcusable.

It doesn't. What I have the problem with is the summarary execution of said crewman. He had the crewer killed when it was possible he was telling the truth. And it's possible that the training didn't cover the situation. Thrawn ought to have at least investigated the matter. If he did lie to hide a screwup kill him but at least check out the matter.

Posted: **2002-07-26 10:14pm**

Thrawn is Evil from the side you read the books on. but is he really evil?

1. He held a race captive through lying
2. Was he Still following Orders?
3. He killed lots of people! (So Did the Rebellion)
4. He was Probably fight for what he thought was good
5. He was a Great Tactition

So I think Thrawn was not evil in his own sense. But through the sense of the Rebellion he was Evil.

Thrawn was NOT EVIL but a person Fight for his beliefs.
Plus he's a really COOL Dude!

Posted: **2002-07-26 10:30pm**

Which race did Thrawn lay captive by lying? The Noghri?...I thought Ruk was told to guard Thrawn by Vader and have been so ever since without Thrawn questioning him. And that Vader was the one that took them under his control.

If it's a diff. species then my bad

And i thought Chiss are not evil....they don't get mad or piss off...or that's what the EU says.
I think he just did what needed to be done period.

Cyaround,
Jason

Posted: **2002-07-26 10:44pm**

That guy who was killed died because he tried to shove the blame off onto one of his subordinates.

Posted: **2002-07-26 10:47pm**

No one disputes the man told the truth. I don't think Thrawn blamed him for losing the target lock. He was blamed for not re-assessing what they're sucking in upon re-establishment. After all, his officer said that the training package DOES train him to be able the confirm such things, IIRC.

Posted: **2002-07-26 10:59pm**

Soontir C'boath:

Thrawn knew how the Empire had enslaved the noghri and continued it. He made use of them. He was as guilty as anyone of enslaving the noghri.

The Chiss don't supress all emotion like the Vulcans. They do feel emotions; they do keep a tight reign of their emotions though (a cultural thing). War is for them, a dispassionate thing. Thrawn seems to behave the same way as any Chiss would.

Kazuaki Shimazaki:

There is a difference of opinion on whether the ensign told the truth. Mr Bean was debating that point. Depending on whether or nothe told the truth, he was either deservedly executed or unfairly punished for his superior's screwups.

Whatever the case was I believe Thrawn should have at least have investigated.

Posted: **2002-07-26 11:28pm**

So your telling me that grand admiral Thrawn, who could read enemy strategies like a 2nd grade reading assignment, couldn't tell which of the two crewmen was lying?

Posted: **2002-07-26 11:54pm**

consequences wrote: So your telling me that grand admiral Thrawn, who could read enemy strategies like a 2nd grade reading assignment, couldn't tell which of the two crewmen was lying?

Did he care who was lying. Killing one is better than killing both. It showed the survivor that if he or anyone else tries that kind of shit he is going to pay. And if I was Thrawn i would have done the same thing. This is after all the HIS command ship. He expects nothing but the very best from his crew, and this was just an enforcement of that discipline.

And you have to remember this is not Earth, this the Empire, the loss of one crewman will matter little. They may have different attitudes towards the value of one life here.

Posted: **2002-07-27 12:09am**

Stormbringer wrote: Kazuaki Shimazaki:

There is a difference of opinion on whether the ensign told the truth. Mr Bean was debating that point. Depending on whether or nothe told the truth, he was either deservedly executed or unfairly punished for his superior's screwups.

Whatever the case was I believe Thrawn should have at least have investigated.

Let's see.

Enlisted conscript Pietrson screwed up. He CLAIMS he was never properly trained. Conclazature claims that he tried to treat all his subordinates equally, and the training package includes things that would probably have done something.

Both men's lives are at stake, but Conclazature's claim is very easily falsifiable. Since it was the standard training package, Thrawn can just call it up and check for it. We'll see later in TLC that Thrawn in fact is quite familiar with what these training packages cover. The chances of Coclazature deliberately with-holding knowledge to Pietrson is so low as to be negligible.

Pietrson's claims may be unfalsifiable, depending on how he was trained. Even if every OTHER conscript knew the procedure down pat, he could still claim that he was the only guy that wasn't taught. It isn't very credible, but it would be extremely difficult to prove that he must be wrong.

Besides, even if he wasn't taught, he is still primarily responsible for the fiasco. Yeah, you lost a lock on something that was struggling against the tractor with all it got, and suddenly, you get a lock on something much easier to pull in, and you didn't suspect a THING?

When you are in the seat, you are responsible, unless you can prove, rather than claim otherwise. Certainly it was the case for Captains, who are held responsible unless they can prove otherwise.

Posted: **2002-07-27 02:16am**

Crown:

a) what do the New Republic's actions after the war have to do with Thrawn's actions? Thrawn did not initiate the conflict - that was already there when he arrived. What was he supposed to do? Rock up on Coruscant and say, "Hello, I'm one of the Emperor's secret military geniuses. Let's be friends."???????

btw. last I checked, the New Republis was still intending to bring democracy to the galaxy, after about 15 years, and the leaders were mainly rebel leaders... can you say favouritism?

b) It matters not where a military agressive force comes from. If one is there, then there exists a military agressive force. You can hardly say "Well, Iraq has an army, but America does because they're on our side...." And a civil war is still a war.

Any questions on the difference? Also I notice that your Cuban boy argument has been aborted...why? I have said it before and will say it again, everyone loves Thrawn, even me, however I am not blinded by it to the point where I would concede to all the inherently evil actions he did, and then return with but! . Let it go people.

Cuban boy argument was aborted because I can see your point of view, which is quite legitimate, and I suppose actions speak much louder than intentions. However, there were plenty of people who were prepared to use that boy as a political tool, and none of them were considered evil.

Besides. You had no rebuttal to my medieval nobles argument, which I suppose is closer to the situation which we're dealing with here with Han and Leia's twins.

Posted: **2002-07-28 02:40pm**

Here's a point. In the Old Republic days the Jedi Order had taken infants from their parents to be raised as Jedi Knights (in the TMP, Obi-Wan doesn't remember his parents, nor ever saw them). Is that any different than what Thrawn did to Leia's twins?

Posted: **2002-07-28 03:08pm**

Well the guy is kinda crazy to be truthful

And they know he's crazy

Remeber though he IS a nut-ball so the chances of him making Mini-Vadars are unlikley and Thrawn probably fully intended to have them killled/re-conditioned at some point I'm guessing, Oh and remeber in Last Command Thrawn fully intended to have C*Boath killed, he was plaining it when Ruki killed him

Posted: **2002-07-29 08:13am**

Vapthorne wrote:Here's a point. In the Old Republic days the Jedi Order had taken infants from their parents to be raised as Jedi Knights (in the TMP, Obi-Wan doesn't remember his parents, nor ever saw them). Is that any different than what Thrawn did to Leia's twins?

And while Shmi Skywalker might have been very happy for little Annie to go and become a Jedi, I'm certain that not every mother would have been so impressed.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is Thrawn Evil?

Killing of Stupid subordinates.

Re: Killing of Stupid subordinates.

Stormbringer...