Some of the Military Shocked me

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

P.A.,

sending a message to the civilians.

Great, obviously there was no cause, at all, for the civilians to seek to take control of Destiny when a member of the military will commit battery to "send a message." Nice.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gateroom Guard,

And what bad decisons has Young made? Besides his questionable action of leaving Rush on a planet, of which I have no problem.

You mean besides beating the crap out of Telford in another man's body, beating the crap out of Rush rather than just revealing what he did and letting justice take it's course, then stranding him without supplies and every reason to believe he would die, covering up what he did and lieing about it to everyone once he got back.

How are those for a list of bad decisions.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sami,

Wray's mutiny just doesn't make any sense, like numerous reviewers and casual viewers who are able to critique the show without bias have noted - the conflicts are convoluted and petty and as such its hard to justify mutiny.

The only thing that Young has done that is a genuine reason to remove him from command is leaving Rush on that planet, however, people like to forget that he and Wray were trying to frame him for murder so I don't see how they can take the moral highground. If they had been caught trying to frame someone for murder on earth they would probably find themselves in a prison cell, they are criminals in my eyes.

I disagree. At that point Rush was absolutely right Col. Young was dangerous. This was based upon Rush's experience in being marooned by Young. Young showed no signs, prior to the attempted take over, that he was willing to work with the other leaders of the people on board. It was his way or the highway. As others have pointed out there is no way to replace Young or remove him from his position of authority with the military on board. There was no reason to believe that Young would obey an order to step down. I understand why Rush/Wray attempted to take over.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sami,

I knew it wasn't Young, I guess I have super spider senses, go web go!

So, we should do away with due process and just go with our guts when someone appears to have committed murder?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sami,

One instance? I just gave four examples in just one episode. Then there is reporting back to his superior officer, letting him come onboard, following his orders and rescuing the man who tried to frame him for murder. There are so many more examples too, its hardly just one instance.

I must have missed that meeting with O'Neill when Young admitted to attacking a fellow officer for personal reason. What episode what that in? I also missed him admitting to beating Rush and marooning him on the planet with no reason to believe he would survive. When was that, before or after the attempted civilian takeover?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sami,

It is whoever O'Neill decides. In another thread you went to great lengths to prove that there was a planned Destiny expedition and that Telford was going to be the leader of it and Young was offered it.

By what mechanism do you propose O'Neill enforce the decision to remove Young, or Telford, or whomever else is in "command" of the Destiny from the position of command?

[Shadow_7]

Gateroom Guard,



Yes, they did know how well the civilians were armed. They had a count of all weapons on board (unless Young is incredibly slack) and knew one pistol was missing as TJ and the Airman with the pistol were the only Military personel on the other side of the line. The Airman was the only one who was armed. Do a quick count of weapons, one pistol missing. Therefore, presume that pistol is in the possession of the civilans attempting to take control. Greer takes out the people at the border, retrieves the pistol. Civilians now have no firearms.

Easy peasy.

Not really, impossible to tell. The ship has weapons, maybe not on the inside(yet). They have more civies than military and they're well educated and inventive (still / flame thrower / cutting torch / ...). Lots of weapons beyond guns. And impossible to account for all guns. Even those already accounted for. Who's on who's side and all. From a military perspective it's far easier to dispell the situation quickly and figure out if it was the right choice later. Then mend fences if they can be mended.

A fair percentage of my short lived job in the Army Band was mending fences. Oh, that tank that came through your town wrecked your rose garden, we're sorry. How about we have the band play you a diddy. And just to show you we're sincere, they're going to march a ten mile parade to get to your garden. And of course ten miles back. After not letting them eat for three days. It'll be a grand old time, everyone will have loads of fun (except the band).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shadow_7,

Let me rephrase, easily conselable weapons. A cutting torch is rather hard to hide, likewise an improvised flamethrower. Finally, I stand behind my statement that all firearms were accounted for when they burst into the mess. If they weren't they are very poorly organized.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Shadow_7,

Let me rephrase, easily conselable weapons. A cutting torch is rather hard to hide, likewise an improvised flamethrower. Finally, I stand behind my statement that all firearms were accounted for when they burst into the mess. If they weren't they are very poorly organized.

Never heard of a shiv, have you?

[Lahela]

Never heard of a shiv, have you?

It was made clear from the outset that the "mutineers" (for want of a better word) wanted a peaceful change-over. I realise the military are trained to be prepared for any possibility, but to assume that a bunch of scientists asking for a peaceful handover of control are armed with homemade weapons is a bit excessive, IMO. These aren't terrorists they were dealing with, and while I understand that military training may dictate that they treat everyone as a threat, that doesn't make it right.

[Flyboy]

It was made clear from the outset that the "mutineers" (for want of a better word) wanted a peaceful change-over. I realise the military are trained to be prepared for any possibility, but to assume that a bunch of scientists asking for a peaceful handover of control are armed with homemade weapons is a bit excessive, IMO. These aren't terrorists they were dealing with, and while I understand that military training may dictate that they treat everyone as a threat, that doesn't make it right.

Each of those intellectuals had the capability, if not neutralise to use the ship to their own advantage to negate the progress of the advancing military party, or directly interfere with their tactical situation. Those scientists were dangerous, not because of their capability in combat, but what they could do, if allowed to escape prior to the mission objective being completed.

[Lahela]

Each of those intellectuals had the capability, if not neutralise to use the ship to their own advantage to negate the progress of the advancing military party, or directly interfere with their tactical situation. Those scientists were dangerous, not because of their capability in combat, but what they could do, if allowed to escape prior to the mission objective being completed.

Sure, but does stopping them from escaping necessarily require violence?

[Flyboy]

Sure, but does stopping them from escaping necessarily require violence?

It was minimum violence, no lasting damage, not undue. There is no conceivable way that they could have been QUICKLY and EFFECTIVELY neutralised as a potential threat without some element of violence. Like it or not, sometimes you do have to shoot first and ask questions later.

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

Never heard of a shiv, have you?

makeshift weapons are as dangerous as any other, just ask Rush

It was made clear from the outset that the "mutineers" (for want of a better word) wanted a peaceful change-over. I realise the military are trained to be prepared for any possibility, but to assume that a bunch of scientists asking for a peaceful handover of control are armed with homemade weapons is a bit excessive, IMO. These aren't terrorists they were dealing with, and while I understand that military training may dictate that they treat everyone as a threat, that doesn't make it right.

they wanted a peaceful change-over and yet, when they had weapons, they were more than willing to go pointing them at people - hence Eli's "Irony" comment when he went over to the civilian side only to have a civilian pointing a gun at him. It's naive to assume that because people are civilians or that they claim to have good intentions that it makes them harmless - again, look at Rush, a man that throttled an alien with his bare hands, shivved Wray with a screwdriver and went to town on other people with a length of pipe. Military training dictates that these people are a threat because that's what they were the minute they chose to stage a coup.

Sure, but does stopping them from escaping necessarily require violence?

Yes, it does. And the violence was minimal. Try and stage a coup where you live and see what happens.

[Deevil]

It was minimum violence, no lasting damage, not undue. There is no conceivable way that they could have been QUICKLY and EFFECTIVELY neutralised as a potential threat without some element of violence. Like it or not, sometimes you do have to shoot first and ask questions later.

In this situation there was zero reason for it, especially James' actions to the unarmed man. She was just pissed off, nothing more or less. That is inexcusable.