Well you can disagree with the official version all you like but that won't make it any less official.
And still wrong, because the Federation wasn't wrong. At most you can say that Shon was trying to appease, but there was no way that the Federation would ever, ever back an an attack on another nation without evidence.
By the way, those saying "we lost"... No, we won. Because living and getting the Iconians to basically go "yeah, our bad" is winning.
A terrible and horrible win, but a win nevertheless.
It's still a loss, due to failure to leverage our assets.
We possessed the one item every Iconian left absolutely needs, and we just hand it over and let L'Miren be an arrogant twit.
Despite what some claim, the war was by no means lost at that point. We should've threatened to dump the World Heart into the nearest black hole unless the Iconians submit and atone right the hell now.
see what one of the nicer iconians did to the high council for a minor bit of defiance and to make a point, what do you think T'ket would do to the fool threaterning said one item.
they teleported us against will, our plot armor ran out right then. I don't want T'ket bathing in my ashes. and she seems the type.
T'ket would not do so, because even T'ket will not harm the Whole, and the Other is part of that.
If she did in spite of that, this would result in Iconian civil war right there, because her sisters would not tolerate such an action, the only reason L'miren won't intervene against T'ket is because she's part of the Whole. If she harms the Whole then that's another matter entirely.
Where did you get that idea from (the in game reason T'ket is 'continuing the fight' is so they can continue to use the Herald ships as an NPC villain group in future content; and Herald or Iconian ship you fight will be under T'ket's banner). But that part of the ending sequence made no sense as T'Ket stated he/she/it would continue the fight, and disdn't care that you were 'The One' and the other Iconian (L'Miren?) next to T'Ket said, "I will not take up arms against T'ket..."
Now, why I say the ending didn't maker sense is honestly, I don't understand why T'Ket didn't just kill my character on the spot. L'Miren already stated he/she/it wouldn't do anything regardless of what T'Ket does; and hell, it's not like either of them really cares what happens to lesser races. ALL the Iconians killed indiscriminately - including their 'parents' The Preservers, in what was effectively the opening salvo of this war. I could see their response to the attack 200K years ago, and the fact that Sela killed a number of them and effectively took the 'World Heart' and kept it from them for 200K years (although even THAT part of the episode makes no sense as yes, the Gateway they used on Iconia to get to Dewa III was destroyed; but you have a group with THREE working Starships that KNOW where the Iconians went and COULD have transwarped there and said "Hey, here's the World Heart.." instead of going "Hey, we need to get back and try and explain WHY we didn't do what was agreed on by the Alliance; and perhaps doomed everyone to death or slavery, but heay, we held up our ideals..." )
Overall, while I did like the episode and do feel it was 'Star Trek' (with all the plotholes which is NOTHIONG new to Star Trek in general over the past 49 years) - Yeah, the fact T'Ket didn't wipe my character ('The One') from existence; AND (as noted in this thread); it appears the Fed, KDF, and RR are suddenly giving Sela a pass/instant parole (presumably because of her help in bringing in the Dominion and help in ending the war?) is really straining things.
Lastly, I'm sorry, but I don't see the Iconians as all that peaceful or benevolent either because no matter how you look at it, the Heralds were their 'lesser species' slaves. I don't know what I find more destestable, a race that conquers others and enslaves them (which the Iconians did not do); OR a racve that genetically manipulates a lesser species into slavery; AND ALSO modifies their psychological makeup so they don't see themselves as slaves; and further see their masters as gods (which is what the Iconians did, and also to a lesser degree what the Dominian has been doing with the Vorta.)
So, yeah, sorry, I still don't see the ancient 'uncorrupted Iconians as all that peaceful or benevolent myself even before the attack that devastated Iconia 200K years earlier.
I'm not sure where the confusion is.
Keep in mind, your people and your faction aren't the Other. You are. Therefore T'ket can attack whoever she likes and that doesn't change a thing.
Attacking you on the other hand would be a different story.
Essentially, the Iconians are the Founders and you are Odo. They can attack the people you side with and you may be affected by that, but they won't harm you directly because it goes against everything they stand for.
I can at least buy that L'Miren was somehow shielding the player on the bridge of her ship. She might not harm T'Ket but there is no reason she couldn't have put up a defensive shield so that any attempt by T'Ket to hurt the Other would bounce off harmlessly.
And yeah, I am bothered by the Iconians' treatment of the Heralds too. In fact I wonder if the Founders learned about that from Iconian lore and decided that was a great idea...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I'm not sure where the confusion is.
Keep in mind, your people and your faction aren't the Other. You are. Therefore T'ket can attack whoever she likes and that doesn't change a thing.
Attacking you on the other hand would be a different story.
Essentially, the Iconians are the Founders and you are Odo. They can attack the people you side with and you may be affected by that, but they won't harm you directly because it goes against everything they stand for.
I think T'ket has a crush on the other. I mean in a society of artists and intellectuals, the Other was the only one who took up arms to defend and try and save iconia and her people. It's just going to take a few hundred years for her to wind down and admit she has had a picture of the other under her pillow for the last two hundred thousand years.
She could have killed the player, she has never shown any sort of restraint in killing a defenseless foe before.
I have no issue with the dynamic between the Iconians and the Heralds. So far we don't have evidence that they were a sapient species before the Iconians altered them. If I give a dog a roughly human shape and thumbs so it can drive a car will it feel enslaved, or will the pack instinct make them happy to be helping? I don't think there is enough evidence to point fingers at the ancient Iconians as unjust.
I'm not convinced about the general interpretation of the Iconian's treatment of their Heralds. While they do seem to have a different kind of morality and it may be a glorified kind of slavery, I do believe they genuinely care about their heralds as shown when you help a herald and the Iconian who "owns" him refuses to leave his side, is kneeling to stay at his level and even trusts a complete stranger from an unknown species to help and find a healer for him.
However, once evil, it's clear this aspect is dropped as a Herald of M'Tara begs for mercy when they lose the PC on the moon of Kyana Prime and M'Tara simply says a casual "you're forgiven".
I'm unsure as to why people keep harping on about the morality of the Heralds, when the Federation enslaves sapient holograms, and treats them with far less respect than the Iconians treat the Heralds.
I'm not sure where the confusion is.
Keep in mind, your people and your faction aren't the Other. You are. Therefore T'ket can attack whoever she likes and that doesn't change a thing.
Attacking you on the other hand would be a different story.
Essentially, the Iconians are the Founders and you are Odo. They can attack the people you side with and you may be affected by that, but they won't harm you directly because it goes against everything they stand for.
I think T'ket has a crush on the other. I mean in a society of artists and intellectuals, the Other was the only one who took up arms to defend and try and save iconia and her people. It's just going to take a few hundred years for her to wind down and admit she has had a picture of the other under her pillow for the last two hundred thousand years.
She could have killed the player, she has never shown any sort of restraint in killing a defenseless foe before.
I have no issue with the dynamic between the Iconians and the Heralds. So far we don't have evidence that they were a sapient species before the Iconians altered them. If I give a dog a roughly human shape and thumbs so it can drive a car will it feel enslaved, or will the pack instinct make them happy to be helping? I don't think there is enough evidence to point fingers at the ancient Iconians as unjust.
Hey I'd ship it.
But I still think it's more likely that T'ket is beholden to the rules that M'tara repeatedly said overrode all else.
I'm unsure as to why people keep harping on about the morality of the Heralds, when the Federation enslaves sapient holograms, and treats them with far less respect than the Iconians treat the Heralds.
Hey I'd ship it.
But I still think it's more likely that T'ket is beholden to the rules that M'tara repeatedly said overrode all else.
I find the 'Enslaved Herald' hypothesis somewhat troubling.
Does my pet dog feel enslaved? She seems quite happy in her servitude, and she apparently has positive emotional connections to me. Am I a slaver for owning another thinking creature?
I find the 'Enslaved Herald' hypothesis somewhat troubling.
Does my pet dog feel enslaved? She seems quite happy in her servitude, and she apparently has positive emotional connections to me. Am I a slaver for owning another thinking creature?
The huge difference is that if not for a decision to deliberately alter the Heralds' cognitive processes to deprive them of free will, the Heralds would be capable of deciding whether or not to serve the Iconians. But they have been deprived of free will when they should have had it once they attained intelligence. Dogs and cats do not have the level of cognition needed to assess their situation to the degree that a human can (or a Herald SHOULD be able to).
Now when it comes to dogs and cats, there ARE breeds that I do not believe should exist due to the inherent cruelty of breeding them to be disadvantaged if not flat-out disabled. There are also practices like declawing, tail docking, and earclipping that are extremely cruel yet "justified" by some for vanity and from callous disregard. I think that is probably the closer equivalent to what the Iconians have done to the Heralds: instead of what I'd consider responsible uplift, which would preserve the individual dignity of each Herald and their absolute right to free choice, out of vanity the Iconians crippled them to make them just one step above an automaton. And I would consider that an act of cruelty and a crime against sentient life.
When you get down to it, although the Prime Directive part of their ethos wasn't bad, the Iconians had a fundamental problem with the idea of allowing other beings besides themselves the full range of free choice.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Re: Sela... How about a foundry mission created in the spirit of "where in the galaxy is Carmen Sandi'Sela" and we get to be hired bounty hunters and go follow clues to find her...
CM
"Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure science." - Edwin Hubble
Many posters are treating acts of war as if they were crimes. An act of war is not subject to criminal justice, and the Nuremburg Trials so often quoted had nothing to do with punishing people for acts of war, (of which the victors were as guilty as the vanquished.)
You're on crack.
So, if Sela as head of the Romulan Star Empire, attacked and destroyed Vulcan, it is certain that non-military persons were killed, but ordering her military to eliminate a strategic target is not a crime.
Except Vulcan wasn't a strategic target, there being no declared state of war, and the purpose of her attack wasn't to achieve any discernible military objective but to obliterate the Vulcan people. Genocide, or attempted genocide, is a war crime.
So far, I have not seen a single example of Sela committing any war crimes in any jurisdiction of the Federation.
War crimes have no jurisdiction. This is obviously necessary, since any war crime would always be legal in the view of the perpetrator.
Show me a single example of a War Crime committed by Sela or the Iconians.
Are you putting me on? Practically everything either party did in the storyline is a war crime. The destruction of Romulus was a war crime. Everything the Elachi did, under Sela's regime, was a war crime. The murder of the Preservers was a war crime. Sela's regime was responsible for the routine torture and murder of non-combatants, all war crimes. The entire Iconian War was a war crime as the Iconians had no casus belli. By any reasonable assessment Sela and the Iconians (#Failed90sBandNames) are monsters.
Add to that list Sela making a deal with the Hirogen that they can hunt her own people in exchange for helping prop up her rule. The Tal Shiar repeated this one later but it was her idea.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Sure we do, but you have to think outside the box. Just take some of the Iconians' other leftover tech and threaten to use it on them unless they capitulate. I don't think an Omega particle detonation would do anything healthy to their subspace magic. They don't surrender, they're imprisoned in the Iconia system for a few centuries.
Stick's covered, so here's the carrot: they surrender and start fixing everything they broke, they get Empress Psychopath as a chew toy for as long as they want.
I find it hilarious that people who constantly complain about STO not being Trek enough keep suggesting ridiculous, un-Trek-like, ideas such as terrorism being a viable solution to end wars.
The hypocrisy is thicker then syrup.
This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. Oh, I know:
I'm not one of those people who thinks STO isn't Trek enough. In fact, sometimes I think it's too Trek, with picking overly pat, easy solutions and ignoring the full implications of what has previously been written because it's inconvenient. Not to mention pushing peace-seeking well past the point of insanity: given the choice between an unjust and/or unsustainable peace and war, I'll go down fighting every time.
It doesn't, however, seem as if the peace between the Iconians and the Alliance is unsustainable. We still have to deal with T'Ket, but the original reason for the war is void. Sure, there were terrible crimes committed by the Iconians, but bringing them to justice is not necessary to maintain a peace.
[*] I'd like to know what dictionary you're using where that proposal meets any formal definition of terrorism ever. I'm talking about taking the war directly to the doorstep of the people who are solely responsible for it--not defenseless innocents, underline--and using available leverage to force a capitulation, or we destroy them. That's not terrorism, it's called being pragmatic. I'm a strong advocate for Good Is Not Soft.
[/list]
We were anything but soft so far. We fought without giving up, and we threatened to eradicate them completely if we saw no other way.
But the ultimate truth is - we will not gain anything by pressing the issue. The dead will stay dead.
An Omega Molecule Detonation is not gonna keep them friendly, and I am not convinced it does anything to their Gateway technology at all. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. And they might not even care - because by their own account, they want to be back on Iconia and stay there. They are already practically imprisoned. Except we might have the possibility to stay in contact with them and get them to help us in some way.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Well you can disagree with the official version all you like but that won't make it any less official.
And still wrong, because the Federation wasn't wrong. At most you can say that Shon was trying to appease, but there was no way that the Federation would ever, ever back an an attack on another nation without evidence.
Again, it's about trusting your friends. If you tell a Klingon you don't trust him, you essentially imply that he's a scheeming Romulan. Obviously, the Klingon will not like that and strongly reconsider the merit of a friendship with you.
Show me a single example of a War Crime committed by Sela or the Iconians. Then we can have a trial. Perhaps the Iconians have a case against Sela for her actions in the past, but that is a matter for the Iconians, not the Federation, to judge.
Iconians got from the top of my head: Genocide of the Preservers, Specifically taking Non-Combatant deaths as granted in their "ravaging of thousands of worlds", they certainly did not stop after military bases, I mean New Romulus as a whole was burning.
Genocide would certainly be considered a war crime if the Iconians were ever brought to trial, if it could be demonstrated that their acts were intended to eradicate a species, race, or culture. I would propose in defense of this charge that the Iconians were engaged in war and the targets were not eliminated because of a policy intended to eliminate a race, culture, or tribe, but because they were military objectives of the Iconians. It is not a war crime to eliminate the enemy's support bases.
Many posters are treating acts of war as if they were crimes. An act of war is not subject to criminal justice, and the Nuremburg Trials so often quoted had nothing to do with punishing people for acts of war, (of which the victors were as guilty as the vanquished.)
You're on crack.
Exactly what is wrong with the statement I made, other than it somehow offends you? My statement is factually correct. In fact, if acts of war were criminal, every soldier ever would be liable to trial for war crimes. Even soldiers fighting on the side of oppressors in unjust wars are protected from being charged with war crimes for having been a combatant in a war. More importantly, soldiers fighting a just war on the side of liberators would be equally at risk.
So, if Sela as head of the Romulan Star Empire, attacked and destroyed Vulcan, it is certain that non-military persons were killed, but ordering her military to eliminate a strategic target is not a crime.
Except Vulcan wasn't a strategic target, there being no declared state of war, and the purpose of her attack wasn't to achieve any discernible military objective but to obliterate the Vulcan people. Genocide, or attempted genocide, is a war crime.
The planet Vulcan was a military target because the reigning government of that world was engaged in acts of subversion and disaffection with the lawful government of the Romulan Star Empire. This is cause for war in and of itself. The facts that it was a weak premise upon which to base a war, and that Sela planned a sneak attack as the opening for this war are not really relevant. As for her objective to obliterate the Vulcan people, I would argue her purpose was to eliminate Vulcan as a threat to her Empire, and that destroying Vulcan would not eliminate the Vulcan race, which occupies several worlds and is dispersed among the many Federation worlds, starships, and stations.
So far, I have not seen a single example of Sela committing any war crimes in any jurisdiction of the Federation.
War crimes have no jurisdiction. This is obviously necessary, since any war crime would always be legal in the view of the perpetrator.
You are correct. I should have said, "Show me an example of Sela committing any crime in any jurisdiction of the Federation.
And before you do, please consider that any crimes against her own people are the acts of a sovereign, unless her own people undertake to charge her for the crimes. (As a sovereign, any crimes she committed against her subjects would be crimes against herself, and one cannot commit crimes against oneself.)
Show me a single example of a War Crime committed by Sela or the Iconians.
Are you putting me on? Practically everything either party did in the storyline is a war crime. The destruction of Romulus was a war crime. Everything the Elachi did, under Sela's regime, was a war crime. The murder of the Preservers was a war crime. Sela's regime was responsible for the routine torture and murder of non-combatants, all war crimes. The entire Iconian War was a war crime as the Iconians had no casus belli. By any reasonable assessment Sela and the Iconians (#Failed90sBandNames) are monsters.
Add to that list Sela making a deal with the Hirogen that they can hunt her own people in exchange for helping prop up her rule. The Tal Shiar repeated this one later but it was her idea.
A reigning monarch cannot be held accountable for her actions against her own people by the Federation. As Empress, Sela is entitled to oppress her own subjects until her subjects replace her. At that point she may well be subjected to charges of many kinds, but the Federation cannot hold Sela accountable for acts committed against subjects of the Star Empire, up to and including the destruction of her own homeworld.
It is arguable that the Elachi were under her command, but even so, again we have a reigning monarch and either subject people or rebellious subject people. Since the Empress gets to decide what acts are lawful under her rule, it is highly unlikely Sela was able to break any Romulan laws even if she ordered the Elachi to take prisoners and lead the raids herself. After the fact, her subjects may have other ideas on the matter, but it is not a matter in which the Federation has any standing whatsoever.
The 'murder of the Preservers' was indeed a heinous act. It was an act of war intended to eliminate a potential base of support for the enemy. It was the equivalent of bombing a weapons testing laboratory and, indeed, at the moment of the Iconian attack the Preservers were involved in delivering intelligence harmful to the Iconians to the enemies of the Iconians. We do not know if their intent was to murder all preservers before hand; we only know that the location of the preservers was found in our databanks, and the actions of the preservers at the time of their 'murder' were potentially detrimental to the Iconians.
Sela and the Iconians are indeed monsters. So far I have seen no evidence they are war criminals subject to Federation justice.
Well you can disagree with the official version all you like but that won't make it any less official.
And still wrong, because the Federation wasn't wrong. At most you can say that Shon was trying to appease, but there was no way that the Federation would ever, ever back an an attack on another nation without evidence.
Again, it's about trusting your friends. If you tell a Klingon you don't trust him, you essentially imply that he's a scheeming Romulan. Obviously, the Klingon will not like that and strongly reconsider the merit of a friendship with you.
And what exactly have the Klingons done to prove themselves trustworthy, when they have a long history of being completely wrong about everything?
Both Gowron and Jimmy Pok are cartoon characters who tear down long standing and beneficial alliances at the drop of a hat the moment the Federation doesn't want to go along with their blatant, naked power grabs.
That's not any kind of friend I'd want to have to begin with.
They're Klingons. They won't lie to you. It's dishonorable. That's the underlying problem here. The Federation does not understand the Klingon heart.
Huh? In TNG as shown on TV in actual Star Trek continuity the Klingon High Council lied to the Klingon populace in general (see TNG's "Sins of the Father") to "hold the Empire together" - then K'mpek was assassinated via slow poison (see TNG's "Reunion") and names an outsider as arbiter of succession because no Klingon can be trusted; and finally, there's a short but violent Klingon civil war (see TNG's "Redemption I" and "Redemption II"); where Gauron in the end, assumes leadership of the High Council and starts re-writing Klingon history to make it appear he rose to power, and defeated House Duras and exposed the Romulan plot all by himself (as referenced by Worf in TNG's "Unification I").
So tell us again how Klingons won't lie and use "Honor" as a smoke screen (a tactic the Federation has seen used by the Klingon Empire again and again.) There's even more examples from the Deep Space Nine TV series, but I think the point has been made.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Huh? In TNG as shown on TV in actual Star Trek continuity the Klingon High Council lied to the Klingon populace in general (see TNG's "Sins of the Father") to "hold the Empire together" - then K'mpek was assassinated via slow poison (see TNG's "Reunion") and names an outsider as arbiter of succession because no Klingon can be trusted; and finally, there's a short but violent Klingon civil war (see TNG's "Redemption I" and "Redemption II"); where Gauron in the end, assumes leadership of the High Council and starts re-writing Klingon history to make it appear he rose to power, and defeated House Duras and exposed the Romulan plot all by himself (as referenced by Worf in TNG's "Unification I").
So tell us again how Klingons won't lie and use "Honor" as a smoke screen (a tactic the Federation has seen used by the Klingon Empire again and again.) There's even more examples from the Deep Space Nine TV series, but I think the point has been made.
No it hasn't. Worf put Martok in power specifically in order to stop all that TRIBBLE. Remember the speech that Ezri gave him?
Huh? In TNG as shown on TV in actual Star Trek continuity the Klingon High Council lied to the Klingon populace in general (see TNG's "Sins of the Father") to "hold the Empire together" - then K'mpek was assassinated via slow poison (see TNG's "Reunion") and names an outsider as arbiter of succession because no Klingon can be trusted; and finally, there's a short but violent Klingon civil war (see TNG's "Redemption I" and "Redemption II"); where Gauron in the end, assumes leadership of the High Council and starts re-writing Klingon history to make it appear he rose to power, and defeated House Duras and exposed the Romulan plot all by himself (as referenced by Worf in TNG's "Unification I").
So tell us again how Klingons won't lie and use "Honor" as a smoke screen (a tactic the Federation has seen used by the Klingon Empire again and again.) There's even more examples from the Deep Space Nine TV series, but I think the point has been made.
No it hasn't. Worf put Martok in power specifically in order to stop all that TRIBBLE. Remember the speech that Ezri gave him?
But Worf himself was complicit in "all that TRIBBLE" (as you put it) in the first place. Go watch the episodes mentioned. "Klingon Honor" even to Klingons has only been used to obscure their true motives and is more a tool in their political arsenal then a way of life for them.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Huh? In TNG as shown on TV in actual Star Trek continuity the Klingon High Council lied to the Klingon populace in general (see TNG's "Sins of the Father") to "hold the Empire together" - then K'mpek was assassinated via slow poison (see TNG's "Reunion") and names an outsider as arbiter of succession because no Klingon can be trusted; and finally, there's a short but violent Klingon civil war (see TNG's "Redemption I" and "Redemption II"); where Gauron in the end, assumes leadership of the High Council and starts re-writing Klingon history to make it appear he rose to power, and defeated House Duras and exposed the Romulan plot all by himself (as referenced by Worf in TNG's "Unification I").
So tell us again how Klingons won't lie and use "Honor" as a smoke screen (a tactic the Federation has seen used by the Klingon Empire again and again.) There's even more examples from the Deep Space Nine TV series, but I think the point has been made.
No it hasn't. Worf put Martok in power specifically in order to stop all that TRIBBLE. Remember the speech that Ezri gave him?
And J'mpok killed Martok, under suspicious circumstances I might add.
The only problem with all of this that I have is that T'Ket shouldn't have known what a Romulan was. The Romulans didn't even exist at the time of Iconia's destruction.
And what exactly have the Klingons done to prove themselves trustworthy, when they have a long history of being completely wrong about everything?
They're Klingons. They won't lie to you. It's dishonorable. That's the underlying problem here. The Federation does not understand the Klingon heart.
Sure they do. They lie all the time, including to their allies.
Duras lied to everyone about Mogh's role in the Khitomer Massacre, which was the start of the whole Duras/Mogh interhouse feud.
"The Way of the Warrior": Gowron lied to the Federation about the real reason he stationed a battle group outside DS9. He claimed he wanted to help guard against Dominion invasion but he was just using it as a staging area for the invasion of Cardassia on the false supposition the Cardassian Revolution had been set up by the Founders.* Worf had to get one of Martok's generals drunk to get the real story.
To avoid getting overthrown, Gowron falsely declares victory in the Klingon-Cardassian War after the Cardies manage to stymie his unprovoked invasion despite simultaneously coming under Maquis attack.
See also: any officer of Imperial Klingon Intelligence ever. Lying is kind of a spy's job.
Protip: Your average Klingon off the street has about as much actual honor and integrity (explicitly part of quv, per The Klingon Dictionary) as a meth dealer who's had too much to drink. I vividly recall in "Apocalypse Rising" a mighty Klingon warrior bragging about how he had deliberately killed a Benzite Starfleet captain in one of the most painful manners possible: by ripping off her breathing apparatus so she'd suffocate. Explain to me how that kind of behavior is honorable by any standard.
* By the way, this is the reason the Federation didn't believe them about the Undine. The Klingons got completely played by shapeshifters once before, rolling out the red carpet for the Founders by breaking the strongest power bloc of the Alpha Quadrant (the Khitomer Accords alliance) and TRIBBLE Cardassia's first attempt at democracy in the bargain and driving them right into the Dominion's arms.
Now guess what happened with the Gorn. Oh, that's right, a shapeshifter-directed ship provoked the Klingons to attack the Gorn, resulting in a couple decades of on-and-off feuding and a breakdown in Fed-Klingon relations that ultimately resulted in the Klingons breaking the alliance and invading the Undines' fall guy, and then picking an unnecessary fight with the Federation that only weakened both sides for the eventual invasion in "Surface Tension". They got played by the shapeshifters. AGAIN!
Post edited by starswordc on
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Ok is this forum bugged? I see plain as day the words, "Yay, we won! And Sela doesn't get locked up for war crimes! Wait, what?" But all I see below it are the many ways, reasons, justifications why Klingons are just better off never having been.
Suspicious circumstances that Martok himself had requested. He wanted to fight behind closed doors. And so far I have seen no scheeming from J'mpok. He's rash, yes, but he's also honorable.
@crypticarmsman He was complicit by playing along so that the Empire remained stable. And that's exactly what Ezri called him on, causing him to take a stand against Gowron.
Suspicious circumstances that Martok himself had requested. He wanted to fight behind closed doors. And so far I have seen no scheeming from J'mpok. He's rash, yes, but he's also honorable.
@crypticarmsman He was complicit by playing along so that the Empire remained stable. And that's exactly what Ezri called him on, causing him to take a stand against Gowron.
^^^
Again, that just proves my point as it shows Klingons use their 'honor' in expedient and self serving ways and WILL lie (and do whatever they feel is in their best interest at the moment) to further their own personal goals. THUS, those that know Klingon politics well, know this fact - Klingons are at heart self serving and un-trustworthy. (Remember that Worf ALSO made Kurn hide his true bloodline so one day Worf could restore the Honor of his house - so again, there was more to Worf's actions then just keeping the Empire stable.)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Suspicious circumstances that Martok himself had requested. He wanted to fight behind closed doors. And so far I have seen no scheeming from J'mpok. He's rash, yes, but he's also honorable.
Yes because there's no way that Jimmy Pok would lie about that would he..
Also, honourable? Honourable leaders do not stab long standing allies in the back then declare war on them simply because they criticise their actions.
Honourable leaders do not use suspicions of enemy infiltration into a foreign power to declare lebensraum on that foreign power and march their jack booted goons into their capital.
Honourable leaders do not attack civilians, sponsor raids on commercial traffic, sneak attack bases and allow criminally insane psychopaths like B'vat to run around looting, pillaging and using weapons of mass destruction.
Jimmy Pok is about as honourable as Vladimir Putin is democratically elected.
Genocide would certainly be considered a war crime if the Iconians were ever brought to trial, if it could be demonstrated that their acts were intended to eradicate a species, race, or culture.
They intended to eradicate everyone. The only survivors, if any, would have been Iconian slaves. More likely they'd be turned into Elachi (that process itself being a war crime of incalculable magnitude).
Exactly what is wrong with the statement I made, other than it somehow offends you? My statement is factually correct.
The problem with your statement is that it's completely wrong. You assume your conclusion by declaring everything the Iconians or Sela did as acts of war. They were acts of attempted genocide at worst and at best gross violations of any reasonable rules of engagement.
The planet Vulcan was a military target because the reigning government of that world was engaged in acts of subversion and disaffection with the lawful government of the Romulan Star Empire. This is cause for war in and of itself.
If only -- we'd be able to attack half the Muslim nations on earth under such a flimsy justification.
As for her objective to obliterate the Vulcan people, I would argue her purpose was to eliminate Vulcan as a threat to her Empire, and that destroying Vulcan would not eliminate the Vulcan race, which occupies several worlds and is dispersed among the many Federation worlds, starships, and stations.
It has been made clear in the Trek universe (cf. 2009 movie, e.g.) that the vast majority of most race's population is found on its homeworld, with humanity being perhaps the only significant exception. Cf. the Suliban for an example of a people who have lost their homeworld -- even hundreds of years later in the game's setting they're destitute refugees. Destroying a homeworld is tantamount to attempted genocide. Never mind that, again, under any reasonable rules of war the slaughter of billions of non-combatants can't possibly be justified.
You are correct. I should have said, "Show me an example of Sela committing any crime in any jurisdiction of the Federation.
Distinction without a difference.
A reigning monarch cannot be held accountable for her actions against her own people by the Federation.
Yes they can, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. The TRIBBLE killed their own people and were held accountable for it. Saddam Hussein killed his own people and was held accountable for it. The entire international brou-ha-ha in Syria is over Bashir Assad killing his own people.
As Empress, Sela is entitled to oppress her own subjects until her subjects replace her.
No, she can't. Or rather, only within certain broad limits. E.g. women in Saudi Arabia not having the civil rights Americans think they should is an example of a repressive policy that does not provide casus belli. Nerve gassing dissident civilian populations does. This is going back to the whole "universal jurisdiction" thing. Crimes against sentience (since this is SF) remain such no matter who commits them or where. The perpetrators can't hide behind their own fig leaves of sovereignty.
At that point she may well be subjected to charges of many kinds, but the Federation cannot hold Sela accountable for acts committed against subjects of the Star Empire, up to and including the destruction of her own homeworld.
Actually I'd charge the Iconians with that.
The 'murder of the Preservers' was indeed a heinous act. It was an act of war intended to eliminate a potential base of support for the enemy.
Utter nonsense, if that was their defense at a war crimes tribunal they'd be laughed out of court (and into the gallows). They shot a librarian and bombed a library.
It was the equivalent of bombing a weapons testing laboratory
We already know from past content that the Preservers had no weapons.
Sela and the Iconians are indeed monsters. So far I have seen no evidence they are war criminals subject to Federation justice.
Well, stop looking the other way, then.
@Venture-1. @Venture from City of Heroes if you remember that. Yes, that Venture. Yes, I probably trashed your MA arc. You'll have to be specific; for me it was Tuesday.
Comments
And still wrong, because the Federation wasn't wrong. At most you can say that Shon was trying to appease, but there was no way that the Federation would ever, ever back an an attack on another nation without evidence.
I'm not sure where the confusion is.
Keep in mind, your people and your faction aren't the Other. You are. Therefore T'ket can attack whoever she likes and that doesn't change a thing.
Attacking you on the other hand would be a different story.
Essentially, the Iconians are the Founders and you are Odo. They can attack the people you side with and you may be affected by that, but they won't harm you directly because it goes against everything they stand for.
And yeah, I am bothered by the Iconians' treatment of the Heralds too. In fact I wonder if the Founders learned about that from Iconian lore and decided that was a great idea...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I think T'ket has a crush on the other. I mean in a society of artists and intellectuals, the Other was the only one who took up arms to defend and try and save iconia and her people. It's just going to take a few hundred years for her to wind down and admit she has had a picture of the other under her pillow for the last two hundred thousand years.
She could have killed the player, she has never shown any sort of restraint in killing a defenseless foe before.
I have no issue with the dynamic between the Iconians and the Heralds. So far we don't have evidence that they were a sapient species before the Iconians altered them. If I give a dog a roughly human shape and thumbs so it can drive a car will it feel enslaved, or will the pack instinct make them happy to be helping? I don't think there is enough evidence to point fingers at the ancient Iconians as unjust.
For me it's more blue and orange morality than active but mostly benevolent slavery.
However, once evil, it's clear this aspect is dropped as a Herald of M'Tara begs for mercy when they lose the PC on the moon of Kyana Prime and M'Tara simply says a casual "you're forgiven".
Hey I'd ship it.
But I still think it's more likely that T'ket is beholden to the rules that M'tara repeatedly said overrode all else.
Agent hides behind a pillar until they get a chance to push Sela off a platform.
Timeline resyncs with Iconia appearing in the present just filled with helpful nice Iconians.
Also Romulus reappears.
But unfortunately the galaxy is now ruled by seahorses.
Well I found this.
Does my pet dog feel enslaved? She seems quite happy in her servitude, and she apparently has positive emotional connections to me. Am I a slaver for owning another thinking creature?
The huge difference is that if not for a decision to deliberately alter the Heralds' cognitive processes to deprive them of free will, the Heralds would be capable of deciding whether or not to serve the Iconians. But they have been deprived of free will when they should have had it once they attained intelligence. Dogs and cats do not have the level of cognition needed to assess their situation to the degree that a human can (or a Herald SHOULD be able to).
Now when it comes to dogs and cats, there ARE breeds that I do not believe should exist due to the inherent cruelty of breeding them to be disadvantaged if not flat-out disabled. There are also practices like declawing, tail docking, and earclipping that are extremely cruel yet "justified" by some for vanity and from callous disregard. I think that is probably the closer equivalent to what the Iconians have done to the Heralds: instead of what I'd consider responsible uplift, which would preserve the individual dignity of each Herald and their absolute right to free choice, out of vanity the Iconians crippled them to make them just one step above an automaton. And I would consider that an act of cruelty and a crime against sentient life.
When you get down to it, although the Prime Directive part of their ethos wasn't bad, the Iconians had a fundamental problem with the idea of allowing other beings besides themselves the full range of free choice.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
CM
Add to that list Sela making a deal with the Hirogen that they can hunt her own people in exchange for helping prop up her rule. The Tal Shiar repeated this one later but it was her idea.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Genocide would certainly be considered a war crime if the Iconians were ever brought to trial, if it could be demonstrated that their acts were intended to eradicate a species, race, or culture. I would propose in defense of this charge that the Iconians were engaged in war and the targets were not eliminated because of a policy intended to eliminate a race, culture, or tribe, but because they were military objectives of the Iconians. It is not a war crime to eliminate the enemy's support bases.
Exactly what is wrong with the statement I made, other than it somehow offends you? My statement is factually correct. In fact, if acts of war were criminal, every soldier ever would be liable to trial for war crimes. Even soldiers fighting on the side of oppressors in unjust wars are protected from being charged with war crimes for having been a combatant in a war. More importantly, soldiers fighting a just war on the side of liberators would be equally at risk.
The planet Vulcan was a military target because the reigning government of that world was engaged in acts of subversion and disaffection with the lawful government of the Romulan Star Empire. This is cause for war in and of itself. The facts that it was a weak premise upon which to base a war, and that Sela planned a sneak attack as the opening for this war are not really relevant. As for her objective to obliterate the Vulcan people, I would argue her purpose was to eliminate Vulcan as a threat to her Empire, and that destroying Vulcan would not eliminate the Vulcan race, which occupies several worlds and is dispersed among the many Federation worlds, starships, and stations.
You are correct. I should have said, "Show me an example of Sela committing any crime in any jurisdiction of the Federation.
And before you do, please consider that any crimes against her own people are the acts of a sovereign, unless her own people undertake to charge her for the crimes. (As a sovereign, any crimes she committed against her subjects would be crimes against herself, and one cannot commit crimes against oneself.)
A reigning monarch cannot be held accountable for her actions against her own people by the Federation. As Empress, Sela is entitled to oppress her own subjects until her subjects replace her. At that point she may well be subjected to charges of many kinds, but the Federation cannot hold Sela accountable for acts committed against subjects of the Star Empire, up to and including the destruction of her own homeworld.
It is arguable that the Elachi were under her command, but even so, again we have a reigning monarch and either subject people or rebellious subject people. Since the Empress gets to decide what acts are lawful under her rule, it is highly unlikely Sela was able to break any Romulan laws even if she ordered the Elachi to take prisoners and lead the raids herself. After the fact, her subjects may have other ideas on the matter, but it is not a matter in which the Federation has any standing whatsoever.
The 'murder of the Preservers' was indeed a heinous act. It was an act of war intended to eliminate a potential base of support for the enemy. It was the equivalent of bombing a weapons testing laboratory and, indeed, at the moment of the Iconian attack the Preservers were involved in delivering intelligence harmful to the Iconians to the enemies of the Iconians. We do not know if their intent was to murder all preservers before hand; we only know that the location of the preservers was found in our databanks, and the actions of the preservers at the time of their 'murder' were potentially detrimental to the Iconians.
Sela and the Iconians are indeed monsters. So far I have seen no evidence they are war criminals subject to Federation justice.
And what exactly have the Klingons done to prove themselves trustworthy, when they have a long history of being completely wrong about everything?
Both Gowron and Jimmy Pok are cartoon characters who tear down long standing and beneficial alliances at the drop of a hat the moment the Federation doesn't want to go along with their blatant, naked power grabs.
That's not any kind of friend I'd want to have to begin with.
Now you're just being facetious, since clearly we've seen many Klingon liars and conspirators, including Jimmy Pok himself.
Huh? In TNG as shown on TV in actual Star Trek continuity the Klingon High Council lied to the Klingon populace in general (see TNG's "Sins of the Father") to "hold the Empire together" - then K'mpek was assassinated via slow poison (see TNG's "Reunion") and names an outsider as arbiter of succession because no Klingon can be trusted; and finally, there's a short but violent Klingon civil war (see TNG's "Redemption I" and "Redemption II"); where Gauron in the end, assumes leadership of the High Council and starts re-writing Klingon history to make it appear he rose to power, and defeated House Duras and exposed the Romulan plot all by himself (as referenced by Worf in TNG's "Unification I").
So tell us again how Klingons won't lie and use "Honor" as a smoke screen (a tactic the Federation has seen used by the Klingon Empire again and again.) There's even more examples from the Deep Space Nine TV series, but I think the point has been made.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
But Worf himself was complicit in "all that TRIBBLE" (as you put it) in the first place. Go watch the episodes mentioned. "Klingon Honor" even to Klingons has only been used to obscure their true motives and is more a tool in their political arsenal then a way of life for them.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
And J'mpok killed Martok, under suspicious circumstances I might add.
Sure they do. They lie all the time, including to their allies.
Protip: Your average Klingon off the street has about as much actual honor and integrity (explicitly part of quv, per The Klingon Dictionary) as a meth dealer who's had too much to drink. I vividly recall in "Apocalypse Rising" a mighty Klingon warrior bragging about how he had deliberately killed a Benzite Starfleet captain in one of the most painful manners possible: by ripping off her breathing apparatus so she'd suffocate. Explain to me how that kind of behavior is honorable by any standard.
* By the way, this is the reason the Federation didn't believe them about the Undine. The Klingons got completely played by shapeshifters once before, rolling out the red carpet for the Founders by breaking the strongest power bloc of the Alpha Quadrant (the Khitomer Accords alliance) and TRIBBLE Cardassia's first attempt at democracy in the bargain and driving them right into the Dominion's arms.
Now guess what happened with the Gorn. Oh, that's right, a shapeshifter-directed ship provoked the Klingons to attack the Gorn, resulting in a couple decades of on-and-off feuding and a breakdown in Fed-Klingon relations that ultimately resulted in the Klingons breaking the alliance and invading the Undines' fall guy, and then picking an unnecessary fight with the Federation that only weakened both sides for the eventual invasion in "Surface Tension". They got played by the shapeshifters. AGAIN!
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
@crypticarmsman He was complicit by playing along so that the Empire remained stable. And that's exactly what Ezri called him on, causing him to take a stand against Gowron.
^^^
Again, that just proves my point as it shows Klingons use their 'honor' in expedient and self serving ways and WILL lie (and do whatever they feel is in their best interest at the moment) to further their own personal goals. THUS, those that know Klingon politics well, know this fact - Klingons are at heart self serving and un-trustworthy. (Remember that Worf ALSO made Kurn hide his true bloodline so one day Worf could restore the Honor of his house - so again, there was more to Worf's actions then just keeping the Empire stable.)
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Yes because there's no way that Jimmy Pok would lie about that would he..
Also, honourable? Honourable leaders do not stab long standing allies in the back then declare war on them simply because they criticise their actions.
Honourable leaders do not use suspicions of enemy infiltration into a foreign power to declare lebensraum on that foreign power and march their jack booted goons into their capital.
Honourable leaders do not attack civilians, sponsor raids on commercial traffic, sneak attack bases and allow criminally insane psychopaths like B'vat to run around looting, pillaging and using weapons of mass destruction.
Jimmy Pok is about as honourable as Vladimir Putin is democratically elected.
They intended to eradicate everyone. The only survivors, if any, would have been Iconian slaves. More likely they'd be turned into Elachi (that process itself being a war crime of incalculable magnitude).
The problem with your statement is that it's completely wrong. You assume your conclusion by declaring everything the Iconians or Sela did as acts of war. They were acts of attempted genocide at worst and at best gross violations of any reasonable rules of engagement.
If only -- we'd be able to attack half the Muslim nations on earth under such a flimsy justification.
It has been made clear in the Trek universe (cf. 2009 movie, e.g.) that the vast majority of most race's population is found on its homeworld, with humanity being perhaps the only significant exception. Cf. the Suliban for an example of a people who have lost their homeworld -- even hundreds of years later in the game's setting they're destitute refugees. Destroying a homeworld is tantamount to attempted genocide. Never mind that, again, under any reasonable rules of war the slaughter of billions of non-combatants can't possibly be justified.
Distinction without a difference.
Yes they can, WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. The TRIBBLE killed their own people and were held accountable for it. Saddam Hussein killed his own people and was held accountable for it. The entire international brou-ha-ha in Syria is over Bashir Assad killing his own people.
No, she can't. Or rather, only within certain broad limits. E.g. women in Saudi Arabia not having the civil rights Americans think they should is an example of a repressive policy that does not provide casus belli. Nerve gassing dissident civilian populations does. This is going back to the whole "universal jurisdiction" thing. Crimes against sentience (since this is SF) remain such no matter who commits them or where. The perpetrators can't hide behind their own fig leaves of sovereignty.
Actually I'd charge the Iconians with that.
Utter nonsense, if that was their defense at a war crimes tribunal they'd be laughed out of court (and into the gallows). They shot a librarian and bombed a library.
We already know from past content that the Preservers had no weapons.
Well, stop looking the other way, then.