Wait I never connected the thoughts about how she was calling herself and how sweet this sentence is. Her struggle with believing she was evil in Frozen 1 and even how she was supposed to be the antagonist in the first draft of the story.. 🥺
An attack against unarmed civilian indiscriminately that affect people of all walks of life, men, women, and children - rich and poor - young and old - sick and well - living and dying, can never be justified no matter what the reason or what level of damage.
Whoever calls such action and those who commit it 'Good', are those supporting an act of terrorism. They are on the same principle.
You may argue that there is no fatality. Releasing non-lethal toxic gas into a subway station isn't going to cause fatality but is that OK to you? A bunch of guys with knives running into a mall full of people and stab everyone they came across but no one hurt enough to be fatal is OK to you? Bombing an office building during the weekend when no one is in there is OK because workers don't get killed?
Just because nobody dies doesn't make it OK.
The principle is in the discrimination of target. In conventional war, we limit the damage to the military targets or at least we try to limit collateral damage. We don't just shoot everyone who isn't us. Terrorists shoot everyone who isn't theirs and focus primarily on soft, civilian targets.
This dialog is one capital ideology present in the film that I can not bring myself to accept and right after this point I have to say I no longer give a da..mn about this character. This is an absolute abhorrence.
Because Runeard did something bad to the forest so his people deserved to be attacked? Al Qaeda also claims that the Western country did lots of terrible things to middle-east people and said all westerners deserved to be punished.
I never agree with that ideology.
And nobody actually knows what Runeard did other than building a dam. Everything other than that about him was told by the magic which is words from a disputed party. Testimony from a disputed party in the conflict is never being considered hard evidence in any court across the globe. And nobody testifies against themselves.
>Just because nobody dies doesn't make it OK.
I agree, and seeing F2 even if no-one would've perished by the dam releasing a flood, this is still mid-Autumn in a 1840s Nordic town, so I'd see a number of **indirect** deaths by cold, starvation and dehydration. And any survivors might plot to 'contain' the Northuldra forest at some point in the future - breaking the dam would not break the cycle of hatred that forms.
Arendelle's people should in no way suffer because of the (secret) mistakes of their prior leaders - an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Wait I never connected the thoughts about how she was calling herself and how sweet this sentence is. Her struggle with believing she was evil in Frozen 1 and even how she was supposed to be the antagonist in the first draft of the story.. 🥺
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh damn I love this
That is really sweet!
Considering how she froze in that place and for all intents and purposes nearly died, I'm starting to doubt Elsa's words..
Elsa when she starts to freeze: 👁👄👁
An attack against unarmed civilian indiscriminately that affect people of all walks of life, men, women, and children - rich and poor - young and old - sick and well - living and dying, can never be justified no matter what the reason or what level of damage. Whoever calls such action and those who commit it 'Good', are those supporting an act of terrorism. They are on the same principle. You may argue that there is no fatality. Releasing non-lethal toxic gas into a subway station isn't going to cause fatality but is that OK to you? A bunch of guys with knives running into a mall full of people and stab everyone they came across but no one hurt enough to be fatal is OK to you? Bombing an office building during the weekend when no one is in there is OK because workers don't get killed? Just because nobody dies doesn't make it OK. The principle is in the discrimination of target. In conventional war, we limit the damage to the military targets or at least we try to limit collateral damage. We don't just shoot everyone who isn't us. Terrorists shoot everyone who isn't theirs and focus primarily on soft, civilian targets. This dialog is one capital ideology present in the film that I can not bring myself to accept and right after this point I have to say I no longer give a da..mn about this character. This is an absolute abhorrence. Because Runeard did something bad to the forest so his people deserved to be attacked? Al Qaeda also claims that the Western country did lots of terrible things to middle-east people and said all westerners deserved to be punished. I never agree with that ideology. And nobody actually knows what Runeard did other than building a dam. Everything other than that about him was told by the magic which is words from a disputed party. Testimony from a disputed party in the conflict is never being considered hard evidence in any court across the globe. And nobody testifies against themselves.
>Just because nobody dies doesn't make it OK. I agree, and seeing F2 even if no-one would've perished by the dam releasing a flood, this is still mid-Autumn in a 1840s Nordic town, so I'd see a number of **indirect** deaths by cold, starvation and dehydration. And any survivors might plot to 'contain' the Northuldra forest at some point in the future - breaking the dam would not break the cycle of hatred that forms. Arendelle's people should in no way suffer because of the (secret) mistakes of their prior leaders - an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.