[ SECRET POST #4857 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4857 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 11 secrets from Secret Submission Post #694.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt or op, but the reason they don't answer you is because this is a stupid red herring argument. I'm sure if Dany could have taken the time to send someone in and fling the babies and toddlers to a safe spot while she razed everything else, she might have done so. But babies and toddlers are wholly dependent and would be in the arms of the awful people that deserved to die, so, they die. They're collateral damage. A thing that occurs in literally every war in the history of any world.

No one on Earth would ever argue that yes, clearly the babies and toddlers were also complicit and they themselves deserved to die; that's stupid. That's pointless. Why would you even pretend that this is a thing that anyone would actually say?

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

That’s only a red herring if you think that Dany’s murder spree was so morally justified that a bunch of dead babies were acceptable collateral. Otherwise, asking why you think it’s okay that a bunch of children had to be set on fire for the glorification of Dany is a reasonable question. The fact that you can’t come up with a reason other than that their parents were bad and a big baby fire was the only way to deal with them is... telling.

Dany’s an irredeemable, innocent civilian-slaughtering monster and the only sad part of her death was that it didn’t happen earlier. Anyone who can’t see that must have got too much toddler corpse smoke in their eyes.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

No, if they killed Dany earlier then they would have had to take over King's Landing themselves and get their own hands dirty instead of having her do it for them so they could swoop in after and reap the rewards guilt-free.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

Are you talking about the Starks? The Starks had no reason to march on King's Landing at all until they were obligated to by Jon kneeling to Dany. They didn't want to take over King's Landing, they wanted to maintain their independence. Which they could have done by holding out against Cersei in the North, not invading King's Landing.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

Shush, you. If you don't play along with the fact that King's Landing had to be obliterated for the good of humanity, Dany's just a bloodthirsty monster who needed to be put down like a rabid dog. And that can't be true.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

Then why did Sansa tell Tyrion about Jon?

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

Because a) she didn't think Dany would be a good queen (though I don't think she guessed exactly how dangerous she was going to be), and b) Jon on the Iron Throne is preferable to Dany. It would mean a king in the South who she could trust to be a good king and in all likelihood an independent North. It wasn't at all her ideal scenario --- see how distressed she was at the thought of Jon going South permanently with Dany ("I don't want him to go down there. The men in my family don't do well in the capital.").

But at that point, she was caught between a rock and a hard place. She could sit by and do nothing, and let things play out, which would likely result in another bad ruler on the Iron Throne, with the North under her boot and Jon gone from home. Or she could try to exploit the very real doubts Dany's supporters had about her and have them switch their support over to Jon, who is not only the rightful Targaryen heir but a good and trustworthy person in her eyes. She was going to lose Jon to the South either way, but in the latter scenario he would have allies to support his claim against Dany.