[ SECRET POST #5519 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5519 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 34 secrets from Secret Submission Post #790.
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

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it was more militaristic than the other classic trek shows, but it might have seemed like that because four of its season were taking place during a brutal war in which the main characters were directly involved. How did you find it more militarist than the other shows (especially during the first three seasons)? And I can only think of one instance where Sisko commited a possible (I think the planet was unhabited?) war crime. What are the other instances that waranted saying he constantly commited them? I think know the other one you're probably thinking about, but it's not a war crime and how much Sisko himself is responsible in this case is debatable. There's a big difference between morally grey decisions (under extreme circumstances) and actual war crimes. As an answer to someone else: don't forget The Federation isn't Starfleet and vice-versa. Plenty of people in The Federation aren't Starfleet (aka, not military).

[(Anonymous)]

There's a big difference between morally grey decisions (under extreme circumstances) and actual war crimes.

This was my question. I mean, I remember lots of arguing about war crimes in a GOT context, which was deeply weird. I feel like I no longer know what people mean when they use this term.

[meadowphoenix]

When people say war crimes, they generally mean "would the geneva convention allow this" and you're absolutely right that that makes less sense in a lot of sci-fi contexts.

however....it's make the most sense in a star trek context, where presumably people are trying to do a universe where we expect better than geneva level prohibitions.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you, it's the way I understand "war crime" too. But, maybe I need to do a rewatch because, appart from the possible one example (which, arguably, already too much), I still can't think of another instance of a war crime commited by Sisko or another main character. It's the statment that war crimes were an ongoing thing in the show that bugs me.

[meadowphoenix]

I do think a lot of people don't realize how much is actually justified under the geneva convention. like...unless you're messing with civilians and use mass casualty weapons unduly, it's probably allowed.