Login

Username

Password



Not a rebel yet?
CLICK HERE to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one from Orac HERE.

Current User Info

· Lurkers Lurking: 12

· Rebels Active: 0

· Total Rebels: 909
· Newest Rebel: John Hughes

Login Help

If you are having problems logging in, please bear in mind that if you originally registered at the site before 8th January 2014 and you haven't re-registered since that date your old login details will no longer work. If this is the case, please re-register, preferably with your former username. If you are having trouble with the registration process itself, try looking HERE and HERE for help and advice. If you need further assistance, please do CONTACT us.

Current Poll

Who is your Favourite Guest Rebel?

Avalon - (Project Avalon)
Avalon - (Project Avalon)
18% [17 Votes]

Selma - (Horizon)
Selma - (Horizon)
5% [5 Votes]

Tyce - (Bounty)
Tyce - (Bounty)
15% [14 Votes]

Norm One - (Redemption)
Norm One - (Redemption)
2% [2 Votes]

Bek - (Shadow)
Bek - (Shadow)
6% [6 Votes]

Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
Kasabi - (Pressure Point)
19% [18 Votes]

Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
Hal Mellanby - (Aftermath)
14% [13 Votes]

Hunda - (Traitor)
Hunda - (Traitor)
5% [5 Votes]

Deva - (Blake)
Deva - (Blake)
9% [9 Votes]

Other
Other
6% [6 Votes]

Votes: 95
Login to vote.
Started: 09 July 2016

Polls Archive

Forum Activity

Newest Articles

B7 Images

+ Cookies +

The Horizon website uses cookies to allow user log-in and navigation. The site does not host advertising that requires the use of third-party cookies. Registering as a member of this site implies your consent to the use of cookies.

View Thread

 Print Thread
Blake
trevor travis
Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:
Accepted by who? This is the definition of terrorist from Cambridge Online:

someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes


That's the definition of terrorist? Then there's no doubt all, is there? Roj Blake is a terrorist. He does use violent actions for political purposes.
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
trevor travis wrote:

Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:
Accepted by who? This is the definition of terrorist from Cambridge Online:

someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes

That's the definition of terrorist? Then there's no doubt all, is there? Roj Blake is a terrorist. He does use violent actions for political purposes.

Yes. The line of reasoning "he kills people that serve in the military, therefore he can reciprocally give himself military status, therefore he can declare war on the people he kills, therefore its all legal and everything's okay" just really, really doesn't hold water imo. His attacks are to make political statements that he hopes will influence others to follow his lead and also attack the Federation; apart from Star One, he never really has specific objectives that he wants to achieve beyond this. Even then, destroying Star One is more a statement than anything else since Blake cannot say what specifically he expects to happen as a result of destroying it apart from an opportunity for unknown other rebels who may or may not exist and may or may not take some unspecified action against the administration that in turn may or may not benefit subjects of that administration who may or may not be suffering depending on what world they live on. Its all a bit vague, and basically its just a terrorist attack against the government.
Edited by Spaceship Dispatcher on 12 January 2015 16:20:06
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
guiser
trevor travis wrote:

Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:
Accepted by who? This is the definition of terrorist from Cambridge Online:

someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes


That's the definition of terrorist? Then there's no doubt all, is there? Roj Blake is a terrorist. He does use violent actions for political purposes.



Pfft. All war is violent actions for political purposes. I suspect that if you tried using that definition in a political science exam you would be guaranteed a fail mark. It is far too vague.

I've got a book called "The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research" (a very highly regarded tome, though more of a student reference than a book for a general reader) that takes a whole page to spell out it's "revised academic consensus definition of terrorism". If you want I can type it into the forum, but it is pretty long! I must say that B7 is great as a stepping off point for reading up about all sorts of political and historical subjects.
 
guiser
Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:

Yes. The line of reasoning "he kills people that serve in the military, therefore he can reciprocally give himself military status, therefore he can declare war on the people he kills, therefore its all legal and everything's okay" just really, really doesn't hold water imo. His attacks are to make political statements that he hopes will influence others to follow his lead and also attack the Federation; apart from Star One, he never really has specific objectives that he wants to achieve beyond this. Even then, destroying Star One is more a statement than anything else since Blake cannot say what specifically he expects to happen as a result of destroying it apart from an opportunity for unknown other rebels who may or may not exist and may or may not take some unspecified action against the administration that in turn may or may not benefit subjects of that administration who may or may not be suffering depending on what world they live on. Its all a bit vague, and basically its just a terrorist attack against the government.


I don't buy that. Surely, Blake's attacks are dual purpose? They cause the kind of damage to the Federation that is useful to existing rebels and they also enable and encourage others to revolt. Why on earth would Blake be trying to attack communications and weapons development stations in the back of beyond, if it was just for propaganda purposes? He would go for "spectactulars" and symbolic targets and he doesn't. Note that Star One, which could be seen as a "spectacular" target, is actually a conventional military target (a la railways lines and power stations in the 2nd WW) attacked in the hope of seriously weakening the Federation. Of course, Blake doesn't know exactly what will happen because how can anyone who undertakes a war or revolt know the exact consequences of their actions? However, Avon seems pretty sure of the efficacy of attacking Star One in "Pressure Point" and he is in a better position than the viewer to judge. Avon also seems pretty convinced of the existence of a fair amount of rebels and that Blake can rally them. Why disbelieve him?

Also, legality and morality are 2 separate things. Anyone with sufficient force to cow and tax a large population can set up a state and legal system. I'm sure ISIS in Iraq will be setting up a court system soon, if they haven't already. If ISIS can set up a functioning state would that make those who want to fight against it somehow illegimitate? I don't think so. Arguing about the semantics of what is and isn't military is irrelevant to the morality of the situation. The state use of violence is not automatically on a higher moral plane than that of non-state actors.
 
trevor travis
Guiser, Blake's actions would have more weight, if there was a genuine resistance movement (rather than a very small disorganised rabble, consisting of people such as Avalon and Kasabi), and also if the people genuinely wanted to be freed. I'd not sure if that many do; what's the alternative to Federation rule? Rule under Blake. That would be a disaster!! Grin

There's little sign that if it's a real war. Blake can't wage a war with five followers and trooper Orac!

Therefore, Blake's actions are terrorism rather than war.
 
Spaceship Dispatcher
trevor travis wrote:

Guiser, Blake's actions would have more weight, if there was a genuine resistance movement (rather than a very small disorganised rabble, consisting of people such as Avalon and Kasabi), and also if the people genuinely wanted to be freed. I'd not sure if that many do; what's the alternative to Federation rule? Rule under Blake. That would be a disaster!!

Agreed on all points TT; the two questions I raised in a previous post were that 1. if the Federation really is that bad, why does Blake have so much trouble grubbing around for support? and 2. if everyone in authority in the Federation is like Servalan and Travis (in terms of being ruthless) then why do they have bad reputations amongst their peers?
Reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. I bet that means something. It sounds great.

Blake's 7: Trojan Horse (s4 fanfic) - Blake's 7: Through the Needle's Eye (s2 fanfic)

Spaceship Dispatcher's fanfic site
 
peladon
Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:

peladon wrote:

As I said before military is defined by the nature of something, not who is doing it...

Where is that definition? Not all guns are military equipment for instance; personal handguns, such as are found in great quantity in the United States, are not regarded as military. If a private citizen gets hold of a gun and shoots someone that happens to belong to the army, that does not make them military personnel or legalise the attack.

...of course he is a combatant, he has been given that role by the Federation, who are using military means to try and kill him, and he has accepted it. If he isn't a combatant why is the Supreme Commander in direct charge of his capture rather than simply assisting a civilian force? Why else would he be attacking the guards?

The answer to both of your questions is the same: because he's an armed and dangerous criminal and terrorist.

...but it still doesn’t line up with the accepted defintion of terrorist.

Accepted by who? This is the definition of terrorist from Cambridge Online:

someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes

You say this does not apply to Blake? He does use violent action and threats of same, and rebellion is political.

As for ‘proving things by canon' – how else do you suggest that the nature of a character or event can be proved. The 'real' character is as they are created, as they appear on the author’s page or the screen... Blake doesn’t call himself military – but there isnt any point in canon where it would have been relevant for him to do so. That being the case we have to deduce by other things canon.

So is canon only what is seen and stated or does it include deduction? This rule seems to change quite often. You dismiss what is on screen when TT presents clear, broadcast evidence; you say it isn't even necessary when asked to support your own claim that Blake counts as an independant military commander and therefore both a combatant and able to legally declare war on his entire civilsation with only one spaceship. Yet you say that all contrary arguments are non-canon and untrue, that Blake is a villain and that we might only see the worst of the Federation because that's the part that's relevant to the stories, because everything can't be proved on screen. All my deductions based on reasoning, in turn based on what we see while not specifically stated in dialogue, you either dismiss or ignore. So which way is it? Does deduction based on what we see require absolute statement on screen to be a valid interpretation of the series and characters or not?


OK, let’s take it point at a time shall we (other readers I beg your indulgence):

Definition of military
I don’t think we are ever going to agree because you have a very narrow definition and seem disinclined to accept that there might be a wider one that is equally valid – which is your choice and right. I can only say that I trawled Rules of War, military doctrine, philosophy of combat, Geneva Convention clauses as part of my prep for I&R, I also asked some military people that I know, and those/their definitions informed my perception of what it is.

Definition of terrorism
By the definition you cite all military action, offensive or defensive, is terrorism. My definition is drawn from the same sources as military’ and, while the details vary, in essence they require that the main objective of the action is to induce fear/terror, usually in a non combatant population, rather than achieving a defined military advantage. However a military act may also be terrorist if
1. the target of the action is non combatant, or
2. there is no demonstrable military gain by the action, or
3. the gain is not proportional to the effect of the action.

Blake does not seek to use terror as a weapon of itself as far as I can see, nor does he target non combatants, go after targets with no military gain, nor does the gain appear to be disproportionate to the effect, other than in the case of SO (assuming that he knows that it will be).

Can canon include deduction?
Yes but only when it is in line with other canon, or is supported elsewhere in canon either by word, act, or image or on occasion by obvious cause and effect. Simply saying x proves y is not sufficient. So to use the example of my response to TT (sorry to everyone/anyone else reading if this detail is tedious) does his interpretation stand up in those terms. I can’t recall ever having interpreted that scene that way, or had it explained to me in that way, so I went back and looked very carefully before I discounted it.

TT says we obviously see the planet exploding because we see a screenshot of a dark back ground with what looks to be sparkler against it (which is probably what it was given the budget). So, first question that needs to be answered - is that image set in the context of a planet in space?
• Do we see a planet set against a star field – No. its textured slightly but no stars
• Do we see the shadow of planet against the dark field? Well that’s less clear; at one point we seem to see an outline for a brief second; however the sparkler is superimposed against one part of it not illuminating all of it, as an exploding base might be.
• Do we see anything, any change in the background or sparkler to indicate explosion on the scale of a planet blowing up – No,
• Do we see any form of large scale destruction or even some form of fragmentation – No.
• Could it be a focussed in shot from something in orbit looking at a localised explosion – yes it could.
So the image doesn’t give any certainty.

Next to supporting detail for interpretation.
Is the explosion of the planet mentioned by anyone – No.
Would we expect that such an explosion would destroy a planet – No.
Was destroying the planet Blake’s objective – No.
Does one present any seem shocked at an unexpected outcome – No.
Is the destruction by Blake of this planet, or any other planet, ever mentioned by any of the crew, Blake’s enemies, Blake’s other contacts at any point – No.
So there is no real evidence to support the interpretation that the image we see is a planet exploding, a base – yes possibly.

Nature of the Federation.
I gave you a long list of things we learn about the Federation through Series A/D that indicate it is in effect a ‘rogue’ State. To those you can add, state sponsored terrorism (Countdown) and state sponsored slavery (Deliverance). Many of these characteristics would in RL require the involvement of several of the organs of state (law, military, education, medicine, science, diplomacy, civil service) not just a few bad penny individuals. Why should we assume the B7 universe to be any different in that? Add to this that the negative comments are provided by word, deed, and report and from many sources not just Blake. In addition we do not see or hear of any positive, liberal, or humanitarian act by the Federation and very few moderate ones. Even their allies loyalties are ‘finely balanced’

There are opportunities to show a more civilised light on the Federation if we are expected to believe it to be more moderate – Destiny could have been leased the neutrotope by them for example and it wouldn’t have changed the storyline, Sarkov could have been more ruthless than he was, mutoids could have been presented to us as people who were saved from death by their modifications – but they are not, we did not have to be told that the Federation used slavery for Deliverance to work but we are. Just as we are shown dissenters being mowed down, and told about drugged foods and water. and shown the level of state monitoring. Justifying the Federations corruption as an invention of Blake and his supporters just doesn’t seem to work against that back drop because the signals are all one way. Then if you accept the Federation as a rogue state you are left with the question of what that means for someone opposing it.
 
President Solvite
Re: Apparent absence of organised Resistance

Holding a gun to one's head might have SOMETHING to do with it! Pfft

It's amazing what can be achieved with threats to family even with the most battled hardened nut.

Lack of an organised resistance movement is a correlation rather than causation in my view.
Edited by President Solvite on 12 January 2015 22:01:33
 
http://nothingsforgotten.freeforums.net/
peladon
Frankymole wrote:


More a guerrilla. Or "resistance fighter" as the old VHS sleeves had it.

guer·ril·la

noun

noun: guerilla


A member of a small independent group taking part in irregular fighting, typically against larger regular forces.


Resistance: "armed or violent opposition.

"government forces were unable to crush guerrilla-style resistance"

Resistance fighter:

noun
someone who fights (for freedom, etc) against an invader in an occupied country, or against their government, etc, often secretly or illegally


Yes I think that is how he was created, probably derivied from WW2 and Cold war resistance and dissent archetypes. To my mind that offers a lot more in the shades of grey stakes too.
 
peladon
mrsbookmark wrote:

I'm relatively new to the B7 universe. Watched the episodes all through twice and now a new rewatch. But...the first I watched the series the thing that made the biggest impact was the character of Blake as a revolutionary and the cost to himself and those around him. I'm aging myself, butback in my college days I majored in history and one of my profs was really into all the revolutions going on in Latin America and all the rhetoric about planned socialism,etc. Most of those groups that he waxed poetic and heroic about then are pretty much just drug cartels now. The idealist have long sense gone or changed sides. When I saw Blakc, for some reason, I saw those types of characters. And that's why I was struck by the show. I wonder if it's sort of inevitable that 'revolution' will eventually go awry. Can you really have one? I think that Federation was a corrupt government that Blake fought against- but could he ever really expect to win? Was theFederation always corrupt? Could you really expect anything better? I love watching the Series because I love that mix of questions. I think differently each time I watch episodes.


Welcome, thanks for the contribution, those questions have often occurred to me - but I think Ive written enough for one day.Grin
 
guiser
trevor travis wrote:

Guiser, Blake's actions would have more weight, if there was a genuine resistance movement (rather than a very small disorganised rabble, consisting of people such as Avalon and Kasabi), and also if the people genuinely wanted to be freed. I'd not sure if that many do; what's the alternative to Federation rule? Rule under Blake. That would be a disaster!! Grin

There's little sign that if it's a real war. Blake can't wage a war with five followers and trooper Orac!

Therefore, Blake's actions are terrorism rather than war.


Many methods of fighting a despised regime are neither conventional war nor terrorism. Like Frankeymole says the most appropriate description for Blake and his group is guerrillas. Numbers and even popular support are irrelevant in deciding whether a group is terroristic or not. Targets and intention are all.

The reality is that we do not know the extent and nature of the resistance. However, we know that Blake and Avon think that it is big enough to give the rebels a chance against the Federation after the destruction of Star One. There is also mention of many more resistance groups than are shown on the screen (Saurian Major comes to mind) and in "Project Avalon", Avalon mentions that there are rebels on 30 planets in her sector, a dozen of these groups started by Avalon herself.

Also, strong resistance groups wouldn't necessarily need Blake's help, so you cannot judge the extent of the resistance by the groups that do call for his aid. It is also possible that many rebel groups are organising underground until such time as the Federation is weak enough that they can strike. There may be important groups of supporters inside the Federation structure. Blake is not very forthcoming with the crew, so we cannot assume that he would blurt out everything he knows and everything he is planning. (it would be dangerous if the crew were captured, for one thing!).

Members of the Federation itself say that Blake is becoming a "legend" or "a hero", so why argue that he has little support? It is strongly implied had he has substantial support, at least of a passive sort. Also, it appears that many Federation citizens are drugged into submission and thus it is difficult to say the "real" level of support, active or passive, he might achieve if that was not the case.

We do not really know Blake's long term plans except in the vaguest terms. He may not envisage anyone ruling a unified Federation. Perhaps the aim is for individual planets to secede and become independent. Something of that sort was mentioned as a resistance goal in "The Way Back". His reluctance to seize control of Star One is suggestive in this respect. Also, he may have some form of collective leadership in mind. In the last analysis, we just do not know. There is no real basis for working out how successful he is likely to be in the long term if we do not know his detailed plans or the exact details of the strength of the Federation and the Resistance!
 
mrsbookmark
Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:

trevor travis wrote:

Guiser, Blake's actions would have more weight, if there was a genuine resistance movement (rather than a very small disorganised rabble, consisting of people such as Avalon and Kasabi), and also if the people genuinely wanted to be freed. I'd not sure if that many do; what's the alternative to Federation rule? Rule under Blake. That would be a disaster!!

Agreed on all points TT; the two questions I raised in a previous post were that 1. if the Federation really is that bad, why does Blake have so much trouble grubbing around for support? and 2. if everyone in authority in the Federation is like Servalan and Travis (in terms of being ruthless) then why do they have bad reputations amongst their peers?


Interesting. Although, lack of support and Servalan/Travis poor reputation does not necessarily mean the Federation isn't bad. Fear is a powerful tool. People are generally unwillingly to risk themselves unless they can see that the battle has been won. Blake does not have advantage, nor other rebels. I got the impression Blake wanted to show a clear advantage through targeted attacks that would weaken the Federation but it doesn't really happen and people don't rally. Which begs the question : should you fight for freedom for people even when they don't seem to want it for themselves? Servalan/Travis are viewed poorly by their peers...but they are never effectively opposed. There are attempts, but no consistent opposition. And Servalan maintains enough support to do what she wants...even to rise from the ashes in the later seasons.

I see Blake as a failed revolutionary. A short sighted revolutionary.
Terrorist??

He doesn't attack civilian targets, which is part of the definition. I
 
trevor travis
mrsbookmark wrote:He doesn't attack civilian targets, which is part of the definition.


Although destroying Star One would be the ultimate civilian target, wouldn't it? And Blake's reason for pushing through with destroying Star One? "It's the only way I can be sure that I was right." So it's OK for Blake to condemn millions to possible death simply to sate his ego. Hmmmmmm.

EDIT: I agree about Blake being a failed revolutionary. Although I'd have him down as failed revolutionary and terrorist Wink
 
guiser
mrsbookmark wrote:

Spaceship Dispatcher wrote:

trevor travis wrote:

Guiser, Blake's actions would have more weight, if there was a genuine resistance movement (rather than a very small disorganised rabble, consisting of people such as Avalon and Kasabi), and also if the people genuinely wanted to be freed. I'd not sure if that many do; what's the alternative to Federation rule? Rule under Blake. That would be a disaster!!

Agreed on all points TT; the two questions I raised in a previous post were that 1. if the Federation really is that bad, why does Blake have so much trouble grubbing around for support? and 2. if everyone in authority in the Federation is like Servalan and Travis (in terms of being ruthless) then why do they have bad reputations amongst their peers?


Interesting. Although, lack of support and Servalan/Travis poor reputation does not necessarily mean the Federation isn't bad. Fear is a powerful tool. People are generally unwillingly to risk themselves unless they can see that the battle has been won. Blake does not have advantage, nor other rebels. I got the impression Blake wanted to show a clear advantage through targeted attacks that would weaken the Federation but it doesn't really happen and people don't rally. Which begs the question : should you fight for freedom for people even when they don't seem to want it for themselves? Servalan/Travis are viewed poorly by their peers...but they are never effectively opposed. There are attempts, but no consistent opposition. And Servalan maintains enough support to do what she wants...even to rise from the ashes in the later seasons.

I see Blake as a failed revolutionary. A short sighted revolutionary.
Terrorist??

He doesn't attack civilian targets, which is part of the definition. I


A lot of interesting points being made. I was just thinking of the way B7 shows the "human face" of Federation functionaries. There is a certain Nazi (and also Soviets) in space flavour to the Federation. So, for Space Command you can read the German officer corps. There is no such thing as an evil state where every cog in the machine is a stone cold psychopath and killer. Someone has to file the paperwork for the death squads and generally that someone loves their mum, their spouse, their kids. These civil and military functionaries sometimes act in ways that are not congruent with the ideology of the state or even disapprove of some of its actions. However, such functionaries are still enablers of a fundamentally evil state. They have sold their souls to the devil for a safer and easier life. Fear can muffle opposition, but many people are also easy to "buy". None of the members of Space Command actually seem prepared to resign, or risk taking things up with a higher authority. That suggest that these "aberrations" are actually features of the system itself.
 
trevor travis
The viewpoint of Professor Kayn is also an interesting one. Here's a neutral who describes the Federation as "the greatest force for order in the known universe."

Kayn is clearly an intelligent man, and yet he doesn't see the Federation as evil, quite the contrary.
 
mrsbookmark
trevor travis wrote:

mrsbookmark wrote:He doesn't attack civilian targets, which is part of the definition.


Although destroying Star One would be the ultimate civilian target, wouldn't it? And Blake's reason for pushing through with destroying Star One? "It's the only way I can be sure that I was right." So it's OK for Blake to condemn millions to possible death simply to sate his ego. Hmmmmmm.

EDIT: I agree about Blake being a failed revolutionary. Although I'd have him down as failed revolutionary and terrorist Wink


Star One...hmmm. That was the point Cally was trying to make...that millions would die without it. technically, it's a military target b/c it's Federation's control vessel & they can't survive w/o it. But neither can the populace. So, where do you make the distinction? Rebel leader if you win? terrorist if you lose? Is ther such as thing as a 'good terrorist'? If not, would Blake have been a better person doing nothing. is passivity in the form of inaction better than risking being a terrorist?

I thinking about this too much.Shock
 
trevor travis
mrsbookmark wrote:Star One...hmmm. That was the point Cally was trying to make...that millions would die without it. technically, it's a military target b/c it's Federation's control vessel & they can't survive w/o it. But neither can the populace. So, where do you make the distinction? Rebel leader if you win? terrorist if you lose? Is ther such as thing as a 'good terrorist'? If not, would Blake have been a better person doing nothing. is passivity in the form of inaction better than risking being a terrorist?

I thinking about this too much.Shock


That's the great thing about B7 - it gives you so much to think about!

Star One is destroyed (in an alien counter-attack) and the Federation doesn't die. In fact, the main concern for the Federation is the number of ships lost in the war, not the effects of the loss of Star One.

Meanwhile, we never really learn of the fates of those on the frontier worlds. Presumably many civilians on these planets did die. Probably left to their fate by the Federation.

I think Blake is fighting a fight he can't ever win. So he's always down to end up as "failed terrorist" by future Federation historians.
 
guiser
trevor travis wrote:

mrsbookmark wrote:He doesn't attack civilian targets, which is part of the definition.


Although destroying Star One would be the ultimate civilian target, wouldn't it?


No. It is a military target primarily.Blake clearly wants to destroy the military power of the Federation. All his previous actions suggest he has this kind of narrow focus. Civilians casualties are not his aim, only a likely consequence. Even in real wars civilian and military infrastructure cannot be disentangled. A good analogy would be the blowing up of railway lines to prevent troop movement and supply, which has never in my reading been characterised as targeting civilians per se (a feature of terrorism) even when bringing civilians to the brink of starvation.
 
trevor travis
guiser wrote:

trevor travis wrote:

mrsbookmark wrote:He doesn't attack civilian targets, which is part of the definition.


Although destroying Star One would be the ultimate civilian target, wouldn't it?


No. It is a military target primarily.Blake clearly wants to destroy the military power of the Federation. All his previous actions suggest he has this kind of narrow focus. Civilians casualties are not his aim, only a likely consequence. Even in real wars civilian and military infrastructure cannot be disentangled. A good analogy would be the blowing up of railway lines to prevent troop movement and supply, which has never in my reading been characterised as targeting civilians per se (a feature of terrorism) even when bringing civilians to the brink of starvation.


But how is it primarily a military target?

The Federation will simply disown the frontier worlds, and let those people starve. No Federation ships will blow up on the account of Star One being destroyed, vessels such at the Nova Queen simply will have to fly on manual. Working without a central computer would be awkward for the Federation, but do you seriously think a force that power would be destroyed by that? Of course not.

In "Aftermath", the effect is not even mentioned. What is mentioned is the effect of the destruction of so much of the military in the war. It's this which almost brings the Federation to its knees ( "It's difficult to sustain a military dictatorship when you've lost most of the military" ).

The main consequence of the destruction of "Star One" is the misery and possible death to millions of civilians. And that would make Blake the galaxy's No 1 criminal, hated by all and sundry. I guess it could be considered as a military target as well, because it will slightly weaken the Federation, but IMO I would say it's primarily a civilian target, hence Cally's questioining once she understands the consequence.
Edited by trevor travis on 13 January 2015 08:23:13
 
mrsbookmark
I was reading all these posts and going back over the episodes. Still not sure if he is a 'terrorist' or not (convincing points, but not fully on a side yet) and what I really thought about was that this is Blake as revolutionary second time around. Meaning, his first try at revolution failed(brainwashed, family murdered) so maybe its a study of a revolutionary in danger of becoming a terrorist even if he can't see it?

The Federation historians will paint him as a terrorist irregardless. He could do nothing-and they would lie simply because he opposed them. That wouldn't be enough to say he is a terrorist. Cally's observations are more persuasive in considering that Blake has crossed a line.

Blake has no real followers-he tries to get Avalon etc. but really it seems like a token effort. And when he tries to work with the Terra Nostra(?), basically a drug cartel, its obvious a desperation move. I come away with the impressing that he tried things the 'right way' ie. a real movement with allies etc., it fell apart, and now he's in desperation mode. I would assume Blake must have been a charismatic leader 1st time around. After all, the Federation fears him enough to want to discredit him rather than kill and martyr him. He has allies willing to risk their lives to help him get his memories back.

Yet, he doesn't try to rebuild that movement. I think this Blake is short of the lesser, psychologically wounded Blake. One he fixates on the Liberator as the ship capable of going against the Federation, he seems primarily driven by the idea that tech will take it down. Force morseo than ideology, though he spouts ideology.
 
Jump to Forum:
Orac rendered this page in 0.65 seconds
9,177,220 unique visits since 8th January 2014