FLM films - My Webpage

2004-06-15 15:02:48-07:00 - What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (reldevik@usa.net)


Mickey DuPree made an excellent point on another thread, and I wanted to reply to it there, but for some reason Google won't let me. So I'll try creating a new thread, beginning with this quotation: "At that point, Drogyn was toast anyway. Angel explained that if he hadn't killed Drogyn in front of them, the Circle would have killed them both. Under those circumstances, I imagine Drogyn would have approved of Angel's decision to kill him. The larger moral question was exactly what did Angel think the Circle was going to be expecting in the way of proof? If not Drogyn in particular, then what in general? How did Angel think he was going to convince them he was evil if not by performing a vile act? Did he really think he could get away with faking something? That would seem naive on his part." I think this is the most interesting question anyone has asked about Power Play/NFW, and I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it. It's perfectly true; Angel couldn't have predicted that after Drogyn arrived in LA Hamilton would grab Drogyn to be the victim, but Angel must have foreseen that to join the BlackThorns there would be some initiation rite in which he would be required to do something horrible to someone who didn't deserve to be harmed. I'm sure Angel wasn't so naive that it failed to occur to him this would happen. How did he make his peace with that? I suppose he could have reasoned that it was necessary in the Big Picture, necessary for the Greater Good--and so he steeled himself to the necessity of it. Myself, I've always been leery of all those Big Picture/Greater Good arguments. And boy oh boy, does this ever tarnish the title hero of the show, right before the end. I kind of wonder about the writers laying this on Angel's shoulders. It reminds me of a Peter O'Donnell novel called The Night of Morningstar, in which a secret agent is trying to infiltrate a terrorist group that is planning an explosion in a large American city that will kill a huge number of people. The terrorist group requires new members to go through what they call a "Mohs test," named after the test metallurgists use to gauge the hardness of metal: the hardness of the new member is demonstrated by his willingness to kill a helpless, innocent victim. In the case of the secret agent, the victim was a hapless teenage girl whom the group had randomly kidnaped for this purpose. The secret agent was horrified but didn't show it, and he went through with the killing of the girl. He felt he simply had to do anything necessary to infiltrate the group so that he could put a stop to the threat they posed. This part of the novel was sad and sickening to read. I pitied the victim who was killed, and I pitied the character who killed her. I honestly don't know what I would do if I were in his position. I guess in a way the writers made it easier on Angel by making the victim a big tough hero who had already lived a thousand years and who, as Mickey DuPree suggests, would have probably consented to what Angel was doing to him if he understood the situation and were able to have his say about it. Even though Drogyn was a friend of Angel's (and I wonder when their friendship was first forged, since Angel has spent all his time since 1902 in the Western Hemisphere?) and it's hard to kill a friend, wouldn't it have been even more sickening if the victim had been a stranger of tender years--a child or a teenager? When Darla wanted Angel to pass her "Mohs test" in 1900 in China, she chose a baby. Of course Angel couldn't pass that test. But failing it was clearly the right thing to do: winning Darla's acceptance wasn't the same thing as infiltrating the BlackThorns. Angel had no ulterior motive in 1900--he simply missed his old life with Darla. That he didn't give nostalgia precedence over saving the life of an innocent was a good thing, in 1900. I'm just not sure what would have been a good thing in 2004, in the Circle of the Black Thorn. I really wonder. Clairel

2004-06-16 14:03:10-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


HeKS wrote: > It's possible that Angel thought he'd already completed the initiation by > "killing" Fred. He may not have known that a further initiation of that sort > was necessary. Or if he did know, he could have been under the impression > that it would be some thug. Nonetheless, a good question . . . I thought > about it a bit after that episode too. Angel was also just very damned lucky that the Black Thorn Circle didn't also demand that he sing for an evil version of Lorne, or employ a mindreader to ferret out his true thoughts and feelings. Both things which I'd think a really powerful, really evil group with access to the kind of magical power available in that universe would do first.

2004-06-16 14:05:18-04:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (HeKS <heks_@hotmail.com>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0406151338.5ef5471d@posting.google.com... > Mickey DuPree made an excellent point on another thread, and I wanted > to reply to it there, but for some reason Google won't let me. So > I'll try creating a new thread, beginning with this quotation: "At > that point, Drogyn was toast anyway. Angel explained that if he > hadn't killed Drogyn in front of them, the Circle would have killed > them both. Under those circumstances, I imagine Drogyn would have > approved of Angel's decision to kill him. The larger moral question > was exactly what did Angel think the Circle was going to be expecting > in the way of proof? If not Drogyn in particular, then what in > general? How did Angel think he was going to convince them he was > evil if not by performing a vile act? Did he really think he could > get away with faking something? That would seem naive on his part." > > I think this is the most interesting question anyone has asked about > Power Play/NFW, and I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it. > It's perfectly true; Angel couldn't have predicted that after Drogyn > arrived in LA Hamilton would grab Drogyn to be the victim, but Angel > must have foreseen that to join the BlackThorns there would be some > initiation rite in which he would be required to do something horrible > to someone who didn't deserve to be harmed. I'm sure Angel wasn't so > naive that it failed to occur to him this would happen. How did he > make his peace with that? > > I suppose he could have reasoned that it was necessary in the Big > Picture, necessary for the Greater Good--and so he steeled himself to > the necessity of it. Myself, I've always been leery of all those Big > Picture/Greater Good arguments. And boy oh boy, does this ever > tarnish the title hero of the show, right before the end. I kind of > wonder about the writers laying this on Angel's shoulders. > > It reminds me of a Peter O'Donnell novel called The Night of > Morningstar, in which a secret agent is trying to infiltrate a > terrorist group that is planning an explosion in a large American city > that will kill a huge number of people. The terrorist group requires > new members to go through what they call a "Mohs test," named after > the test metallurgists use to gauge the hardness of metal: the > hardness of the new member is demonstrated by his willingness to kill > a helpless, innocent victim. In the case of the secret agent, the > victim was a hapless teenage girl whom the group had randomly kidnaped > for this purpose. The secret agent was horrified but didn't show it, > and he went through with the killing of the girl. He felt he simply > had to do anything necessary to infiltrate the group so that he could > put a stop to the threat they posed. > > This part of the novel was sad and sickening to read. I pitied the > victim who was killed, and I pitied the character who killed her. I > honestly don't know what I would do if I were in his position. > > I guess in a way the writers made it easier on Angel by making the > victim a big tough hero who had already lived a thousand years and > who, as Mickey DuPree suggests, would have probably consented to what > Angel was doing to him if he understood the situation and were able to > have his say about it. Even though Drogyn was a friend of Angel's > (and I wonder when their friendship was first forged, since Angel has > spent all his time since 1902 in the Western Hemisphere?) and it's > hard to kill a friend, wouldn't it have been even more sickening if > the victim had been a stranger of tender years--a child or a teenager? > When Darla wanted Angel to pass her "Mohs test" in 1900 in China, she > chose a baby. Of course Angel couldn't pass that test. But failing > it was clearly the right thing to do: winning Darla's acceptance > wasn't the same thing as infiltrating the BlackThorns. Angel had no > ulterior motive in 1900--he simply missed his old life with Darla. > That he didn't give nostalgia precedence over saving the life of an > innocent was a good thing, in 1900. > > I'm just not sure what would have been a good thing in 2004, in the > Circle of the Black Thorn. I really wonder. > It's possible that Angel thought he'd already completed the initiation by "killing" Fred. He may not have known that a further initiation of that sort was necessary. Or if he did know, he could have been under the impression that it would be some thug. Nonetheless, a good question . . . I thought about it a bit after that episode too. HeKS

2004-06-16 14:47:24-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406151338.5ef5471d@posting.google.com>... > Mickey DuPree made an excellent point on another thread, and I wanted > to reply to it there, but for some reason Google won't let me. So > I'll try creating a new thread, beginning with this quotation: "At > that point, Drogyn was toast anyway. Angel explained that if he > hadn't killed Drogyn in front of them, the Circle would have killed > them both. Under those circumstances, I imagine Drogyn would have > approved of Angel's decision to kill him. The larger moral question > was exactly what did Angel think the Circle was going to be expecting > in the way of proof? If not Drogyn in particular, then what in > general? How did Angel think he was going to convince them he was > evil if not by performing a vile act? Did he really think he could > get away with faking something? That would seem naive on his part." OTOH, he did actually seem a bit naive when the gang asked him about this, about which of them would be next. He said none of them would be because they would kill the BT that night. He may have thought that having it established by Drogyn and the others' reaction that he had sacrificed Fred would be enough. When he understood it wasn't and wouldn't be, he accellerated the plan. > > I think this is the most interesting question anyone has asked about > Power Play/NFW, and I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it. > It's perfectly true; Angel couldn't have predicted that after Drogyn > arrived in LA Hamilton would grab Drogyn to be the victim, but Angel > must have foreseen that to join the BlackThorns there would be some > initiation rite in which he would be required to do something horrible > to someone who didn't deserve to be harmed. I'm sure Angel wasn't so > naive that it failed to occur to him this would happen. Well, he did get Nina and her family out of town so he must have had suspicions about what would or might happen. And he was also responsible for getting Drogyn to L.A.; in theory that was just to tell the others the fake Fred theory in a realistic fashion, but I'm not so sure. It may have been subconscious at some level, but I think Angel knew he'd have to kill someone near and dear. By sending Nina away, he made sure it wasn't a total innocent but a player in the demon wars...Drogyn is one of the warriors as are Gunn, Wes, Spike, and Illyria. And Drogyn is a friend/ally of Angel's without being as close as those four. Having Drogyn around made it less likely that Angel would have to kill one of his closest friends. > How did he > make his peace with that? By dying immediately afterwards. I don't think Angel could have lived with this, but then, he didn't plan to. That's why I'm good with the idea of him dying. I just hope he got to slay that dragon first. > I suppose he could have reasoned that it was necessary in the Big > Picture, necessary for the Greater Good--and so he steeled himself to > the necessity of it. Myself, I've always been leery of all those Big > Picture/Greater Good arguments. And boy oh boy, does this ever > tarnish the title hero of the show, right before the end. I kind of > wonder about the writers laying this on Angel's shoulders. Oh, I think it's well in line with where the show was going. BTVS went there too although not quite as far, and it annoyed a lot of folks who prefer their heroes shiny and clean. Fighting evil often requires choices that leave the good guys seriously tarnished, so much so that it's hard to tell them apart from those they fight. > It reminds me of a Peter O'Donnell novel called The Night of > Morningstar, in which a secret agent is trying to infiltrate a > terrorist group that is planning an explosion in a large American city > that will kill a huge number of people. The terrorist group requires > new members to go through what they call a "Mohs test," named after > the test metallurgists use to gauge the hardness of metal: the > hardness of the new member is demonstrated by his willingness to kill > a helpless, innocent victim. In the case of the secret agent, the > victim was a hapless teenage girl whom the group had randomly kidnaped > for this purpose. The secret agent was horrified but didn't show it, > and he went through with the killing of the girl. He felt he simply > had to do anything necessary to infiltrate the group so that he could > put a stop to the threat they posed. This is the problem more directly: terrorism...a very suitable topic for our time. But the novel you describe seems to miss the main point: that the agent in this case becomes a terrorist too: someone who is not mentally ill but who is willing to kill people he has never met and does not hate personally for a "greater cause." He may actually save more people than he kills, but I'd never trust him again. I doubt he'd ever trust himself again. There's a reason so many real terrorists engage in suicide missions. It's not just strategic and it's not because they're monsters. It's because they're not monsters. The ones I worry about are the ones who can do such things and go on living feeling they were justified. Angel is fighting a war against a vastly more powerful enemy and he employs the usual weapon of the weak against the strong: terrorism or guerrilla warfare or whatever you want to call it. This involves some very unpleasant tactics. > > This part of the novel was sad and sickening to read. I pitied the > victim who was killed, and I pitied the character who killed her. I > honestly don't know what I would do if I were in his position. No, and that's the most disturbing part. I don't think I've ever actually been sure enough that I was absolutely in the right to act this way, and I mistrust people who "know" the truth about anything. > > I guess in a way the writers made it easier on Angel by making the > victim a big tough hero who had already lived a thousand years and > who, as Mickey DuPree suggests, would have probably consented to what > Angel was doing to him if he understood the situation and were able to > have his say about it. Even though Drogyn was a friend of Angel's > (and I wonder when their friendship was first forged, since Angel has > spent all his time since 1902 in the Western Hemisphere?) and it's > hard to kill a friend, wouldn't it have been even more sickening if > the victim had been a stranger of tender years--a child or a teenager? > When Darla wanted Angel to pass her "Mohs test" in 1900 in China, she > chose a baby. Of course Angel couldn't pass that test. But failing > it was clearly the right thing to do: winning Darla's acceptance > wasn't the same thing as infiltrating the BlackThorns. Angel had no > ulterior motive in 1900--he simply missed his old life with Darla. > That he didn't give nostalgia precedence over saving the life of an > innocent was a good thing, in 1900. Still is now. I don't think what Angel did was entirely meant to be a good thing. I also think that if we'd had a S6, we might have found that out big time. Gunn sort of acknowledged this with Anne. She has the right idea: go on living a good life trying to make things actively better for others by helping them, not by attacking their "enemies." But Gunn is past that point by now. He also wants to die and he plans to do it in a way that is useful to the "good guys" but not good in itself. I can see only 3 people who could survive on this show with any kind of life left for them. Illyria because she has no ethics to be bothered by...although she might find herself developing some Freddish ones. Spike and Lorne because they are able to love the world and maybe even themselves as they are, not as they think they ought to be. Whether this makes them better, worse, or just different from Angel depends how you feel about true believers. > I'm just not sure what would have been a good thing in 2004, in the > Circle of the Black Thorn. I really wonder. Me too. I think we're meant to. himiko

2004-06-16 15:39:53-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (reldevik@usa.net)


"HeKS" <heks_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vX%zc.23197$nY.816819@news20.bellglobal.com>... > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0406151338.5ef5471d@posting.google.com... > > Mickey DuPree made an excellent point on another thread, and I wanted > > to reply to it there, but for some reason Google won't let me. So > > I'll try creating a new thread, beginning with this quotation: "At > > that point, Drogyn was toast anyway. Angel explained that if he > > hadn't killed Drogyn in front of them, the Circle would have killed > > them both. Under those circumstances, I imagine Drogyn would have > > approved of Angel's decision to kill him. The larger moral question > > was exactly what did Angel think the Circle was going to be expecting > > in the way of proof? If not Drogyn in particular, then what in > > general? How did Angel think he was going to convince them he was > > evil if not by performing a vile act? Did he really think he could > > get away with faking something? That would seem naive on his part." > It's possible that Angel thought he'd already completed the initiation by > "killing" Fred. He may not have known that a further initiation of that sort > was necessary. Or if he did know, he could have been under the impression > that it would be some thug. --Why would killing some thug prove anything to the BlackThorns? I find that implausible. Nonetheless, a good question . . . I thought > about it a bit after that episode too. --Actually, someone on another forum pointed out to me that part of the vision that Angel got from Cordelia was a glimpse of Angel killing Drogyn. I haven't been able to watch my tape again to verify that (and I didn't notice seeing it before), but if it's true, that does put a different complexion on things. I suppose it's what gave Angel the idea of sending an assassin to attack Drogyn in the first place: Angel was getting Drogyn involved so that events could play out as the PTB wanted them to. Since the vision Cordelia gave Angel was something sent by the PTBs, it seems as if Angel was dancing to their tune once again, after a long while in which they hadn't even attempted to make contact with him. And here I thought Angel was so bitter about the PTBs after the Jasmine incident, he wouldn't even be willing to listen to them or do their bidding any longer. Hmmm. So maybe the most important question isn't what I thought it was, but rather, why Angel was willing to go along with the actions dictated by the PTBs. Clairel

2004-06-16 16:23:52-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


himiko wrote: > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406151338.5ef5471d@posting.google.com>... >>It reminds me of a Peter O'Donnell novel called The Night of >>Morningstar, in which a secret agent is trying to infiltrate a >>terrorist group that is planning an explosion in a large American city >>that will kill a huge number of people. The terrorist group requires >>new members to go through what they call a "Mohs test," named after >>the test metallurgists use to gauge the hardness of metal: the >>hardness of the new member is demonstrated by his willingness to kill >>a helpless, innocent victim. In the case of the secret agent, the >>victim was a hapless teenage girl whom the group had randomly kidnaped >>for this purpose. The secret agent was horrified but didn't show it, >>and he went through with the killing of the girl. He felt he simply >>had to do anything necessary to infiltrate the group so that he could >>put a stop to the threat they posed. > This is the problem more directly: terrorism...a very suitable topic > for our time. But the novel you describe seems to miss the main > point: that the agent in this case becomes a terrorist too: someone > who is not mentally ill but who is willing to kill people he has never > met and does not hate personally for a "greater cause." He may > actually save more people than he kills, but I'd never trust him > again. I doubt he'd ever trust himself again. I don't think the novel missed this point at all. SPOILER WARNING for anyone who cares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As it turns out our heroine, Modesty Blaise, accidentally blew his cover when she ran into him in a restaurant (she had no idea he was undercover and using a false name). Realizing what she'd done, she kept tabs on him and they both wound up being taken captive on a ship out in the San Francisco bay. The bad guys intended to kill them both (they'd already known he was a plant as it turns out--they'd made him face that horrible choice and then told him they already knew about him, just for laughs). Modesty killed one of the bad guys and dragged the agent (who was drugged, I believe) overboard with her--but not before he was shot. They spent several hours in the water before being rescued. The agent spent a lot of that time incoherent and babbling from drugs and/or blood loss. Which is how Modesty learned what had happened. He didn't survive...and Modesty wasn't all sure that that wasn't a blessing for him. Because he _couldn't_ deal with what he'd done. And both Modesty and her sidekick Willie, whom she told what happened, were both just damned glad that they had never been confronted with a choice like that.

2004-06-16 19:30:45-04:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (HeKS <heks_@hotmail.com>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0406161439.7a8111dc@posting.google.com... > "HeKS" <heks_@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vX%zc.23197$nY.816819@news20.bellglobal.com>... > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > news:1faed770.0406151338.5ef5471d@posting.google.com... > > > Mickey DuPree made an excellent point on another thread, and I wanted > > > to reply to it there, but for some reason Google won't let me. So > > > I'll try creating a new thread, beginning with this quotation: "At > > > that point, Drogyn was toast anyway. Angel explained that if he > > > hadn't killed Drogyn in front of them, the Circle would have killed > > > them both. Under those circumstances, I imagine Drogyn would have > > > approved of Angel's decision to kill him. The larger moral question > > > was exactly what did Angel think the Circle was going to be expecting > > > in the way of proof? If not Drogyn in particular, then what in > > > general? How did Angel think he was going to convince them he was > > > evil if not by performing a vile act? Did he really think he could > > > get away with faking something? That would seem naive on his part." > > > It's possible that Angel thought he'd already completed the initiation by > > "killing" Fred. He may not have known that a further initiation of that sort > > was necessary. Or if he did know, he could have been under the impression > > that it would be some thug. > > --Why would killing some thug prove anything to the BlackThorns? I > find that implausible. > Well Angel had a fairly strict no-tolerance policy on killing humans, good or bad. So while killing a thug might not have proved much, he had already "proved" he was willing to kill his friends to get in, and it would prove he was willing to kill other people. But there's something I think we're forgetting. We seem to be assuming that this initiation ritual was supposed to be a test and prove something. But what that Devil guy (Izzy?) said to An gel right after he killed Drogyn would suggest something different. Izzy: "How 'bout that lamb we got you for the slaughter? Any idea who that was?" Angel: "Drogyn; the Battle Brand." Izzy: "Damn straight! We got you some super-charged warrior juice, not some shmuck. You must feel great." Doesn't seem as though the initiation ritual was a test since they didn't seem to even know that Angel and Drogyn were friends. It appears to have been an offering of welcome to Angel for joining the Circle. So, if Angel knew of this ritual and that it was an offering then there's no reason for us or him to assume it couldn't have been just a street thug. It seems that Drogyn being the offering was just a case of bad luck for both of them. HeKS

2004-06-16 22:10:25-04:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <CI4Ac.23469$nY.873325@news20.bellglobal.com>, "HeKS" <heks_@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > news:1faed770.0406161439.7a8111dc@posting.google.com... > > "HeKS" <heks_@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<vX%zc.23197$nY.816819@news20.bellglobal.com>... > > > "Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message > > > news:1faed770.0406151338.5ef5471d@posting.google.com... > > > > Mickey DuPree made an excellent point on another thread, and I wanted > > > > to reply to it there, but for some reason Google won't let me. So > > > > I'll try creating a new thread, beginning with this quotation: "At > > > > that point, Drogyn was toast anyway. Angel explained that if he > > > > hadn't killed Drogyn in front of them, the Circle would have killed > > > > them both. Under those circumstances, I imagine Drogyn would have > > > > approved of Angel's decision to kill him. The larger moral question > > > > was exactly what did Angel think the Circle was going to be expecting > > > > in the way of proof? If not Drogyn in particular, then what in > > > > general? How did Angel think he was going to convince them he was > > > > evil if not by performing a vile act? Did he really think he could > > > > get away with faking something? That would seem naive on his part." > > > > > It's possible that Angel thought he'd already completed the initiation > by > > > "killing" Fred. He may not have known that a further initiation of that > sort > > > was necessary. Or if he did know, he could have been under the > impression > > > that it would be some thug. > > > > --Why would killing some thug prove anything to the BlackThorns? I > > find that implausible. > > > > Well Angel had a fairly strict no-tolerance policy on killing humans, good > or bad. So while killing a thug might not have proved much, he had already > "proved" he was willing to kill his friends to get in, and it would prove he > was willing to kill other people. But there's something I think we're > forgetting. We seem to be assuming that this initiation ritual was supposed > to be a test and prove something. But what that Devil guy (Izzy?) said to An > gel right after he killed Drogyn would suggest something different. > > Izzy: "How 'bout that lamb we got you for the slaughter? Any idea who that > was?" > Angel: "Drogyn; the Battle Brand." > Izzy: "Damn straight! We got you some super-charged warrior juice, not some > shmuck. You must feel great." > > Doesn't seem as though the initiation ritual was a test since they didn't > seem to even know that Angel and Drogyn were friends. It appears to have > been an offering of welcome to Angel for joining the Circle. Yep.... sound like they were merely welcoming Angel into their Circle by buying him lunch. If he had been human I think they would have simply bought him a 10 inch steak.... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-06-16 22:37:39-04:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (HeKS <heks_@hotmail.com>)


"Sandra S" <sandora@verizon.net> wrote in message news:opr9pswv1tjtszlz@news.verizon.net... > Interesting question. > > What would Angel have done if he'd been told to kill Nina, for example? > Could he have gone through with it? > > I wonder if he'd tried to anticipate it- and that was the REAL reason he > went to check on Connor and had men watching Buffy's apt. in Rome? > Check my post a little higher in this thread. I think we're all jumping to conclusions based on an inaccurate assumption. HeKS

2004-06-16 22:54:11+00:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (alanesue@aol.com)


>Subject: Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? >Since the vision Cordelia gave Angel was something sent by the PTBs, >it seems as if Angel was dancing to their tune once again, after a >long while in which they hadn't even attempted to make contact with >him. And here I thought Angel was so bitter about the PTBs after the >Jasmine incident, he wouldn't even be willing to listen to them or do >their bidding any longer. Hmmm. I wondered right away how he could even be sure it was from "good" Powers, considering what Skip told him the year before. How did he know for sure that he wasn't playing right into Evil's hands? Alane Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Fundraiser members.ebay.com/aboutme/alanesue

2004-06-16 23:01:31+00:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (alanesue@aol.com)


>Subject: Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) >Oh, I think it's well in line with where the show was going. BTVS >went there too although not quite as far, and it annoyed a lot of >folks who prefer their heroes shiny and clean. Fighting evil often >requires choices that leave the good guys seriously tarnished, so much >so that it's hard to tell them apart from those they fight. You can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that. -- Buffy, "First Date" I don't think she would have approved of what Angel did. BtVS (or at least Buffy's corner of it) really did operate according to a different moral code. Alane Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Fundraiser members.ebay.com/aboutme/alanesue

2004-06-17 01:25:35+00:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (Sandra S <sandora@verizon.net>)


Interesting question. What would Angel have done if he'd been told to kill Nina, for example? Could he have gone through with it? I wonder if he'd tried to anticipate it- and that was the REAL reason he went to check on Connor and had men watching Buffy's apt. in Rome? Sandra

2004-06-17 07:20:34-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (reldevik@usa.net)


Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<10d1lki9a2gsj61@corp.supernews.com>... > himiko wrote: > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406151338.5ef5471d@posting.google.com>... > > >>It reminds me of a Peter O'Donnell novel called The Night of > >>Morningstar, in which a secret agent is trying to infiltrate a > >>terrorist group that is planning an explosion in a large American city > >>that will kill a huge number of people. The terrorist group requires > >>new members to go through what they call a "Mohs test," named after > >>the test metallurgists use to gauge the hardness of metal: the > >>hardness of the new member is demonstrated by his willingness to kill > >>a helpless, innocent victim. In the case of the secret agent, the > >>victim was a hapless teenage girl whom the group had randomly kidnaped > >>for this purpose. The secret agent was horrified but didn't show it, > >>and he went through with the killing of the girl. He felt he simply > >>had to do anything necessary to infiltrate the group so that he could > >>put a stop to the threat they posed. > > > This is the problem more directly: terrorism...a very suitable topic > > for our time. But the novel you describe seems to miss the main > > point: that the agent in this case becomes a terrorist too: someone > > who is not mentally ill but who is willing to kill people he has never > > met and does not hate personally for a "greater cause." He may > > actually save more people than he kills, but I'd never trust him > > again. I doubt he'd ever trust himself again. > > I don't think the novel missed this point at all. SPOILER WARNING for > anyone who cares > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > > As it turns out our heroine, Modesty Blaise, accidentally blew his cover > when she ran into him in a restaurant (she had no idea he was undercover > and using a false name). Realizing what she'd done, she kept tabs on > him and they both wound up being taken captive on a ship out in the San > Francisco bay. The bad guys intended to kill them both (they'd already > known he was a plant as it turns out--they'd made him face that horrible > choice and then told him they already knew about him, just for laughs). > Modesty killed one of the bad guys and dragged the agent (who was > drugged, I believe) overboard with her--but not before he was shot. > > They spent several hours in the water before being rescued. The agent > spent a lot of that time incoherent and babbling from drugs and/or blood > loss. Which is how Modesty learned what had happened. He didn't > survive...and Modesty wasn't all sure that that wasn't a blessing for > him. Because he _couldn't_ deal with what he'd done. And both Modesty > and her sidekick Willie, whom she told what happened, were both just > damned glad that they had never been confronted with a choice like that. --Thanks for the summary. I would have replied exactly the same thing to Himiko if you already hadn't. It is also worth pointing out that Modesty and Willie, though they are former jewel thieves, have a pretty high standard of morality in these novels. For example, they won't torture anybody for any reason whatsoever (not even if, for example, they needed to find out the location of a bomb that would kill a huge number of people). It's one of the things I always admired about Modesty and Willie: there are certain things they simply will not stoop to. But, although I know I contradict myself, I had no problem with the good guys on AtS going to work on Doctor Sparrow this season, when Fred was being turned into Illyria and they needed to understand what was going on -- and in season 3 of AtS I kind of wanted to see Angel lose all restraint and go to work on Linfield (the white-haired boss of Lilah) with that sharp pointy desk gadget. It's complicated. Clairel

2004-06-17 11:26:30-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (himiko@animail.net)


alanesue@aol.com (Alane Sue) wrote in message news:<20040616190131.04247.00000060@mb-m26.aol.com>... > >Subject: Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? > >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) > > >Oh, I think it's well in line with where the show was going. BTVS > >went there too although not quite as far, and it annoyed a lot of > >folks who prefer their heroes shiny and clean. Fighting evil often > >requires choices that leave the good guys seriously tarnished, so much > >so that it's hard to tell them apart from those they fight. > > You can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that. > -- Buffy, "First Date" Buffy was still very young when she said that. She was a lot older when she led a bunch of partially trained girls into a battle she knew most of them would not survive, and persuaded her best friend to attempt a spell they both knew might result in death by Kennedy if it went wrong. OTOH, Buffy did refuse the offer of additional evil (demon slayer juice) to fight the FE, and was royally pissed by Giles's effort to kill Spike; that last may have been personal but it was the same sort of trade-off. I've often wondered if accepting the extra demonic energy that would make her a stronger slayer might not have been an equally effective method of defeating the First, one that would not have cost so many potential's (and Spike) their lives. That's not the way Buffy operated, but other parts of the Buffyverse do operate that way. We saw this most clearly when Giles killed Ben. That was a classic necessary act, but one Buffy herself would not and maybe could not commit. So Giles did it, and was destroyed by it. Of course, he's always been a bit on the cold-blooded, ruthless side. He's a guy who was trained from birth to send a child into horrific battles night after night until he gets her killed, not because he thinks it's a good thing to do in itself, but because he thinks it's for the "greater good." In the end (S7), when he tried to do another "greater good" vis a vis Spike, Buffy made it clear that she and he would never see eye to eye on that one. This may have had strong emotional aspects to it too, but it also expressed her own, adult, moral values and standards...which were different from Giles's. > > I don't think she would have approved of what Angel > did. BtVS (or at least Buffy's corner of it) really did operate according to a > different moral code. I agree. Buffy has never seen Angel as he really is. She remembers a teen romance view of him. The reality, both his silliness and his moral choices, would disturb her greatly. They did in Spike and she was able to get used to his silliness and moral choices (which may or may not be different from Angel's; if he gets a movie, we may find out) in a slower manner. Still, I think Angel was lucky he never caught up with her in his CEO mode. I think she would have torn him a new one. Andrew was a lot kinder. As it was, he was able to babble incomprehensible outrage about the Immortal eating cookie dough without recognizing, as Spike does, that he himself is simply unacceptable to Buffy as she is now. himiko

2004-06-17 14:38:42-04:00 - Re:: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (ABRAMS1117@webtv.net)


It reminds me of a Peter O'Donnell novel called The Night of Morningstar, in which a secret agent is trying to infiltrate a terrorist group that is planning an explosion in a large American city that will kill a huge number of people. The terrorist group requires new members to go through what they call a "Mohs test," named after the test metallurgists use to gauge the hardness of metal: the hardness of the new member is demonstrated by his willingness to kill a helpless, innocent victim. =A0 In the case of the secret agent, the victim was a hapless teenage girl whom the group had randomly kidnaped for this purpose. The secret agent was horrified but didn't show it, and he went through with the killing of the girl. He felt he simply had to do anything necessary to infiltrate the group so that he could put a stop to the threat they posed. This part of the novel was sad and sickening to read. I pitied the victim who was killed, and I pitied the character who killed her. I honestly don't know what I would do if I were in his position. --------------------------- Churchill allowed a British city to be bombed without warning the people. Men, women and children were killed. But he and we decided we couldn't let the Nazi's know that we had broken their code. And there is very strong evidence that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack and let it happen. If these things weren't allowed, the entire planet might be speaking German right now, with death camps in every country. And the leaders of each nation forced to march down the main street of Germania, the Capital of Earth, and present themselves to the 'Supreme Ruler of the World', starting with Hitler, and whatever Nazi bastard would be ruling today. He even had models of the city built. I'm sure that every Gypsy, Jew, Russian, and black person (he said they were worse than Jews), etc., on earth, would be long dead by now, and all those not of 'pure' German blood would be slaves. Kept alive only until they were no longer needed. Thank God he gives us the right rulers at the right time to make the hard decisions.

2004-06-17 16:42:40-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406161439.7a8111dc@posting.google.com>... > --Actually, someone on another forum pointed out to me that part of > the vision that Angel got from Cordelia was a glimpse of Angel killing > Drogyn. I haven't been able to watch my tape again to verify that (and > I didn't notice seeing it before), but if it's true, that does put a > different complexion on things. Yes it does, but I'm not sure it makes things any better. I did rewatch and as far as I could tell from my cheapola VCR with limited pause abilities, it does show Angel leaping through the fire, but not the killing of Drogyn. It also shows what seems to be the slaughter of demons by Lindsey, which might relate to his ordering Lorne to kill Lindsey afterwards. > I suppose it's what gave Angel the > idea of sending an assassin to attack Drogyn in the first place: Angel > was getting Drogyn involved so that events could play out as the PTB > wanted them to. > > Since the vision Cordelia gave Angel was something sent by the PTBs, > it seems as if Angel was dancing to their tune once again, after a > long while in which they hadn't even attempted to make contact with > him. And here I thought Angel was so bitter about the PTBs after the > Jasmine incident, he wouldn't even be willing to listen to them or do > their bidding any longer. Hmmm. > > So maybe the most important question isn't what I thought it was, but > rather, why Angel was willing to go along with the actions dictated by > the PTBs. > Indeed. Maybe it was because he trusted Cordy if not the PTB. Mostly, I think it was because he's lost Fred. He needed to hear another round of her theory of evitability, but that voice is silent...mostly. himiko

2004-06-17 17:36:26-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (jillun@hotmail.com)


Well, his sins are more numerous than killing Drogyn (which leaves the Deeper Well without a guardian). He allowed an innocent man to be brainwashed into believing himself a pedophile and the damage from that will doubtless never be undone. He slept with Nina before sending her away, which is just plain rude although of course I understand why he didn't explain himself. The thing was, people (and Buffy's associates) were telling him again and again that working at Wolfram and Hart was a bad thing and he shouldn't be doing it. Cordy transferred the vision about the Black Thorn, but in the past when she had visions what did they do? They went to save the people she was seeing being murdered. If he'd been willing to heed these repeated warnings, he would have taken them out of there. If he had, Knox would have had to find some other host for Illyria.

2004-06-17 18:16:57-04:00 - Re: : What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <1748-40D1E532-210@storefull-3274.bay.webtv.net>, <ABRAMS1117@webtv.net> wrote: > Churchill allowed a British city to be bombed without warning the > people. > Men, women and children were killed. > But he and we decided we couldn't let the Nazi's know that we had broken > their code. This is a story that was popularised in some books on WW-II intelligence gathering, but it turns out not to be the case. See <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=690> for a more accurate version. > > And there is very strong evidence that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor > attack and let it happen. Only to the people who think that the CIA killed Kennedy, the Air Force has alien ships in Area 51, and Elvis is working at a 7-11 in Iowa. That the US intelligence services had enough information that they should have known that the Japanese were about to do something big, and that Pearl Harbour was a likely target is fairly clear, in hindsight, but hindsight is 20-20 while foresight tends to be very myopic. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-06-18 07:49:15-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0406171026.7374ef65@posting.google.com>... > alanesue@aol.com (Alane Sue) wrote in message news:<20040616190131.04247.00000060@mb-m26.aol.com>... > > >Subject: Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? > > >From: himiko@animail.net (himiko) > > > >Oh, I think it's well in line with where the show was going. BTVS > > >went there too although not quite as far, and it annoyed a lot of > > >folks who prefer their heroes shiny and clean. Fighting evil often > > >requires choices that leave the good guys seriously tarnished, so much > > >so that it's hard to tell them apart from those they fight. > > > > You can't beat evil by doing evil. I know that. > > -- Buffy, "First Date" > > Buffy was still very young when she said that. She was a lot older > when she led a bunch of partially trained girls into a battle she knew > most of them would not survive, and persuaded her best friend to > attempt a spell they both knew might result in death by Kennedy if it > went wrong. > > OTOH, Buffy did refuse the offer of additional evil (demon slayer > juice) to fight the FE, and was royally pissed by Giles's effort to > kill Spike; that last may have been personal but it was the same sort > of trade-off. I've often wondered if accepting the extra demonic > energy that would make her a stronger slayer might not have been an > equally effective method of defeating the First, one that would not > have cost so many potential's (and Spike) their lives. That's not the > way Buffy operated, but other parts of the Buffyverse do operate that > way. > > We saw this most clearly when Giles killed Ben. That was a classic > necessary act, but one Buffy herself would not and maybe could not > commit. So Giles did it, and was destroyed by it. Of course, he's > always been a bit on the cold-blooded, ruthless side. He's a guy who > was trained from birth to send a child into horrific battles night > after night until he gets her killed, not because he thinks it's a > good thing to do in itself, but because he thinks it's for the > "greater good." > > In the end (S7), when he tried to do another "greater good" vis a vis > Spike, Buffy made it clear that she and he would never see eye to eye > on that one. This may have had strong emotional aspects to it too, > but it also expressed her own, adult, moral values and > standards...which were different from Giles's. > > > > I don't think she would have approved of what Angel > > did. BtVS (or at least Buffy's corner of it) really did operate according to a > > different moral code. > > I agree. Buffy has never seen Angel as he really is. She remembers a > teen romance view of him. The reality, both his silliness and his > moral choices, would disturb her greatly. They did in Spike and she > was able to get used to his silliness and moral choices (which may or > may not be different from Angel's; if he gets a movie, we may find > out) in a slower manner. Still, I think Angel was lucky he never > caught up with her in his CEO mode. I think she would have torn him a > new one. Andrew was a lot kinder. As it was, he was able to babble > incomprehensible outrage about the Immortal eating cookie dough > without recognizing, as Spike does, that he himself is simply > unacceptable to Buffy as she is now. --Himiko, I'm all for the idea of Buffy finding Angel unacceptable as boyfriend material, but I don't see why you say the same thing about Spike. I don't understand what you mean about Spike's "silliness" (what, he has a sense of humor and he makes wisecracks? So does Buffy!), and I don't see why you think it can be assumed, as a foregone conclusion, that Buffy would find Spike unacceptable if she knew he were alive again. What's so great about The Immortal anyway? Clairel

2004-06-18 19:08:28-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406180649.14bab545@posting.google.com>... > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0406171026.7374ef65@posting.google.com>... > > --Himiko, I'm all for the idea of Buffy finding Angel unacceptable as > boyfriend material, but I don't see why you say the same thing about > Spike. I don't understand what you mean about Spike's "silliness" > (what, he has a sense of humor and he makes wisecracks? Yes, but he can also be very silly, especially when it involves posturing and especially if it involves anything to do with Angel. We saw that with the whole shanshu battle. I honestly don't think Spike wants to be human. I think he knows enough to realize that Buffy definitely wouldn't look twice at a human version of him. He just wants it because it's Angel's. His reasons for not going to Buffy and/or at least letting her know he's survived are equally silly, but also sad because I think he's right. Buffy is also silly. She may make jokes, but she likes her men dark, mysterious, and heroic. She likes the posturing. And you can't cut a more effective posture than Spike did at the end of BTVS. He really can't do an encore after that. Technically, Buffy is in no position to talk about people who die heroically but not permanently, but that wouldn't stop her from reacting to it, probably negatively. And even supposing she didn't, I think his silly litte personal habits (the soaps, the video games, the drinking, especially the drinking) would drive her right up the wall. > So does > Buffy!), and I don't see why you think it can be assumed, as a > foregone conclusion, that Buffy would find Spike unacceptable if she > knew he were alive again. I think she'd be furious with him for not letting her know immediately. She probably did grieve for him for quite some time...and all the time, he was up and about in L.A. And she'd be angry about him sticking around Angel. Not only does she not trust Angel any more, but why does Spike prefer being with Angel to being with her? Huh? Huh? I'd be suspicious too. > What's so great about The Immortal anyway? Ah, yes. Don't we wish we knew. He's in the same mode as Spike and Angel: immortal, sexy, morally ambigous. That might offer hope for them. She's still attracted to the same type, their type. Trouble is, she's now found a version that seems to be smarter and cooler than they are. himiko

2004-06-19 00:59:49-04:00 - Re: : What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (ABRAMS1117@webtv.net)


PART 1 Abrams1117: Churchill allowed a British city to be bombed without warning the people. Men, women and children were killed. But he and we decided we couldn't let the Nazi's know that we had broken their code. ---------------------------------------- This is a story that was popularised in some books on WW-II intelligence gathering, but it turns out not to be the case. See <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3D690> for a more accurate version. ---------------------------------------- Abrams1117: Didn't Churchill think that London was going to be bombed because the Nazi code had been broken, and it was, and no one was warned? ---------------------------------------- PART 2 Abrams1117: And there is very strong evidence that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack and let it happen. ---------------------------------------- Only to the people who think that the CIA killed Kennedy, the Air Force has alien ships in Area 51, and Elvis is working at a 7-11 in Iowa. That the US intelligence services had enough information that they should have known that the Japanese were about to do something big, and that Pearl Harbour was a likely target is fairly clear, in hindsight, but hindsight is 20-20 while foresight tends to be very myopic. ---------------------------------------- Abrams1117: LOL Elvis? See: http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html QUOTE: Pearl Harbor Archive Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett* by Douglas Cirignano** On November 25, 1941 Japan's Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: "=85the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow=85" One might wonder if the theory that President Franklin Roosevelt had a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack would have been alluded to in this summer's movie, Pearl Harbor. Since World War II many people have suspected that Washington knew the attack was coming. When Thomas Dewey was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about America's ability to intercept Japan's radio messages, and thought this knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of the attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan's naval leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Dewey's speeches could have sacrificed America's code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth time. Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster's Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett's book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America's Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew. -end quote- http://www.TruCalling.com

2004-06-19 11:10:39-04:00 - Re: : What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <13475-40D3C845-466@storefull-3275.bay.webtv.net>, <ABRAMS1117@webtv.net> wrote: > PART 1 > > Abrams1117: > Churchill allowed a British city to be bombed without warning the > people. > Men, women and children were killed. > But he and we decided we couldn't let the Nazi's know that we had broken > their code. > ---------------------------------------- > This is a story that was popularised in some books on WW-II intelligence > gathering, but it turns out not to be the case. See > <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=690> for a > more accurate version. > ---------------------------------------- > Abrams1117: > Didn't Churchill think that London was going to be bombed because the > Nazi code had been broken, and it was, and no one was warned? London was getting bombed every other day of the week, as were many other British cities. Not a whole lot of point warning people about it. Everyone already knew. > ---------------------------------------- > PART 2 > Abrams1117: > And there is very strong evidence that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor > attack and let it happen. > ---------------------------------------- > Only to the people who think that the CIA killed Kennedy, the Air Force > has alien ships in Area 51, and Elvis is working at a 7-11 in Iowa. > That the US intelligence services had enough information that they > should have known that the Japanese were about to do something big, and > that Pearl Harbour was a likely target is fairly clear, in hindsight, > but hindsight is 20-20 while foresight tends to be very myopic. > ---------------------------------------- > Abrams1117: > LOL Elvis? > See: > > http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html That's an interview with a guy flogging his conspiracy theory book, and I had a bit of a look around "The Independent Institute" web site. They like their conspiracies. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-06-19 12:22:30-07:00 - Re: : What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (himiko@animail.net)


ABRAMS1117@webtv.net wrote in message news:<13475-40D3C845-466@storefull-3275.bay.webtv.net>... > PART 1 > > Abrams1117: > Churchill allowed a British city to be bombed without warning the > people. > Men, women and children were killed. > But he and we decided we couldn't let the Nazi's know that we had broken > their code. > ---------------------------------------- > This is a story that was popularised in some books on WW-II intelligence > gathering, but it turns out not to be the case. See > <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=690> for a > more accurate version. > ---------------------------------------- > Abrams1117: > Didn't Churchill think that London was going to be bombed because the > Nazi code had been broken, and it was, and no one was warned? > ---------------------------------------- > PART 2 > Abrams1117: > And there is very strong evidence that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor > attack and let it happen. > ---------------------------------------- > Only to the people who think that the CIA killed Kennedy, the Air Force > has alien ships in Area 51, and Elvis is working at a 7-11 in Iowa. > That the US intelligence services had enough information that they > should have known that the Japanese were about to do something big, and > that Pearl Harbour was a likely target is fairly clear, in hindsight, > but hindsight is 20-20 while foresight tends to be very myopic. > ---------------------------------------- > Abrams1117: > LOL Elvis? > See: > > http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html > > QUOTE: > Pearl Harbor Archive > Do Freedom of Information Act Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl > Harbor? > An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett* > by Douglas Cirignano** > On November 25, 1941 Japan's Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to > the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on > December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to > 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that > Yamamoto sent to his carriers. Part of the November 25 message read: > " the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and > maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance > into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall > attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a > mortal blow " > One might wonder if the theory that President Franklin Roosevelt had a > foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack would have been alluded to in > this summer's movie, Pearl Harbor. Since World War II many people have > suspected that Washington knew the attack was coming. When Thomas Dewey > was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about > America's ability to intercept Japan's radio messages, and thought this > knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of > that year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with > foreknowledge of the attack. Ultimately, General George Marshall, then > Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the > speeches. Japan's naval leaders did not realize America had cracked > their codes, and Dewey's speeches could have sacrificed America's > code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey said nothing, and in November FDR was > elected president for the fourth time. > Now, though, according to Robert Stinnett, author of Simon & Schuster's > Day Of Deceit, we have the proof. Stinnett's book is dedicated to > Congressman John Moss, the author of America's Freedom of Information > Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor > can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to > attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of > decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, > clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading > straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II > veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He > poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of > interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held > conclusion: FDR knew. > -end quote- Stinnett's case is almost totally circumstantial, as has been the case with everyone floating this theory. He has two new documents which are intriguing but which do not do more than add a few details to what we already knew: 1. an 8 point plan for provoking Japan into war that he can prove FDR at least saw; this last is important as many intelligence officers regarded FDR as a pinko with a commie wife and repeatedly took his name off the list of those with top security clearance. This 8 point plan is interesting in that it spells things out, but many diplomatic historians had already concluded this was FDR's intent just from watching his public actions. Nice to have some confirmation, but no major revelations here. And provoking Japan is a far cry from knowing where and when an attack was coming. 2. a decoded intercept from Yamamoto saying where and when that he can't definitively prove was ever even translated in time, let alone seen by FDR. He never even addresses most of the points about intelligence failures (some ideological, some bureaucratic, and some just plain stupid) made by Roberta Wohlstetter's still excellent "Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision" in which she tries to show not just what documents existed, but who knew what, when, and how. (It reads a lot like the 911 Commission's conclusions: outrageous stupidity and incompetence, but no conspiracy.) Stinnett is not a historian and it shows. He is journalist and that shows in the way he muddles together all sorts of evidence (documentation, interviews, his own and other people's opinions). He is also a WWII vet who served under Bush Sr. and wrote a book about that, is a major admirer of Clan Bush, and a major hater of "big government." That shows too. Stinnett's book has its points of interest and isn't quite in the Elvis camp, but it's not myth shattering (the PH gun remains as it always was: warm but not actually smoking) in any way, and it certainly doesn't prove any conspiracy theories...although the author thinks it does. himiko

2004-06-19 13:00:16-04:00 - Re: : What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (ABRAMS1117@webtv.net)


PART 1 Abrams1117: Churchill allowed a British city to be bombed without warning the people. Men, women and children were killed. But he and we decided we couldn't let the Nazi's know that we had broken their code. ---------------------------------------- This is a story that was popularised in some books on WW-II intelligence gathering, but it turns out not to be the case. See <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=690> for a more accurate version. ---------------------------------------- Abrams1117: Didn't Churchill think that London was going to be bombed because the Nazi code had been broken, and it was, and no one was warned? ---------------------------------------- London was getting bombed every other day of the week, as were many other British cities. Not a whole lot of point warning people about it. Everyone already knew. ---------------------------------------- Abrams1117 Churchill 'knew' (suspected from the broken code and was correct) they were attacking that very same night - and warned no one. Correct? If so the point is valid. Nazi code broken - he knew- warned no one- to protect the fact that the code had been broken. ---------------------------------------- PART 2 Abrams1117: And there is very strong evidence that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attack and let it happen. ---------------------------------------- Only to the people who think that the CIA killed Kennedy, the Air Force has alien ships in Area 51, and Elvis is working at a 7-11 in Iowa. That the US intelligence services had enough information that they should have known that the Japanese were about to do something big, and that Pearl Harbour was a likely target is fairly clear, in hindsight, but hindsight is 20-20 while foresight tends to be very myopic. ---------------------------------------- Abrams1117: LOL Elvis? See: http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020311Cirignano.html ---------------------------------------- That's an interview with a guy flogging his conspiracy theory book, and I had a bit of a look around "The Independent Institute" web site. They like their conspiracies. ---------------------------------------- Abrams1117 Is the flogging guy correct? http://www.TruCalling.com

2004-06-19 18:26:34-04:00 - Re: : What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <11643-40D47120-10@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net>, <ABRAMS1117@webtv.net> wrote: > PART 1 > Abrams1117: > Churchill allowed a British city to be bombed without warning the > people. > Men, women and children were killed. > But he and we decided we couldn't let the Nazi's know that we had broken > their code. > ---------------------------------------- > This is a story that was popularised in some books on WW-II intelligence > gathering, but it turns out not to be the case. See > <http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=690> for a > more accurate version. > ---------------------------------------- > Abrams1117: > Didn't Churchill think that London was going to be bombed because the > Nazi code had been broken, and it was, and no one was warned? > ---------------------------------------- > London was getting bombed every other day of the week, as were many > other British cities. Not a whole lot of point warning people about it. > Everyone already knew. > ---------------------------------------- > Abrams1117 > > Churchill 'knew' (suspected from the broken code and was correct) they > were attacking that very same night - and warned no one. > > Correct? > > If so the point is valid. > Nazi code broken - he knew- warned no one- to protect the fact that the > code had been broken. He knew that there was a big raid planned, but he didn't know where. They thought it would be London, but London was getting bombed regularly anyway. They didn't evacuate it. There wasn't really anywhere for the people to go. Even if they *did* warn people far enough in advance to actually try to evacuate, it wouldn't do any good. You can't secretly evacuate a city. The Germans would likely just have changed targets to a city that wasn't being evacuated, so a city still gets bombed, with lots of casualties *and* you've given away that you're reading their codes. And people were warned when they had intelligence about where a raid was coming, though they usually waited until the Germans turned on their radio navigation beams, which happened hours before the planes arrived at their target, and were a very obvious "This is what we plan to bomb tonight" warning. The people of Coventry knew that they were going to get bombed that night. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-06-21 10:11:24-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (reldevik@usa.net)


himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote in message news:<c7902983.0406171542.c9ab152@posting.google.com>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406161439.7a8111dc@posting.google.com>... > > > --Actually, someone on another forum pointed out to me that part of > > the vision that Angel got from Cordelia was a glimpse of Angel killing > > Drogyn. I haven't been able to watch my tape again to verify that (and > > I didn't notice seeing it before), but if it's true, that does put a > > different complexion on things. > > Yes it does, but I'm not sure it makes things any better. I did > rewatch and as far as I could tell from my cheapola VCR with limited > pause abilities, it does show Angel leaping through the fire, but not > the killing of Drogyn. It also shows what seems to be the slaughter > of demons by Lindsey, which might relate to his ordering Lorne to kill > Lindsey afterwards. > > > I suppose it's what gave Angel the > > idea of sending an assassin to attack Drogyn in the first place: Angel > > was getting Drogyn involved so that events could play out as the PTB > > wanted them to. > > > > Since the vision Cordelia gave Angel was something sent by the PTBs, > > it seems as if Angel was dancing to their tune once again, after a > > long while in which they hadn't even attempted to make contact with > > him. And here I thought Angel was so bitter about the PTBs after the > > Jasmine incident, he wouldn't even be willing to listen to them or do > > their bidding any longer. Hmmm. > > > > So maybe the most important question isn't what I thought it was, but > > rather, why Angel was willing to go along with the actions dictated by > > the PTBs. > > > Indeed. Maybe it was because he trusted Cordy if not the PTB. > Mostly, I think it was because he's lost Fred. He needed to hear > another round of her theory of evitability, but that voice is > silent...mostly. --Actually, I rewatched my tape to check and see whether Drogyn was actually in the vision that Cordelia gave Angel. I used freeze-frame so I could be precise about it. What I saw was Angel jumping through the fiery hoop, and then a bound man kneeling down with a cloth covering his head. So there's no way Angel could recognize Drogyn specifically. Angel just knew he would have to kill some generic, anonymous guy as part of his initiation -- that's all the vision showed. And of course that in itself is bad enough. Angel did know in advance that he would be called upon by the BlackThorns to kill someone who was bound and helpless. (Of course, even in the absence of a vision common sense could have told Angel the same thing; it's the sort of ploy the BlackThorns would be likely to use.) I should think that would have given Angel pause when he concocted this plan; but instead it was just "full steam ahead" on Angel's part. Because Cordy passed along the information to him, so that made it okay in Angel's eyes? Because Angel was (as you suggest, Himiko) lacking in moral guidance after Fred's death, and therefore floundering? I notice that Angel certainly was in no hurry to act on the information he got in the vision. He got that vision from Cordelia way back in episode 12, and presumably he was just pondering it for quite a while thereafter, till he finally decided to act. The action Angel eventually decided to take makes for what I can only see as a bitter, cynical end to a series that started out very idealistic. I wonder why this was Joss's closing statement? Clairel

2004-06-22 09:59:35-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (himiko@animail.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406210911.63821b3b@posting.google.com>... > The action Angel eventually decided to take makes for what I can only > see as a bitter, cynical end to a series that started out very > idealistic. I wonder why this was Joss's closing statement? Look what happened to his show. I think AI is ME, a small band of gifted idealists doing the best job they can, giving it their all, and yet being thwarted at every turn by a bunch of corporate weiners. They got bitter and even a bit nasty, but they never lost their vision or their determination. I don't think Joss has either. himiko

2004-06-22 12:56:19-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (reldevik@usa.net)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406170620.11fcd9f8@posting.google.com>... > Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com> wrote in message news:<10d1lki9a2gsj61@corp.supernews.com>... > > himiko wrote: > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message news:<1faed770.0406151338.5ef5471d@posting.google.com>... > > > >>It reminds me of a Peter O'Donnell novel called The Night of > > >>Morningstar, in which a secret agent is trying to infiltrate a > > >>terrorist group that is planning an explosion in a large American city > > >>that will kill a huge number of people. The terrorist group requires > > >>new members to go through what they call a "Mohs test," named after > > >>the test metallurgists use to gauge the hardness of metal: the > > >>hardness of the new member is demonstrated by his willingness to kill > > >>a helpless, innocent victim. In the case of the secret agent, the > > >>victim was a hapless teenage girl whom the group had randomly kidnaped > > >>for this purpose. The secret agent was horrified but didn't show it, > > >>and he went through with the killing of the girl. He felt he simply > > >>had to do anything necessary to infiltrate the group so that he could > > >>put a stop to the threat they posed. > > > > This is the problem more directly: terrorism...a very suitable topic > > > for our time. But the novel you describe seems to miss the main > > > point: that the agent in this case becomes a terrorist too: someone > > > who is not mentally ill but who is willing to kill people he has never > > > met and does not hate personally for a "greater cause." He may > > > actually save more people than he kills, but I'd never trust him > > > again. I doubt he'd ever trust himself again. > > > > I don't think the novel missed this point at all. SPOILER WARNING for > > anyone who cares > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > > > As it turns out our heroine, Modesty Blaise, accidentally blew his cover > > when she ran into him in a restaurant (she had no idea he was undercover > > and using a false name). Realizing what she'd done, she kept tabs on > > him and they both wound up being taken captive on a ship out in the San > > Francisco bay. The bad guys intended to kill them both (they'd already > > known he was a plant as it turns out--they'd made him face that horrible > > choice and then told him they already knew about him, just for laughs). > > Modesty killed one of the bad guys and dragged the agent (who was > > drugged, I believe) overboard with her--but not before he was shot. > > > > They spent several hours in the water before being rescued. The agent > > spent a lot of that time incoherent and babbling from drugs and/or blood > > loss. Which is how Modesty learned what had happened. He didn't > > survive...and Modesty wasn't all sure that that wasn't a blessing for > > him. Because he _couldn't_ deal with what he'd done. And both Modesty > > and her sidekick Willie, whom she told what happened, were both just > > damned glad that they had never been confronted with a choice like that. > > --Thanks for the summary. I would have replied exactly the same thing > to Himiko if you already hadn't. > > It is also worth pointing out that Modesty and Willie, though they are > former jewel thieves, have a pretty high standard of morality in these > novels. For example, they won't torture anybody for any reason > whatsoever (not even if, for example, they needed to find out the > location of a bomb that would kill a huge number of people). It's one > of the things I always admired about Modesty and Willie: there are > certain things they simply will not stoop to. > > But, although I know I contradict myself, I had no problem with the > good guys on AtS going to work on Doctor Sparrow this season, when > Fred was being turned into Illyria and they needed to understand what > was going on -- and in season 3 of AtS I kind of wanted to see Angel > lose all restraint and go to work on Linfield (the white-haired boss > of Lilah) with that sharp pointy desk gadget. > > It's complicated. --Replying to my own post to make a correction: the name should be Linwood, not Linfield. That had been nagging at me. I knew "Linfield" just wasn't right. Then I suddenly thought of the name "Linwood." Eureka! Clairel

2004-06-22 13:32:15-04:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (Snuggles <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net>)


In article <c7902983.0406220859.20661bb4@posting.google.com>, himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message > news:<1faed770.0406210911.63821b3b@posting.google.com>... > > > The action Angel eventually decided to take makes for what I can only > > see as a bitter, cynical end to a series that started out very > > idealistic. I wonder why this was Joss's closing statement? > > Look what happened to his show. I think AI is ME, a small band of > gifted idealists doing the best job they can, giving it their all, and > yet being thwarted at every turn by a bunch of corporate weiners. So... if AI is ME and Joss is Angel what did he get from the corporate weiners for betraying his team? And how did he betray them? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Snuggles, not Shuggie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-06-22 22:34:10-07:00 - Re: What did Angel expect the BlackThorns to make him do? - (himiko@animail.net)


Snuggles <submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff@spam.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxff-453369.13321422062004@corp.supernews.com>... > In article <c7902983.0406220859.20661bb4@posting.google.com>, > himiko@animail.net (himiko) wrote: > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in message > > news:<1faed770.0406210911.63821b3b@posting.google.com>... > > > > > The action Angel eventually decided to take makes for what I can only > > > see as a bitter, cynical end to a series that started out very > > > idealistic. I wonder why this was Joss's closing statement? > > > > Look what happened to his show. I think AI is ME, a small band of > > gifted idealists doing the best job they can, giving it their all, and > > yet being thwarted at every turn by a bunch of corporate weiners. > > So... if AI is ME and Joss is Angel what did he get from the corporate > weiners for betraying his team? And how did he betray them? I'm just talking about motivation for writing the ending as he did, not suggesting he did anything at all like it. I think he was feeling bitter and wrote his ending to reflect that and also to have his heroes do what he couldn't or wouldn't. OTOH, Jordan Levin has resigned, although some folks feel he is not and never was the corporate weiner in question. As to what he may have sacrificed to make it all happen, I'm guessing ST's full year run was his equivalent of Drogyn...but then, I'm bitter on that point. himiko