For those claiming the aliens are non-hostile - Battleship (2012) Discussion

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

My thoughts are that it is painfully obvious the aliens were hostile in nature and the five ships were a recon force to see if this planet was worth plundering. They landed and did not make a single attempt to communicate. They captured the Hawaiian Islands with their force field, destroyed the military base and surrounding freeway, killing dozens of civilians in the process as well as military personnel, took over the satellite station, and shredded the cops approaching the station. I don't think anybody who looks at this movie and considers those peaceful actions would ever be convinced the aliens are hostile.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] mariegriffiths 10 years ago

Thank goodness there is one rational person out there. I was all out on support for the aliens every step of the way. The aggressive meat heads deserved everything they got and the Aliens acted in the most civilized way possible given the circumstances. If aliens are reading this then please take out the thuggish meat heads and the industrial military complex that enslaves us. I'd even help you out.

reply

[–] parbon84 9 years ago

"They landed and did not make a single attempt to communicate. They captured the Hawaiian Islands with their force field, destroyed the military base and surrounding freeway, killing dozens of civilians in the process as well as military personnel, took over the satellite station, and shredded the cops approaching the station. "

This is what he said.. your response makes no sense.

reply

[–] parbon84 9 years ago

Stop hating humanity, we're just apes.

reply

[–] leekingswood 11 years ago

Bottom line is this movie had so many holes in it no one knows for sure what the aliens original intent was....plus, we attacked them first, if you recall.

My thoughts are they had been watching our planet for a long time and based on historic evidence knew we would probably attack them or try to capture them if they "came in peace"...it's typically our first reaction to things we don't understand.

The fact they didn't kill everyone they came into contact with, including military personnel, which they easily could have done, is proof enough for me that they were not here for an invasion or for reconnaissance of such. They had no pure malice towards us.

__________________________________________
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

reply

[–] chas437 11 years ago

Right, but they could be like the Borg, from Star Trek, in that they only take immediate action against immediate perceived threats. Otherwise, they ignore.

I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

Bottom line is this movie had so many holes in it no one knows for sure what the aliens original intent was....plus, we attacked them first, if you recall.

You are completely wrong. We sent a tiny dinghy to their ship, a person got out and touched the outside of the ship with his bare hand, and the aliens responded by putting up a giant force field, capturing the Hawaiian islands, destroying a military base, commandeering a satellite station and murdering one of the men manning the station, and shredding some cops on a mountain. Now, if they weren't completely malicious and felt that all this was an appropriate response to someone touching one of their ships with his hand, they shouldn't be out and about to begin with and we did the universe a solid by taking them out.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] chas437 11 years ago

We sent a tiny dinghy to their ship, a person got out and touched the outside of the ship with his bare hand, and the aliens responded by putting up a giant force field, capturing the Hawaiian islands, destroying a military base, commandeering a satellite station and murdering one of the men manning the station, and shredding some cops on a mountain.

Was this in response to a human touching the side of their ship, or was this their plan to begin with?

I believe it was the later.

I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

I believe it was their plan to begin with to do all this bad stuff to humanity. I was just pointing out that the poster who said we attacked the aliens first was incorrect, unless he chooses to interpret touching the ship as an attack.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] Plague2005 11 years ago

We sent a tiny dinghy to their ship, a person got out and touched the outside of the ship with his bare hand, and the aliens responded by putting up a giant force field, capturing the Hawaiian islands, destroying a military base, commandeering a satellite station and murdering one of the men manning the station, and shredding some cops on a mountain.

Actually you got the sequence wrong. He touched the ship with his bare hands and the ET puts up a barrier. Then the ships arm themselves and the ET brings out it's 3 ships. Then one ship used it's horn (could be perceived as a threat) and the ET ship sent out it's version of a horn (which was damaging to us humans). Then we decided to fire a warning shot that was close to one of the ET ships. It could be perceived as an attack that was missed. And that's when the ET ship started attacking back.

So all their actions were reaction to ours until the warning shot. That's when we presumably declared war.

<<-- Mess With The Best, Die Like The Rest -->>

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

Actually you got the sequence wrong. He touched the ship with his bare hands and the ET puts up a barrier. Then the ships arm themselves and the ET brings out it's 3 ships. Then one ship used it's horn (could be perceived as a threat) and the ET ship sent out it's version of a horn (which was damaging to us humans). Then we decided to fire a warning shot that was close to one of the ET ships. It could be perceived as an attack that was missed. And that's when the ET ship started attacking back.

You are being way too charitable to the aliens in an attempt to make the humans look like the aggressors. The humans did nothing that was harmful to the aliens. Touching the side of their ship did not hurt the aliens but putting up the force field was harmful to the humans. Our horn did not cause any pain to the aliens but their "horn" was more in the nature of a sonic weapon, shattering glass and causing pain and injury. The warning shot was just that-a warning. You are also conveniently overlooking the fact that the aliens landed and sat there for hours making no attempt to communicate with the native people. Obviously their intentions were hostile from the moment they landed or they would have at least made an attempt to speak to us. They acted precisely like what they were-violent invaders with no interest in peaceful interactions with the indigenous people of this planet.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] Plague2005 11 years ago

Touching the side of their ship did not hurt the aliens but putting up the force field was harmful to the humans.

The force field was a protection for their ships. It is their way of protecting themselves. If we go to another planet and meet other aliens, we will be going armed. Because we don't know how they will treat us (especially if the species is known to be violent).

Our horn did not cause any pain to the aliens but their "horn" was more in the nature of a sonic weapon, shattering glass and causing pain and injury.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? We don't know how their sense levels are. Our horn could have caused the same damage as theirs did to us. Additionally, how exactly were the ET supposed to know that the sonic sound is damaging for us?

You are also conveniently overlooking the fact that the aliens landed and sat there for hours making no attempt to communicate with the native people. Obviously their intentions were hostile from the moment they landed or they would have at least made an attempt to speak to us. They acted precisely like what they were-violent invaders with no interest in peaceful interactions with the indigenous people of this planet.

Ok. Let's look at it from a different point of view shall we? Let's assume that when the aliens came, their ship faced difficulty when landing which is why it crashed into several pieces. And the crash damaged the communication channels they use. So they were repairing their ships and communication channels until we decided to initiate contact first forcing them to respond.

Aren't you the one conveniently overlooking the fact that the ET did NOT go on a massacre as soon as they touch down? They could have put up forcefields as soon as they landed. They could have attacked all the big cities first before we are even ready to fight back. They did neither. And even after the war started, they did not harm the non-threatening people. They just passed them by. Violent invaders (for example ID4) would not have been merciful in their contacts. They would have wiped out everyone they come in contact with.

<<-- Mess With The Best, Die Like The Rest -->>

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

The force field was a protection for their ships. It is their way of protecting themselves. If we go to another planet and meet other aliens, we will be going armed. Because we don't know how they will treat us (especially if the species is known to be violent).

A force field around the ship is a way of protecting the ship. A force field around a huge chunk of territory is not a way of protecting the ship-it is a way of capturing the territory.

How exactly did you come to that conclusion? We don't know how their sense levels are. Our horn could have caused the same damage as theirs did to us. Additionally, how exactly were the ET supposed to know that the sonic sound is damaging for us?

Our horn did not shatter the glass of their windows. Their horn shattered the glass of the ships and caused pain to the people who were close to it. Obviously, since the aliens are so similar to us physiologically (they breathe the same atmosphere, have similar levels of strength, and so forth) it is logical to assume that their horn is not a signal, but a weapon.

Let's look at it from a different point of view shall we? Let's assume that when the aliens came, their ship faced difficulty when landing which is why it crashed into several pieces. And the crash damaged the communication channels they use. So they were repairing their ships and communication channels until we decided to initiate contact first forcing them to respond.

Let's look at it from a truthful point of view, shall we? The alien ships that landed in the ocean were not damaged at all. They were not repairing anything-they were fully capable of launching a full-on attack and their ships were completely mobile. As to communication channels, since they were capable of spoken communication (as proven by the alien that spoke to the scientist as the satellite station) if they wanted to communicate peacefully, they could easily have opened the door of their ship and come out and tried to talk to the people in the tiny little dinghy. For that matter, if they wanted to communicate peacefully, they could have stayed in outer space and sent a message to Earth before landing at all.

Aren't you the one conveniently overlooking the fact that the ET did NOT go on a massacre as soon as they touch down? They could have put up forcefields as soon as they landed. They could have attacked all the big cities first before we are even ready to fight back. They did neither. And even after the war started, they did not harm the non-threatening people. They just passed them by. Violent invaders (for example ID4) would not have been merciful in their contacts. They would have wiped out everyone they come in contact with.

Absolute nonsense. This was not a force capable of taking over the planet. This was a recon force for gathering intelligence. The evidence for this point of view is that it was only five ships, capable of taking over a piece of Earth but not capable of fighting the entire planet. Further evidence of the hostile intentions of the aliens is that in addition to not attempting to communicate and taking over the Hawaiian Islands, they attacked a military base, destroying the ability of the humans to fight back. They also took out a freeway, killing a number of innocent civilians, so that repairs or reinforcements could not get to the base. Violent invaders who are scouting a planet for possible takeover would do exactly what the aliens did. Conserve their resources as much as possible, while killing or disabling all resistance. They would then contact their people. This is exactly what happened. I will remind you that in addition to the numbers of civilians killed on the freeway, the aliens ripped up a couple of cops on the mountain in order to protect the satellite. To put it in purely human terms, it's like violent home invaders who kill some of your family on the way to your phone.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] Sevenixx 11 years ago

Further evidence of the hostile intentions of the aliens is that in addition to not attempting to communicate and taking over the Hawaiian Islands,

They did communicate.
We said Hello, they replied HELLO.
Then we started firing in their direction.

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

They did communicate.
We said Hello, they replied HELLO.
Then we started firing in their direction.

You are incorrect. The aliens landed in the ocean and maintained silence, making no attempt to communicate. We broadcast siganals to them and they maintained silence. We sent a boat to one of the ships and they sent up a force field that captured Hawaii. We did not fire on them, we fired a warning shot. They responded with deadly force. At no time did the aliens attempt peaceful interaction-they behaved in a hostile manner from the moment they landed.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] royalcola 10 years ago

Ya'll know this movie isn't a documentary right...?

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thepinkrabbit 10 years ago

You are completely wrong. We sent a tiny dinghy [/quote]

This is funny when kids are so into movies they think it's real and say " WE " like it did happen... :))

Besides I agree I wanted the so called " hero " of this movie to die because he was so dumb acting like a primitive reckless prick. (yet the admiral said "you are so smart ".. I though yeah well , smart for a marine is a third of real smart and that proves it lol :) )
the aliens didn't meant any harm to humans as long as they didn't interfere with their doing which was mostly to live on earth.
They of course create magnetic pulse and all to not be annoyed by all those little insects called humans while doing their job.
they considered humans as primitive autochthon beings.. you remember when europeans invaded lands that weren't their, killed all native americans and didnt care for them at all .. well that's about it but aliens are more intelligent than humans they didn't massacred humans if they weren't forced to. that's called self-defense.

reply

[–] Danneq 11 years ago

If I remember correctly, someone quotes Stephen Hawkins early in the movie, and I in fact think that his speculations might be what gave the scrips writers their story: technologically superior beings from another planet who come to Earth to rob us of our resources:

If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8642558.stm

This is put through the "Hollywood treatment" where David beats Goliath and gets the girl in the end.

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

You remember correctly, Danneq, and in fact, that is almost the first line in Battleship, which is sort of a giveaway about how the movie will turn out. I didn't know that Stephen Hawkins said anything about it, though-thank you for the information.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] Danneq 11 years ago

At first I thought that the movie was a stupid Transformers "spinoff", and I truly dislike the Michael Bay versions of Transformers.

So the fact that Battleship also was from Hasbro and also that it was based on a board game made me stay away from Battleship for a long time. However, I do like sci fi and at last I checked the movie out on Blu ray and I was surprised that it wasn't that bad. Especially that Stephen Hawkings quote gives this movie more credibility to me than stuff like Transformers.

All in all, a perfectly okay popcorn movie that I wouldn't mind watching again.

reply

[–] Hitikori 11 years ago

I'd like to point out the 'Aliens' May of take the destruction of one of their ships by the satellite as an act of aggression even though it was a fault on their part.

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

That makes no sense at all, Hitikori. You run into a tree, or another car, or over a person, it's not an act of aggression by whatever you hit. Bad driving does not justify you in attacking whoever owns what you destroyed.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] oknar1977 10 years ago

I disagree with this quote:

If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans

1)
If aliens had a technology to travel through space it would mean that they have not destroyed themselves - but that they have evolved into higher species - that are peaceful. If they are aggressive, they would destory their own planet, just as humans are doing it all along. Aggressive aliens would be stuck into being a primitive species that look only for closeby territory, picking fights with neighbours and making future wars and self destructions - which doesn't encompass science and discovering how space travel works. Likewise, if humans didn't embrace civility and laws, they would still be in caves today. If Americans didn't invent war in Iraq, there would be many Mars missions today - not as a plan in 10 years time. Hubble would never be shut down. If Russians didn't provoke Ukraine or Georgia and harbour oil mafia, they would have Moon bases a long time ago. If China had consciousness regarding nature, they would not destroy Earth's climate but they'd have plans for terraforming Mars or Venus in closse future.

2)
If there are aggressive space traveling aliens out there, we would pick signal long time ago. there would be explosions, space battles all the time and war time communication - including radio and tv signals.

reply

[–] The_Proprietor 10 years ago

1) why would inventing space travel be different to inventing other more effective means of travel? If we discover how to build boats to cross the seas, we should've become more peaceful right? You've equated two things together and produced an absolute answer. It's entirely possibly that a species has invented space travel in order to further it aims for expansion and conquest rather than to peacefully explore. Our weapons have become more destructive as technology has improved (including being able to travel by air much faster). Why can't we assume another hostile alien race hasn't done the same? If one alien faction has conquered its planet then it's possible it could then look to the stars for further gains.

2) there could be other forms of communications technology that we're not aware of or think are yet possible. Maybe we've been receiving alien 'content' or broadcasts all this time but don't have the technology yet to detect such transmissions.

There's so many variables to this, don't think in such 3D limited terms, that's a very human thing to do.

If impersonating a Police Officer is an offence, shouldn't actors be imprisoned?

reply

[–] oknar1977 10 years ago

ok
i just see it like this:

1) every technology was created because of army needs. the more powerful technology = more powerful means to destroy oneself. aggressive species wants territory and resources in the immediate surroundings, aggressive mindset is closed and territorial like monkeys from "2001 space oddisey" movie - they are satisfied with immediate results. they do not have any interest in interstellar travels. if they through away the bone, they will advance to space, just like the movie tells it.
humans, along with sea discovery did infact became more peaceful. there are no worldwide slavery or spanish inquisition for example. after world wide wars, united nations was invented along with geneve conventions or hague tribunal.

2) if there are more complex ways of communication - since this is advanced, they should be based on primitive technology we have right now. even more, space should be covered with primitive ways of communication if they really use now more advanced ones ways of radio and TV signals that humans were not able to invent by now.

reply

[–] pking-2 11 years ago

Maybe the claim should be that they were a little hostile, and definitely on edge.

But still...it plays out fairly well as an unfortunate escalation story. They are freaked/paranoid/crash landers, etc. They believe the best defense is a strong offense and so on. You bother them, they follow their own version of the Powell doctrine, and either don't fight or fight to win.

It's possible, after all, that they are just grumpy and touchy but don't intend world domination.

At least that's one way to take it and its about as "true" as the alternatives.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

I keep asking, and no one has the moral integrity to answer, if humans behaved like these aliens on another planet, would there be any excuse for their behavior? Of course the answer is no, which is why alien-huggers are refusing to address the question.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] pking-2 11 years ago

You might want to dial back the rush on moral integrity aspersions, if you want anyone to enjoy discussiong Battleship, of all thingies, with you.

Why do you think whether we might excuse what people might do if they go to another planet impacts a speculative assessment of the motivations of the aliens shown in Battleship?

Because you seem to be thinking "if we wouldn't excuse it for people, then aliens wouldn't do it" which seems broken on multiple levels.

Whether we excuse it...people still might not "do the right thing." The number of stories already told showing us how people can go awry and end up in an unintended bigger conflict is too many to count. (Not to mention real life but non-space travel examples) So, if you know people can become paranoid, screw up and escalate a situation, then you know others might do so too. So we know that.

Two, the "value structure" of any space alien race can vary from "so much like us that what we excuse applies directly to them" to "like us but more paranoid" to wholly unfathomable. So, whether or not we would excuse such behavior by our astronauts more-or-less doesn't apply.

Three, stop assuming folks who see the story as one of a misunderstanding as folks who like the aliens and dislike the navy people, or something like that. You can simply try to take in the story you saw told....even if you still like people and still don't like it when scared/studid/poorly led/whatever aliens knock down a highway and some helicopters.

Just...it (potentially) explains why they would simply attack helicopters and interlopers rather than being even more aggressive.

IOW...it could have still been essentially a misunderstanding/overreaction, even if you are still opposed to the aliens' fictional behavior.

Why you are SO serious about requiring that a story must be about white hat vs. black hat so as to imagine that you, yourself have higher moral integrity than those who see different thingies in stories...is a good question.

Could be seen as an overreaction that leads you to unfortunate escalated conflict, even, heh. And like the paranoid leader of the Battleship aliens...you might not be aware.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

Of course it seems broken to you, because you want to make it out that the humans were wrong to defend themselves. I've been seeing this nonsense on the board since the movie came out, cheering for the aliens and claiming that the humans are actually the bad guys. You should just agree to disagree on this point, since neither of us is about to change their mind. I can't agree to excuse the aliens just because they are aliens, or that the humans can't defend their own planet when violent invaders attack and kill. And if it's all just too serious for you, then you probably shouldn't try to discuss anything on a forum in the first place. Not everyone is going to have your viewpoint, so if you can't exercise tolerance, you're probably not going to enjoy yourself very much anyway.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] pking-2 11 years ago

Of course it seems broken to you, because you want to make it out that the humans were wrong to defend themselves.

Not really. I enjoyed that part of the movie.

I do think its possible that both sides were scared and maybe too quick to the trigger, though. It seems tangentially different tactics, either side, could have resulted in a very The Abyss like scenario, instead.

I've been seeing this nonsense on the board since the movie came out, cheering for the aliens and claiming that the humans are actually the bad guys.

But not from me, so don't tell me what I want. Instead, read what I write.

I can't agree to excuse the aliens just because they are aliens, or that the humans can't defend their own planet when violent invaders attack and kill.

You have excused the humans for being on edge, paranoid, worried, defensive, already.

You're just refusing to "excuse" both sides for parallel initial stances/attitudes.

I suppose, because once you see that both sides are more-or-less as touchy as the other...you really can read it as an "unfortunate escalation" story with no overt bad guys, maybe no invasion, and certainly no slam dunk "evil."

You've dug in heels already, apparently. But that doesn't change whether the story supports such a read. It simply does. Most stories ever told support multiple interpretations, no matter which interpretation is my favorite or yours.

And if it's all just too serious for you, then you probably shouldn't try to discuss anything on a forum in the first place

Why are you wanting me to stop?

My point was that if you want to have conversations with others about Battleship, then you wouldn't want to posture as everyone's moral arbiter. If you, instead, want to blow self-generated "moral integrity" smoke up your own arse instead of ponder what others think about Battleship...then continue on the same tack. That's all.

There's a way to act like you want to have discussions about Battleship...and trying to get those who want to discuss Battleship with you to stop ain't that way.

if you can't exercise tolerance, you're probably not going to enjoy yourself very much anyway.

Is that why you don't seem to be enjoying yourself?

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.

reply

[–] sommert-507-32566 11 years ago

You really think Hollywood writers did it this way to show the aliens are non-hostile? remember, this is a story, not an actual event. If the writers say their hostile, they are and portrayed as such. The idea that they were written any other way is just an example of people projecting their desires and overwriting what is obviously there. It's like a form of delusion. Sadly, they're probably delusional about other things as well.

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

Sadly you're probably right, Sommert. People project their desire for warm fuzzy benevolent aliens to the point that when aliens attack without provocation and kill large numbers of people, people still see them as warm and fuzzy and the humans as the bad guys. It really is a delusion.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 11 years ago

No more hostile than a farmer slaughtering pigs. Definetly hostile from the pigs point of view.

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

So now the human race is a bunch of pigs and the aliens are farmers? Wow. That has got to be the most besotted-with-aliens post I have ever read. And the saddest-so I guess if aliens show up and want to destroy the human race, you'll be the first in line because you figure they have the right to kill you.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 11 years ago

"So now the human race is a bunch of pigs and the aliens are farmers? "

You say that as if pigs are bad? Why are you predjudiced against them?
I'm merely insinuating that pigs and humans might be as different as those aliens and humans are.

So why would them killing us make them more evil than humans killing pigs are? We're so different after all.
Who's evil and who isn't is often just a matter of perspective.

"And the saddest-so I guess if aliens show up and want to destroy the human race, you'll be the first in line because you figure they have the right to kill you. "

Nice strawman argument. Don't pretend to know what I'd do when you clearly don't. I value myself and my family ALOT higher than ANYONE and ANYTHING else so I'd never voulenteer to die.

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

You know perfectly well that pigs and farmers are not analagous in this case to humans and aliens. You know perfectly well that humans, like the aliens, are sentient life forms. I bet you even know evil is not just a matter of perspective. And don't pretend that you and your family are better than pigs when you just put the rest of the human race in that category. ALL humans are the same in this context. Intelligent life forms who have the right to live in their own home and resist violent intruders who break in and start killing them.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] theorist_complex 11 years ago

What the hell is wrong with you?

From the moment you started posting on this film you've had some weird aggression fetish towards anyone who might have a slightly different opinion than you, even going as far as belittling those who haven't even posted a single comment and probably don't intend to.

It's actually quite amusing seeing you clamoring on about tolerance and moral integrity.

Why does it pain you so to consider the viewpoint that in this FICTIONAL STORY the humans could, at the very least, be instigators of the aggression towards them? Especially considering that in every single FACTUAL STORY on earth, humans ARE the aggressors?

reply

[–] Zanza8 11 years ago

So you come along with this violent verbal abuse and ask what is wrong with me? If you think humans are the aggressors in this movie, prove it. Make your points like a rational adult, but save the personal attacks.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] davidsena 11 years ago

Wow, what color is the sky in your world?

reply

[–] theorist_complex 10 years ago

Analyzing behavior is not a personal attack. Calling you a fu**ing idiot would have been a personal attack.

And...

Violent verbal abuse?

LOL

Please, do tell us how the weather is in your world?

reply

[–] kerryedavis 10 years ago

Especially considering that in every single FACTUAL STORY on earth, humans ARE the aggressors?

This puzzles me. Humans are always the aggressors, instead of what? That OTHER sentient species that lives on Earth?

reply

[–] Zanza8 10 years ago

Especially considering that in every single FACTUAL STORY on earth, humans ARE the aggressors?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This puzzles me. Humans are always the aggressors, instead of what? That OTHER sentient species that lives on Earth?

Nice one, Kerryedavis!

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] theorist_complex 10 years ago

It was meant to be ridiculous / outlandish and rhetorical, hence my use of the question mark, though I suppose it doesn't come across that way. Oh well.

reply

[–] parbon84 9 years ago

Weird attitude, who else could be? We're the only ones here.

Oh you mean the animals haven't had a war? That is some Deepak Chopra style philosophy right there.

reply

[–] sir_grubs47 10 years ago

Some ideas regarding comments from the first page...

1.) How do we know they didn't try to send a message from space? They could have been calling us on their subspace radio non-stop for the months plus it took for them to get to Earth. With us unable to receive the message and reply, it's possible they thought we had all died off - or maybe left the planet. Maybe they were archaeologists trying to find out what happened to us. Without getting any response to their countless calls, they decided to just land and try to figure out what happened.

2.) We are dealing with an *ALIEN* culture. Just because to us humans one single person touching the hull of another ship isn't a hostile act doesn't mean it isn't to them. Maybe they're all ultra-germaphobes and physical contact is the biggest insult imaginable...

Babylon 5 has a good example of how intent can be misconstrued. The Mimbari made first contact with humans with their ship's weapons powered up - according to their culture it was a "We come in peace" gesture. The humans misinterpreted the action as a hostile act and a long and bloody war ensued.

reply

[–] Zanza8 10 years ago

Let's be logical. It's not reasonable to think that the aliens tried to communicate non-stop through space, could not get an answer in space, and then stopped trying to communicate as soon as they reached Earth and saw there are people here. They didn't land and get out and try to figure out what happened. They landed, established a perimeter that they could defend while they stole our technology, and didn't once try to communicate.

As to the alien culture argument, that has been debunked numerous times. If the aliens are so paranoid that touching the side of their ship triggers a lethal response, they are not safe for humans to interact with and we have the right to defend ourselves against them. I, personally, think that is a nonsensical argument. Of course they are not that paranoid. People who are that paranoid about aliens would not be traveling through space to begin with. And since there are no actual aliens to give us a point of reference, we can only respond in human terms. In human terms, someone breaking into your house, refusing to talk, and killing friends and family members on the way to the phone they didn't ask to use, are all hostile actions. There isn't one single thing these aliens did from the moment they landed which was even remotely friendly, or suggestive that they came in peace.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zanza8 10 years ago

Considering that the aliens were willing to kill so many non-combatants (the people on the freeway, the cops on the mountain, the scientist at the satellite station) I think it is logical to infer the recon mission was prior to an invasion. As you say, they did not come in peace because they never once attempted to communicate.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zanza8 10 years ago

However to say they were there purely on a hostile mission, I can't say I agree because they didn't just blast away as soon as they came in. There is something to be said about why they were conducting themselves in a tit-for-tat manner most of the time, and not the aggressor. If they were really hostile, then they'd be the one engaging in all the first strikes.

Those five ships were not enough to take over the whole planet. A recon mission is not going to blast away as soon as they get into a place because that is not the job of recon. Recon is about setting up and gathering intelligence and sending back information. All of which the aliens did. They set their perimeter with the force field. They obviously gathered intelligence because they knew where the military base was and that it would be a threat. I'd say it was pretty aggressive to attack not only the military base but also the freeway. A lot of people who were no threat and didn't do a thing to the aliens were killed on that freeway. And they were pretty determined to send back information-they killed to take over the satellite.

One alien did allow another scientist to walk away. Could be that alien was a non-combatant. That one was a lot smaller than the warrior types that were doing the fighting. Could have been a medic or a communications specialist working on the satellite. There just isn't anything non-aggressive about landing on a planet and not making any attempt to communicate while capturing territory and killing the natives. As to the rescue attempt by the aliens, they started out as a rescue party but that doesn't preclude them being hostile killers. In every war there are attempts to rescue captured soldiers-I have never heard anyone advance the argument that there are no hostilities just because there is an attempt to rescue or exchange prisoners.

What it comes down to is that the actions of the aliens from the moment they landed prove their hostile intentions in coming to Earth. They landed and made no attempt to communicate. They captured a chunk of our territory. They killed non-combatants who were no threat to them on the freeway and the mountain. They tried to use our technology to call in reinforcements. All of these are hostile actions and prove that the aliens meant us harm when they arrived.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zanza8 10 years ago

It doesn't matter? How can you say that-of course it matters. They wanted to call home using our technology without even trying to communicate with us. If somebody breaks into your house and kills somebody on the way to the phone and doesn't say a word to you, you're going to fight back. And you're not going to stand there saying, gee, I wonder if they really have hostile intentions. Certainly they are hostile.

The aliens were technologically superior. They flew across galaxies to reach earth. So they could easy take everyone out if they really wanted to. The fact they didn't take all the first shots meant they were not expressly 'hostile'. If they were hostile, they would destroy everything that came into their awareness as they continued to defend their perimeter. The fact they left people alive on the ship while they blasted in to save one of their own, shows their rules of engagement was to fight back only when they were shot at first.

You're not being logical. The people on the freeway didn't shoot at them. Neither did the cops on the mountain. So the aliens had no problem with massacre of non-combatants when it suited their purpose. And a recon force is not going to use up all their ammunition shooting at everything that moves. They're going to conserve their resources as much as possible until they get reinforcements. The only thing we can deduce from their actions is that they were hostile. They came to our planet. They didn't try to communicate with us. They captured our territory. They killed noncombatants. They stole our technology. You're not going to be able to prove that those are non-hostile actions. You can focus all you want on the aliens trying to rescue one of their own from the Navy ship and say that proves the aliens are warm and fuzzy and came here with the best of intentions, but I will remind you that one of them took the trouble to try to sabotage that ship, which is another hostile actions. And that the aliens were the first ones to use lethal force and kill people.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zanza8 10 years ago

From the human's perspective they are hostile no doubt about it. They entered our territory and all bets are off. So theres that.

At least you are able to admit that.

But as viewers we see how the aliens engaged. Their rules of engagement were not outright hostile. The rest were collateral damage. They sent in a special crew to carry out the task of establishing a connection. That crew did some pre-emptive strikes to disable offensive capabilities of humans as a defensive maneuver to ensure success of the mission.

Like so many defenders of the aliens, you fall into the same fallacy. You say all they wanted to do was establish a connection, while overlooking the fact that the connection they wanted to establish was with our technology and they never once tried to communicate with us and ask to use our technology. Wrap your mind around this-someone breaking into your house and killing people to get to use your phone is hostile. What you so blithely write off as collateral damage is the aliens killing non-combatants with no provocation so they could use our technology without so much as asking. They have no right to defend something that does not belong to them.

As for wasting ammo. They had those drones that flew around. It used no ammo. They could have had those things run everything down. They didn't. There was no reason for stopping yet they did.

Another fallacy. The drones use power. There is more to not wasting resources than not using up a limited amount of ammo. There is also not wasting your troops, and not using up your power.

Aliens might be hostile after all. Maybe after they get final orders from home base. But by their actions alone it was not hostile explicitly. The very fact the aliens faced down humans many times and then let them live and walk away, shows they were not always hostile. Hostile will be taking down everyone they see.

Another fallacy. You make the assumption that only genocide is hostile. You make the further assumption that humans have no value to the aliens. For all we know, the aliens could want us as slaves, pets, food, or all of the above. The only logical inference to be drawn is that they came with purely hostile intentions. There was no attempt at peaceful communication. They came down on our planet, captured our territory, killed our citizens, and stole our technology. Not one of those actions is remotely peaceful. Of course these actions are explicitely hostile.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zanza8 10 years ago

I see you've gotten to the stage where you can't dispute my points so you resort to name-calling. Don't expect any more response from me-I don't waste my time with people who can't be civil.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] Guy_VO 10 years ago

OMG, are you really still nagging and trolling about this fixation of yours? LMAO!

reply

[–] Zanza8 10 years ago

You're the one making nasty comments and you have the gall to call me the troll? I think it's obvious that you're the one with the problem. If you don't have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, you shouldn't join in.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

reply