Isn't that a bit like asking if anyone else thinks the sky is blue?
shareOK, I'll bite. No, Kira is not sexy. Yes, Nana Visitor is an attractive woman, but you asked about the character. Kira is suspicious, superstitious, bossy, bigoted and judgmental. Definitely not sexy traits in my personal experience.
shareShe isn't a nice person. Look at her other self, The Intendant...
shareNot to mention she's a former terrorist. Currently I'm rewatching DS9, and in "Necessary Evil" she murders a fellow Bajoran because she couldn't risk being detected. Although he was a collaborator.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
You don't find that sexy?
😎
Not particularly. I guess I prefer women who weren't terrorists.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
They weren't terrorists, they were freedom fighters. The Cardassians were the invaders/terrorists.
Damar: "They're dead. They weren't a part of this rebellion. The Dominion knew that. The Founder knew that. Weyoun knew that. To kill her and my son... the casual brutality of it... the waste of life. What kind of state tolerates the murder of innocent women and children? What kind of people give those orders?"
Kira: "Yeah, Damar, what kind of people give those orders?"
I'm certainly not defending the Cardassians, but the Bajoran "freedom fighters" purposely targeted civilians which makes them terrorists.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
The Cardassians "targeted" a whole planet of civilians.
QED.
You do realize the flaw in your logic, right? Just because the Cardassians were terrorists doesn't mean the Bajorans can't also be. It isn't okay to resort to terror tactics just because your opponent does. Killing civilians is wrong no matter how just your cause.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
It does make a difference because of who's responsible. If Cardassian "civilians" ON BAJOR, WHO ARE PART OF THE OCCUPATION/CARDASSIAN TERRORISM, get killed, that's because the Cardassians put them there. Which makes it the Cardassian's fault.
That's also why, for example, it's not Israeli "terrorism" when they destroy a "school" or "hospital" that "Palestinian" terrorists have turned into an armed base. If the students/patiens/etc are not allowed to leave, that makes THEM responsible for the deaths.
I hope you understand why that matters. Otherwise any invading army could render the target defenseless by surrounding themselves with "civilians." Which, by the way - using "human shields" - is also a violation of "international law."
I'm not going to argue with you. If you think committing terrorists acts is alright under certain circumstances, then so be it. I however, do not.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
Deliberately targeting and killing civilians to force a political compromise is terrorism. Killing civilians that are part of military infrastructure and support is not terrorism. The lack of a uniform does not automatically give you a pass if you are actually engaged in military activity.
If an alien force landed on Earth and decided to starve, rape and murder the population nobody is going to stop to check for a uniform so they could draw a distinction between the ones doing the killing and those that do everything else so the killers are not distracted from their killing.
But it must be so much simpler for simple people like that to have equally simple "morality." And they probably don't bother to actually think about anything else, either. So all the food they eat can go to obesity, they don't need any for brain power.
shareDo you insult everyone you disagree with, or am I just a special case?
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
Sometimes when "thoughts" achieve a certain density and obtuseness, all that's left is insulting the "thinker."
How else to "reason" with someone who might claim, for example, that aiming a missile at a "Palestinian" "ambulance" that's actually carrying terrorists and their bombs, is not permitted because the "driver" isn't a card-carrying member of the PLO and might only be doing it because other terrorists are holding his family hostage?
Or maybe just because, heck, it's an "AMBULANCE!" And "targeting" an "ambulance" is "violating international law!"
Not being able to recognize that when people do that, it's no longer really an "ambulance," and hence not deserving of the consideration that might be accorded a REAL "ambulance," is just one symptom of a problem you seem to have that might be a result of what has been called "invincible ignorance."
How else to "reason" with someone who might claim, for example, that aiming a missile at a "Palestinian" "ambulance" that's actually carrying terrorists and their bombs, is not permitted because the "driver" isn't a card-carrying member of the PLO and might only be doing it because other terrorists are holding his family hostage?That might be stacking the deck a bit. What do you say to a civilian vehicle and driver contracted to ferry soldiers around a military base? share
If they're the Bajorans defense forces resisting Cardassian attack/occupation then you could argue that the civilians are quasi-innocent. Not that the invaders would care. And it would be amusing if it weren't so dumb and ridiculous and sad, how "civilized" people expect other "civilized" people to behave in a "civilized" way when they're being ATTACKED in VERY UN-civilized ways.
But if they're part of the Cardassian attack/occupation force and especially since the resistance might have limited resources with which to fine-tune their intelligence and their attacks - as well as limited TIME! - it's not hard to accept that anyone helping with that shouldn't be surprised if they get targeted. I would apply what you posted earlier, "nobody is going to stop to check for a uniform so they could draw a distinction between the ones doing the killing and those that do everything else so the killers are not distracted from their killing."
Insulting my intelligence isn't going to convince me that you're right, so what's the point of doing it? You don't seem to realize that not everyone sees things the same way you do, and that's perfectly alright. Although there is something disturbing about someone justifying terrorism.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
It is not terrorism to kill anyone involved in military action or supporting military action, that's called war. Cardassia committed genocide, not sure if they even committed terrorism because it would be redundant. Fighting back against anyone trying to genocide your people is not terrorism.
If you want to make it a real world comparison then terrorists are more often than not civilians, so by your logic they are excluded from retaliation, even to be killed in self defence during an attack, no matter what atrocities they commit as anyone retaliating would automatically become a terrorist.
Have I ever once suggested that killing enemy soldiers is terrorism? Unless I'm mistaken the Bajoras didn't simply fight back, they committed terrorist acts by targeting Cardassian civilians. Unless you blame a whole race for the actions of the military, in which case every German in WWII was a war criminal, then purposely killing civilians is wrong. On the other hand killing terrorists is not wrong, because they're enemy combatants not civilians.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
This is where the obtuseness and invincible ignorance returns.
Once again, any Cardassian "civilians" that could have been targeted by Bajoran freedom fighters, were ON BAJOR AS PART OF THE CARDASSIAN OCCUPATION etc. They weren't just going to school or working in hospitals or doing their grocery shopping or whatever, back on Cardassia. Nor did they just happen to be visiting Bajor on a sightseeing tour. Which means they weren't really there as "civilians" even according to the Cardassians. They were part of the occupation/genocide/etc even if they didn't officially have some military rank. Even if they were just barbers. They were barbers for the Cardassian occupation, and that makes them part of the enemy. (And there are barbers who are actually part of the military, too.)
If you really can't see that, I suspect there's no hope. And I go back to a very strong wish that you never be in any position of authority or power where your kind of "thinking" can cause serious damage.
By that line of reasoning the PLO is justified in murdering any Israeli in the West Bank.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
No, because the West Bank, Golan Heights, etc were all territory that Israel took over following wars in which THEY were attacked.
You might as well argue that after you deposit your money at a bank, you have the right to rob the bank because they've got your money.
The Germans have the distinction of systematically murdering people under their control just like the Cardassians. While everyone else just mostly didn't care if they hit civilians while carrying out attacks on military targets (like the Bajorans) or deliberately targeted population centres to destroy military infrastructure and support.
Is there a reason you used Germany as an example and not everyone else involved?
Is there a reason you used Germany as an example and not everyone else involved?
The Western allies happily blasted away at German and Japanese civilian population centres. That isn't generally recorded as terrorist behaviour because it was part of a military campaign and those civilians despite not being combatants were still providing the support for the military. Neither Japan or Germany were committing genocide against the western allies.
shareYes, the Western allies bombing non-military targets was also wrong. Whether doing something wrong is sometimes necessary is a whole different discussion.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
[deleted]
I answered earlier without taking proper note that you said bombing "non-military" targets in response to my comment about bombing civilians. That makes me think you understand that it is possible to bomb military targets that are choc full of civilians.
But for fun and in the spirit of my earlier answer.
Killing civilians is wrong no matter how just your cause.Yes, just wrong, tell us more.
If you think committing terrorists acts is alright under certain circumstances, then so be it. I however, do not.So firm in your moral code.
Although there is something disturbing about someone justifying terrorism.The moral high ground is yours.
Whether doing something wrong is sometimes necessary is a whole different discussion.It's open to discussion now? share
Whether or not what the Bajorans did was necessary is irrelevant. The indiscriminate killing of civilians in an attempt to end the Cardassian occupation is still terrorism.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
When trying to achieve a military victory attacking military targets and support is not terrorism, even if civilians get killed in the process. I don't recall any mention of attacks specifically targeting civilians outside of military targets except that faction that had been declared criminals by Bajor, but feel free to inform me.
It's all good though, you weirdly suggested killing civilians may be necessary at times and apparently that's still terrorism so terrorism is necessary, and that made me laugh.
It's been my impression that the Bajorans did intentionally target civilians. I can't think of specific evidence, but if I'm mistaken I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding.
In a war I realize that civilian deaths are unavoidable. However, I did not mean to suggest that all civilian deaths in a war are the result of terrorism.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
Every mention I can recall is about attacking military targets, they seem to talk more about their tangles with security forces than blowing up specific targets. The one civilian who turns up to take revenge was a servant on a military base and was injured when the officer he served was blown up.
shareI'm lost, what does any of this have to do with Kira's sexiness? Oh, and yes, she's sexy.
Spenser with an "S", like the poet.
I believe that if she unnecessarily killed civilians then she is not sexy but if she killed civilians as part of a wider attempt to force a military victory then she is sexy.
shareIn the episode "The Abandoned" Odo tells Kira she was trained as a terrorist, and she doesn't object. So unless she just let the mistake pass, which doesn't seem like something she would do, Kira sees herself as a former terrorist.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
I thought that was why you were arguing. There are multiple reference to and by Kira that she was a terrorist. The writers seemed to want it both ways, to call her a terrorist but then not actually depict her as a terrorist. You can see that in "The Darkness and the Light" when a Cardassian civilian returns for revenge but is clearly depicted as collateral damage in an attack against the officer he served. Even he doesn't call her a terrorist, he calls her a murderer for not taking care to prevent collateral damage.
shareI'm currently rewatching DS9, and I just saw "The Abandoned" yesterday. Since I was accused of being obtuse and "invincibly ignorant" I merely wanted to point out that if I am, then Odo is as well.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
Ok, address your posts to kerry.
shareAmong other things, remember that Odo was more or less on the Cardassian side, and might very well have taken to using the references that the Cardassians used. Especially since, if he had started referring to people like Kira as "freedom fighters" it might not have gone so well for HIM.
shareFor once I actually agree with you. It's conceivable that Odo could call the Bajoran resistance terrorists out of habit. However, I find it highly improbable that Odo would call Kira a name she finds offensive, and she didn't react negatively when he said it. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that she doesn't object to it, and if she doesn't object to it I'm not sure why you do. Although I'm guessing you'll be more than happy to tell me.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer
Kira had some "issues" over her own past too. Self-doubt, etc. And that probably wasn't the first time they'd discussed it either. Maybe Odo was giving her a reminder of her self-doubts or something. Some people have more self-doubt than others when doing things even if they know them to be necessary.
shareYes, but Intendant Kira was much sexier. She had that swagger in her walk, and Nana's figure was like a puzzle piece you wanted to put your arms around. That made her so dangerous.
http://booklocker.com/books/8757.html
^This^
shareFirst let me say that Nana Visitor is a probably a great person outside DS9, and I am not attacking her, but responding about her character, so don't take this as such.
To answer your question: No, actually she is not sexy nor overly attractive. She wore heels nearly every episode because she was so much shorter than the rest of the cast. Add to that the skin tight suit and her wiggling her butt at the camera and you have a bunch of ignorant horn dogs thinking she is sexy or hot for no real reason. Nearly any other woman with an average body could have worn the same get-up, wiggled her ass in front of the camera and drawn the same reaction.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/1003367-heels-make-butt-look-bigger/
Most guys eventually learn that heels can make a woman's butt go from blah to booyah instantly. Why is it guys can never see the forest for the trees when it comes to women? This is one of the biggest reasons they are always in trouble with them.
Her butt when she is not in heels is flat, almost saggy, like air let out of a stretched balloon. There is an episode of MacGyver where Nana wears tight pants and she had very little ass to speak of (not that is necessarily bad). I thought that and I don't even like big asses like so many others. Her face is barely what I would call pretty. Her weird oddly shaped eyes are also a distraction. She has no real breasts to speak of. Her voice and way of speaking forcefully without taking a breath is irritating and annoying. Even her hair was atrocious and super ugly throughout the series until the last season or two. She was the epitome of stupid bitch syndrome as far as her personality was concerned for the majority of the series.
So no, just because she wore heels and wiggled her ass in front of the camera do I think she's hot or sexy. In fact it makes her a little skanky and unattractive especially after you add in her personality. She's not ugly, just not as hot as everyone wants to make her out just because she wore tight clothes and heels.