We really need some details about pre-Gears 4. Because JD told his DB's to fire BEFORE Fahz did. Fahz followed JD's lead. They both claim the protestors were using lethal weapons, but that is the oldest cop lie in the world so... I'm not sure if we're meant to believe it or not. Then when they return, JD goes out of his way to antagonize and shit on Fahz for... doing the same thing he did, AFTER he did it, but being more noticed as having done it? Fahz is totally in the right to shit on JD for it and is pretty generous to forgive him and want to buddy up to the squad anyway.
+1
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
I mean Fahz is also just an unrepentant piece of shit about the people who died so it's not like he can claim some moral high ground about it lol
They both claim the protestors were using lethal weapons, but that is the oldest cop lie in the world so... I'm not sure if we're meant to believe it or not
There is a big difference between "They had guns!" (that were conveniently never fired) and "They were throwing fire bombs". Fire bombs are going to obviously leave a lot more evidence of their existence. Perhaps the correct question is why the DeeBee's didn't have something other than Enforcers? Something which I don't really think was the soldiers call. I'm of the opinion that you can not put all of the blame on JD and Fahz if the protesters chose to throw fire bombs. Could they have handled it differently? Probably, but it takes two to tango as they say.
They both claim the protestors were using lethal weapons, but that is the oldest cop lie in the world so... I'm not sure if we're meant to believe it or not
There is a big difference between "They had guns!" (that were conveniently never fired) and "They were throwing fire bombs". Fire bombs are going to obviously leave a lot more evidence of their existence. Perhaps the correct question is why the DeeBee's didn't have something other than Enforcers? Something which I don't really think was the soldiers call. I'm of the opinion that you can not put all of the blame on JD and Fahz if the protesters chose to throw fire bombs. Could they have handled it differently? Probably, but it takes two to tango as they say.
Well both Dell and Kait immediately reject the idea that fire bombs were used. So that implies they weren't, since yeah, there should be evidence of it if it was true. The DB's should have pretty clear recordings if JD and Fahz were justified in what they were doing or if they just panicked, in fact.
I mean Fahz is also just an unrepentant piece of shit about the people who died so it's not like he can claim some moral high ground about it lol
At it's most simple level, I think Fahz--and pretty much all the Gears, or at least all the professional career Gears-in-uniform and not people thrown into bizarre circumstances like Kait Diaz on one end and Major Parduk on the other hand--are something of a metaphor for the "Support the Troops" personality cult that exists in the United States and maybe more broadly in the Anglophone world.
Namely, the Anglophone world (or at least the United States), has enjoyed wars of largely (or completely) voluntary discretion, because Iraq or Libya aren't really going to invade Manhattan or London, Operation Overlord-style, and in fact have very limited abilities to threaten those homelands (and whether or not they do, are basically subject to immediate and even disproportionate retaliation, like the whole fact we were basically at war in Iraq throughout the entirety of the 1990s, periodically blowing up military installations and deciding how much food and medicine got into the country). This is separate but related to the topic of whether those wars were morally justifiable--they were, in fact, as voluntary as any war in history. Likewise, the fact that in the Anglophone military forces those who enlist do so voluntarily--albeit probably under some economic motivation or distress and not just patriotic fervor--puts a potential added responsibility. It's not like the United States is the only country that fights in wars (in just happens to fight in the most wars), but the vast majority of fighting troops in the armies of Russia, Iran, Taiwan, North and South Korea, etc., are not volunteers but conscripts, and not there as a matter of choice (separate from those who volunteered under similar motivations, economic or social, as among Americans), puts their circumstances in a different light than that of the United States (or the UK or Australia).
So, we know some American troops in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or parts of Africa, or occasionally Pakistan, etc., sometimes do terrible things, or are otherwise associated with atrocities, not that unlike the Gears under the authority of the COG--despite the best efforts of our government to the contrary. Nonetheless, you are to "Support the Troops" as a matter of basic public decency and acknowledgement of the burden they have taken on that you, a civilian, have not. And yes, that's still true if they fired into a crowd of angry Afghans or Iraqis, as we know has happened. Plenty of us know people in the armed forces--shit, I was a conscript in the Taiwanese R.O.C.A. (though like literally everyone else in that army, I never went abroad and sat in a barracks in what was probably an enormous waste of time), and I have friends who volunteered and are currently undergoing service in the United States Army, including on a career path. Gears is taking that longstanding dilemma and shoving it into our faces in a less subtle manner.
Also, even though I'm pretty sure he has a minimum (or maybe no) remorse of having done very bad things, the sort of things done by the Allied occupation in Iraq, I still think Fahz is a hilarious and very entertaining character thanks to Rahul "Hollywood's Badboy" Khouli's masterful performance.
They both claim the protestors were using lethal weapons, but that is the oldest cop lie in the world so... I'm not sure if we're meant to believe it or not
There is a big difference between "They had guns!" (that were conveniently never fired) and "They were throwing fire bombs". Fire bombs are going to obviously leave a lot more evidence of their existence. Perhaps the correct question is why the DeeBee's didn't have something other than Enforcers? Something which I don't really think was the soldiers call. I'm of the opinion that you can not put all of the blame on JD and Fahz if the protesters chose to throw fire bombs. Could they have handled it differently? Probably, but it takes two to tango as they say.
Well both Dell and Kait immediately reject the idea that fire bombs were used. So that implies they weren't, since yeah, there should be evidence of it if it was true. The DB's should have pretty clear recordings if JD and Fahz were justified in what they were doing or if they just panicked, in fact.
Actually, they don't. I just went back and watched the cinematics and the first time Fahz mentions the fire bombs JD shuts down the discussion, but Del didn't seem inclined to challenge the point. The second time when the reveal happens JD again mentions the fire bombs and all Del and Kait did was give him judgemental looks.
Clearly it's something JD regrets but the protesters were not blameless and they can't change what happened. I would go so far as to say that Del and Kait refuse to acknowledge the protesters culpability in what happened.
Edit: I will say this is based on what is in Gears 5. If Del and Kait give another take on it in a different medium I am unaware of it.
Gears of War was released 16 years ago today and to mark the occasion, Netflix has partnered with The Coalition to adapt the Gears of War video game saga into a live action feature film, followed by an adult animated series — with the potential for more stories to follow!
Posts
There is a big difference between "They had guns!" (that were conveniently never fired) and "They were throwing fire bombs". Fire bombs are going to obviously leave a lot more evidence of their existence. Perhaps the correct question is why the DeeBee's didn't have something other than Enforcers? Something which I don't really think was the soldiers call. I'm of the opinion that you can not put all of the blame on JD and Fahz if the protesters chose to throw fire bombs. Could they have handled it differently? Probably, but it takes two to tango as they say.
Well both Dell and Kait immediately reject the idea that fire bombs were used. So that implies they weren't, since yeah, there should be evidence of it if it was true. The DB's should have pretty clear recordings if JD and Fahz were justified in what they were doing or if they just panicked, in fact.
At it's most simple level, I think Fahz--and pretty much all the Gears, or at least all the professional career Gears-in-uniform and not people thrown into bizarre circumstances like Kait Diaz on one end and Major Parduk on the other hand--are something of a metaphor for the "Support the Troops" personality cult that exists in the United States and maybe more broadly in the Anglophone world.
Namely, the Anglophone world (or at least the United States), has enjoyed wars of largely (or completely) voluntary discretion, because Iraq or Libya aren't really going to invade Manhattan or London, Operation Overlord-style, and in fact have very limited abilities to threaten those homelands (and whether or not they do, are basically subject to immediate and even disproportionate retaliation, like the whole fact we were basically at war in Iraq throughout the entirety of the 1990s, periodically blowing up military installations and deciding how much food and medicine got into the country). This is separate but related to the topic of whether those wars were morally justifiable--they were, in fact, as voluntary as any war in history. Likewise, the fact that in the Anglophone military forces those who enlist do so voluntarily--albeit probably under some economic motivation or distress and not just patriotic fervor--puts a potential added responsibility. It's not like the United States is the only country that fights in wars (in just happens to fight in the most wars), but the vast majority of fighting troops in the armies of Russia, Iran, Taiwan, North and South Korea, etc., are not volunteers but conscripts, and not there as a matter of choice (separate from those who volunteered under similar motivations, economic or social, as among Americans), puts their circumstances in a different light than that of the United States (or the UK or Australia).
So, we know some American troops in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or parts of Africa, or occasionally Pakistan, etc., sometimes do terrible things, or are otherwise associated with atrocities, not that unlike the Gears under the authority of the COG--despite the best efforts of our government to the contrary. Nonetheless, you are to "Support the Troops" as a matter of basic public decency and acknowledgement of the burden they have taken on that you, a civilian, have not. And yes, that's still true if they fired into a crowd of angry Afghans or Iraqis, as we know has happened. Plenty of us know people in the armed forces--shit, I was a conscript in the Taiwanese R.O.C.A. (though like literally everyone else in that army, I never went abroad and sat in a barracks in what was probably an enormous waste of time), and I have friends who volunteered and are currently undergoing service in the United States Army, including on a career path. Gears is taking that longstanding dilemma and shoving it into our faces in a less subtle manner.
Also, even though I'm pretty sure he has a minimum (or maybe no) remorse of having done very bad things, the sort of things done by the Allied occupation in Iraq, I still think Fahz is a hilarious and very entertaining character thanks to Rahul "Hollywood's Badboy" Khouli's masterful performance.
Actually, they don't. I just went back and watched the cinematics and the first time Fahz mentions the fire bombs JD shuts down the discussion, but Del didn't seem inclined to challenge the point. The second time when the reveal happens JD again mentions the fire bombs and all Del and Kait did was give him judgemental looks.
Clearly it's something JD regrets but the protesters were not blameless and they can't change what happened. I would go so far as to say that Del and Kait refuse to acknowledge the protesters culpability in what happened.
Edit: I will say this is based on what is in Gears 5. If Del and Kait give another take on it in a different medium I am unaware of it.