Who/What was the Cause of the War between the Tower and Mallers

[Eviebae]

Simply put, it's all context. In psychology, it's called the Fundamental Attribution Error. Basically, we see our actions as being the result of situations we are in; but explain the actions of others as being the result of who or what they are. We take something because it's for our people and they need it. They take something because they are a bunch of thugs. Like stocking up on things before the hoarders get 'em.

[Adventureless_Hero]

This is an interesting topic and everyone has a very charged opinion because the situation relates to one we find in politics. The blame game and finger pointing never seems to have an end result that 100% of the populous agree upon. I think it is safe to say that almost everyone is to blame when you look at the actions that lead to the start of the war. But when no one can really know the result, how are we to place blame? Did Kalani intend for Tommy and Ryan to get killed during the war? Did Scratch ask Kalani to fire the shot that jump started the war knowing that her brother would be a casualty? Would Saul have followed the Mallers if he had known Latch and Scratch would follow his scooter back to the Tower? Did that lungfish that crawled out of the water know it was going to give rise to man who would later rape the Earth?

My point is this: you can play the "if only" game all you want but the fact is shit went down the way it did. Kalani should have tried to come clean with Michael, but he was in a tough position and chose not to risk his daughters safety. It was not the best choice, but we all can't be perfect seers of our own future. Scratch is a product of her child hood? Fine, that sucks for her because it causes her to act rash and do fucked up shit without provocation (Charlie was innocent but she wasted no time shanking him).

It was a big political fuck up what happened over the tanker. You had two groups who believed themselves to be the bigger dick, not backing down, so it came to a small show of force, which led to much bigger shove back. I don't think having Kalani shoulder the blame for the war is accurate, but rather he was a major instrument in it's fruition. Had he not followed Scratch's orders and fired that shot, I have no doubt the war would have had a different starting point. Durai and Scratch were determined to get in the tower one way or another, and Michael, Angel, and Burt were determined to keep them out. The end result was always the Inevitable War.

This shit about arguing over should they have taken the tanker or not is pointless. The theft of the tanker wasn't the motive behind the war; the occupation of the tower was.

[Eviebae]

This shit about arguing over should they have taken the tanker or not is pointless. The theft of the tanker wasn't the motive behind the war; the occupation of the tower was.

Very true.
Durai seems all about taking the buildings and defenses of others. Can't build his own, why? Guess ex prisoners with impulse control and slaves don't make the best labor force.

BTW if you found out that Charlie was a pedophile rapist/murderer could you understand why she was okay with throwing him under the bus?

[Adventureless_Hero]

if you found out that Charlie was a pedophile rapist/murderer could you understand why she was okay with throwing him under the bus?

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me at all. Hell, if he was a pedophile I'd throw him under a bus full of sumo wrestlers! But even if he was the Pope, I still think Scratch wouldn't have cared. Charlie got on her nerves when he radioed her and he was the one supposed to be guarding the tankers that night (the night after Saul's Prius incident) so it was easy to place the blame on him. They forced a confession from him that they knew those in earshot could hear thus clearing herself and her brother of any blame for the missing tanker.

As for the tanker Puck was driving in Chapter 24, Scratch may have intentionally saved one from the assault on the Arena, but it is much more likely that after attacking the Arena, they went back to the site of the ambush and picked up one of their previously lost tankers.

One way the war could have been avoided; let the Mallers over run your tower and be a major kiss ass in the hopes they don't kill you, be their slave, or rebel and likely get killed.

[reaper239]

This is an interesting topic and everyone has a very charged opinion because the situation relates to one we find in politics. The blame game and finger pointing never seems to have an end result that 100% of the populous agree upon. I think it is safe to say that almost everyone is to blame when you look at the actions that lead to the start of the war. But when no one can really know the result, how are we to place blame? Did Kalani intend for Tommy and Ryan to get killed during the war? Did Scratch ask Kalani to fire the shot that jump started the war knowing that her brother would be a casualty? Would Saul have followed the Mallers if he had known Latch and Scratch would follow his scooter back to the Tower? Did that lungfish that crawled out of the water know it was going to give rise to man who would later rape the Earth?

My point is this: you can play the "if only" game all you want but the fact is shit went down the way it did. Kalani should have tried to come clean with Michael, but he was in a tough position and chose not to risk his daughters safety. It was not the best choice, but we all can't be perfect seers of our own future. Scratch is a product of her child hood? Fine, that sucks for her because it causes her to act rash and do fucked up shit without provocation (Charlie was innocent but she wasted no time shanking him).

It was a big political fuck up what happened over the tanker. You had two groups who believed themselves to be the bigger dick, not backing down, so it came to a small show of force, which led to much bigger shove back. I don't think having Kalani shoulder the blame for the war is accurate, but rather he was a major instrument in it's fruition. Had he not followed Scratch's orders and fired that shot, I have no doubt the war would have had a different starting point. Durai and Scratch were determined to get in the tower one way or another, and Michael, Angel, and Burt were determined to keep them out. The end result was always the Inevitable War.

This shit about arguing over should they have taken the tanker or not is pointless. The theft of the tanker wasn't the motive behind the war; the occupation of the tower was.

yeah, i can agree to that.

BTW if you found out that Charlie was a pedophile rapist/murderer could you understand why she was okay with throwing him under the bus?

but what about scratch's wrap sheet? we know her brother went to jail for her, so what did she do? was she just as bad or worse than charlie? so, maybe she had a bad childhood, so did a lot of people, and yet they went on to not become psychopathic sadistic assholes. all i'm saying is that environment isn't everything. it doesn't account for the serial killers who came from the perfect home life, or the priests giving way their own food in third world countries to feed kids, when they (the priests) grew up in the ghettos of america, rife with gang violence. true story, there is a man who's father murdered his mother in front of him when he was a kid. it wasn't sudden either, he had been a violent, abusive man. that man (the boy) now leads a perfectly normal life, with a not-murdered family of his own. now, i'm pretty sure that everyone would agree that that's a messed up environment to come from, but he made the best of it and now leads a full and productive life as an ordinary member of society.

[nikvoodoo]

Throwing back to what you (Osiris) were saying about Russia and the Gulags: The reason borders exist is because a country and government is there to define it. When those go away, so do the rules that governed them. If I willingly cross a border illegally, I should expect punishment. If I cross a border that is never defined by a group I don't know exists: sorry. Can't be blamed for that.

And just to clarify: By both Tower attacks I mean the War in chapter 12 and the assault in chapter 24. I'm not talking about CJ's tower.

[Grognaurd]

AH. I do not think they went back. I will have to go back to the tanker talk. Tar says not enough, but when he cites the numbers they do not add up. Instead of retaking the one she has designated for the tower, she keeps it. She screws the pooch on that one. Tar tells it is not enough. She fails to destroy The Arena completely and let's our buddy TOWTM to be able to get away. All for revenge.

Latch and Scratch would have served the mallers much better if they reconned a few more towers rather than trying on fancy clothes. The outbreak was in very early May. The war is July. That is two months where they could improve their own situation rather than blowing smoke up each others ass talking about how can we kill the few others left in LA that are not "us"

What Scratch displays is classic bully behavior. It is all about breaking the spirit of others to establish dominance. She holds Kalani's daughter hostage virtually at gunpoint so Kalani can spy. She see something near her place and she has the guards throw down kill over a tanker truck even though the other party offered to barter. That fuel depot is nit the only place that has tankers. Shit, they took a Fire Truck that was full of water.

One tanker is not worth a life.

Scratch needs some decaf and a few consecutive nights of multiple big Os.

She is nuts.

The outbreak occurred two months before the war

She cuts up Charlie for fun

There are many tankers available

But most of all she exhibited this behavior before the outbreak.

[Eviebae]

and a few consecutive nights of multiple big Os.

Really?

Too far man, too far.

[Eviebae]

Saul, CJ and Victor is a milder example of the same dynamic. Everybody needed to calm down and stop throwing names and labels around.

Doesn't the real problem come when you understand why they do what they do, see them as people etc, but they can't/won't do the same for you. I think it all comes down to being the one to decide how you will react given that, not leaving it up to them to "ask" for a certain behavior given the worst outcome. Where's the balance between surviving no matter what; or dying according to principles that the other side may find laughable.

[Osiris]

but you've made the argument yourself that the same rules that apply today, would not necesarrily apply in this situation, therefore your own argument is invalid. true, in todays environment ignorance of property is no excuse, but when everything is up for grabs because everyone else is dead, it seems kind of silly to say "i am ruler of all i survey, hey don't touch that thing... waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy over there, it's mine. because i said so, that's why." if you lay claim on something that is no longer owned by anyone else, you move it to where you can maintain positive control over it, like the tower residents did, or else don't complain when someone comes along while you're not there and says, "hey, i need one of those." and takes it. of course, if that does happen, the way to handle it is probably not to go and approach them like some rabid ape.

i just thought of something else: property lines are agreed upon societal contrsucts. in other words, if i buy a plot of land, society has agreed that that is my land and that is where my property lines fall. you can't just arbitrarily say, "this is my property, and that is my property, and so is that over there, and all that in that direction too." and expect people to know or honor that, once society has broken down. realistically, the only property lines that matter with the dissoloution of society as we know it, are the ones you can enforce. clearly they were claiming beyond their reach and they should have moved their property where they could effectively lay claim.

So... what you're saying the history of civilization is meaningless in the context of this argument. I believe European historians would disagree with your theory about how land is claimed. If you've claimed land, that which rests upon the land is yours. Conquering civilizations have done it since... when? The dawn of man. From forests to oil. This isn't a new concept and it is one that has been proven again and again throughout the history of the world. Your argument has no strength. The simple fact that there are no municipalities governing the division of land and resources means it is up to the people within the communities to protect what they have claimed.

It's really no different than... say... the gold rush. You live in the middle of buttfuck nowhere, leave your home and head into the hills to work a plot of land or section of river. The only difference is--as I've said before--lack of an official government sanctioned title or deed. So you're out in the middle of nowhere, working away just happy as a clam and you return home, cash in and head back for more. When you get there you find someone jacking your goods. You pull your gun and protect what is yours. Since there is no way of obtaining a title or deed in this particular situation. So it comes down to my stick is bigger, therefore I make the rules. That rule is: All this shit over here is mine. All that shit over there is yours. Try and take it and I'll beat you to death with my stick.

Again, I'll bring up a remote section of wilderness that has no clearly defined borders, as that suits the situation of lawlessness. You cross into a remote section of Siberia and start pillaging resources. A group of soldiers happen upon your group and tell you to drop what you've taken and hoof it. You refuse, arguing that since there was no sign up saying 'Welcome to Siberia, Please Don't Take Our Shit' that any resources on the land are fair game. This ends with you taking a trip to le Gulag where you toil until you die. Does this make your actions right or wrong?

There are aspects of society that you simply cannot rely upon to still function as you've always known them simply because that's how they've always been. Thinking like that will only end in you on the wrong end of a rifle.