Wars are also fought with soliders though. Anyone can do anything and consider themselves a solider for justice. Also terrorist consider themselves as fighting wars even when they don't have the support of a government. A serial killer in theory is just doing it for his own pleasure or to deal with some kind of anti-social behavior he has developed no doubt by having a really terrible life up to that point or some kind of mental illness that someone hasn't been able to help him deal with. Jason
Terrible wars have been waged in the past to accommodate the whims/ mental illness of one king/tyrant/dictator (e.g. Hitler and WWII), we still call them wars though.
That's because they lead people and represented governments. I think they might actually have more in common with cults than what serial killers tend to do. From what I understand don't must serial killers try and blend into society and pass themselves off as regular folk? People like HItler I don't think ever had any desire to hide who he was and wanted to make others follow him. I guess you could say that ego is a big difference as well. I wonder if most serial killers have enough emotional range to even have massive ego's. Maybe Charles Manson. Manson in other life could have been head of a government I suspect if he had pursed that kind of life. Jason
I don't think we can reduce the endless complexities of a conflict like ww2 down to the whims of a single individual. Back to the Maquis: They were a group that met force with force, not serial killers. Their goals were defense, safety, land, and later on, independence. Their goals were not "murder."
The point of the entire scene is Sisko going off on Picard, the rest is unimportant. I guess it was meant to show character growth but they went overboard with this and made Sisko sound like an insensitive brute. He had years to realize that Picard was as much of a victim of the Borg as his wife.As I said his words would have been excusable in the weeks following the event, perhaps even a couple of months but NOT years. Not with someone who's supposedly intelligent and cultivated.
I repeat my question. But also, So when Picard loses his shit at Lily in First Contact, it's because he's an unintelligent, uncultivated brute? 'Cause he actually screams at her and smashes furniture. As opposed to Sisko, who exhibits simmering resentment. (That son of a bitch!)
Even in that scene, Picard had the decency not to blame this on anybody but himself (and the Borg). Sisko may not have lost his shit but he was a victim-accusing son of a bitch (to use your own terms). I'd rather confront someone who's agitated but doesn't accuse me of things that are beyond my control than someone who looks like a growling pit bull terrier ready to bite my ass!!!
Well, I don't have a photgraphic memory. I can recall the scene and he acted like an Ass towards Picard. As if Picard had volunteered to be taken over by the Borg. Also as the other person stated, it was years later too. Something said in then heat of the moment of it occurring is different. If Sisko had gotten on the shuttle right after having seen his wife die, and Picard was beamed into the shuttle too at that moment, yes, then I could see him going off and yelling and whatever. But not after 3 years or whatever to reflect upon it.
I love that one of the primary points of the episode is Sisko moving past the death of his wife with the help of the Prophets, and yet he gets attacked for...not having gotten past the death of his wife at the start of the episode.
Like I said, I don't have a photographic memory. I don't recall the specific words. And as in real Life good actors can convey more with intonation and body language than verbiage. So your contention therefore seems to be that when Sisko went to the Enterprise and met Picard, he was not angry acting?