[閒聊] ZAFT發射創世紀到底對不對?
最近和我同學又重看了一次鋼彈SEED
看到最後札夫特發射創世紀時
我同學說:「靠!!他們好賤!!!」
我後來想了一想
發現
發射創世紀好像並沒有什麼不對阿?
因為從頭到尾
地球聯合軍的行為都非常沒品
從一開始的尤尼烏斯七號
阿拉斯加作戰
進攻歐普
強化人
使用核彈攻擊波茲尼要塞和PLANT本國
都是不合道義也不合武德的行為
尤尼烏斯七號是農業殖民衛星
也就是說裡面很多平民
對平民使用毀滅性武器
不用我說大家也知道有多惡劣吧
阿拉斯加作戰用自己人當誘餌
這樣知道內情的人以後誰還敢繼續在地球軍裡?
進攻歐普只是單純的利益問題
阿強化人其實是最好笑的地方
地球軍反對以基因改造出來的調整者
但卻用像藥物或改造來製造另外一種形式的調整者
後來想毀滅全部的調整者更是十惡不赦的行為
其實從一開始就可以看的到端倪
PLANT只是為了獨立自由才發展出札夫特
但地球卻只想奴役他們,把他們當成次等公民
對照現在台灣的情況
不引起共鳴也難
地球是隨便一個小兵也想對調整者趕盡殺絕
連平民也極度厭惡調整者,救他們的也不例外
而札夫特是只有薩拉想要毀滅自然人
如果當時第三發創世紀打到華盛頓
地球也就不敢放肆的使用核攻擊
也不會有三年後的大戰
歸根究柢
都是外掛煌跟ass蘭的錯
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 220.141.41.61
噓 yuyu1437:zaft...
修掉了 02/13 21:58
※ 編輯: blbl1823 來自: 220.141.41.61 (02/13 22:00)
※ 編輯: blbl1823 來自: 220.141.41.61 (02/13 22:01)
推
02/13 22:18, , 1F
02/13 22:18, 1F
→
02/13 22:23, , 2F
02/13 22:23, 2F
推
02/13 22:32, , 3F
02/13 22:32, 3F
推
02/14 00:10, , 4F
02/14 00:10, 4F
推
02/14 00:12, , 5F
02/14 00:12, 5F
→
02/14 00:12, , 6F
02/14 00:12, 6F
推
02/14 00:13, , 7F
02/14 00:13, 7F
→
02/14 00:13, , 8F
02/14 00:13, 8F
→
02/14 00:13, , 9F
02/14 00:13, 9F
→
02/14 00:14, , 10F
02/14 00:14, 10F
→
02/14 00:15, , 11F
02/14 00:15, 11F
→
02/14 00:17, , 12F
02/14 00:17, 12F
推
02/14 00:23, , 13F
02/14 00:23, 13F
→
02/14 00:26, , 14F
02/14 00:26, 14F
→
02/14 00:27, , 15F
02/14 00:27, 15F
→
02/14 00:27, , 16F
02/14 00:27, 16F
→
02/14 00:28, , 17F
02/14 00:28, 17F
→
02/14 00:28, , 18F
02/14 00:28, 18F
→
02/14 00:28, , 19F
02/14 00:28, 19F
→
02/14 00:28, , 20F
02/14 00:28, 20F
→
02/14 00:29, , 21F
02/14 00:29, 21F
→
02/14 00:29, , 22F
02/14 00:29, 22F
→
02/14 00:29, , 23F
02/14 00:29, 23F
→
02/14 00:30, , 24F
02/14 00:30, 24F
→
02/14 00:31, , 25F
02/14 00:31, 25F
→
02/14 00:31, , 26F
02/14 00:31, 26F
→
02/14 00:31, , 27F
02/14 00:31, 27F
→
02/14 00:32, , 28F
02/14 00:32, 28F
→
02/14 00:33, , 29F
02/14 00:33, 29F
→
02/14 00:34, , 30F
02/14 00:34, 30F
→
02/14 00:34, , 31F
02/14 00:34, 31F
→
02/14 00:35, , 32F
02/14 00:35, 32F
→
02/14 00:35, , 33F
02/14 00:35, 33F
→
02/14 00:35, , 34F
02/14 00:35, 34F
→
02/14 00:36, , 35F
02/14 00:36, 35F
→
02/14 00:37, , 36F
02/14 00:37, 36F
→
02/14 00:37, , 37F
02/14 00:37, 37F
推
02/14 00:37, , 38F
02/14 00:37, 38F
→
02/14 00:38, , 39F
02/14 00:38, 39F
→
02/14 00:38, , 40F
02/14 00:38, 40F
→
02/14 00:38, , 41F
02/14 00:38, 41F
→
02/14 00:38, , 42F
02/14 00:38, 42F
→
02/14 00:38, , 43F
02/14 00:38, 43F
→
02/14 00:39, , 44F
02/14 00:39, 44F
→
02/14 00:40, , 45F
02/14 00:40, 45F
→
02/14 00:41, , 46F
02/14 00:41, 46F
→
02/14 00:41, , 47F
02/14 00:41, 47F
→
02/14 00:42, , 48F
02/14 00:42, 48F
推
02/14 00:42, , 49F
02/14 00:42, 49F
→
02/14 00:42, , 50F
02/14 00:42, 50F
→
02/14 00:42, , 51F
02/14 00:42, 51F
→
02/14 00:42, , 52F
02/14 00:42, 52F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文:
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 7 篇):