User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24018437-20151122100829

The Allies had pretty much wrecked the entire country in a battle that shouldn't have happened (Hitler knew he stood no chanche when he started losing, yet his pride prevented him from doing the smartest thing: Surrendering. His pride caused the deaths of thousands of people, both soldiers and civillains.) and completely obliterated their military, economy and goverment. The situation was even worse then after WW1. I can imagine people were also out for revenge after that.

Well, its Dragon training. The entire point of it was to learn how to fight Dragons. Kind of odd if they wouldn't fight then, wouldn't it?

Wether its a war crime or not is still debated to this day, with many saying it was. But Japan was losing territory and battles everywhere, and their military wasn't as impressive as if it had once been. Japan would surrender. It was only a matter of time. The bombing sped things up. That was literally it. And don't forget they still feel the results of the bombing to this very day: Raditation still causes ilnisses' and deformed children are still Born. Is that you're idea of justice? Punishing a country for many generations to come, even if those who did wrong are long dead by then?

No, that would be stupid. The first rule of war is that you don't attack an opponent you aren't certain you can beat, or start a war without reason. You aren't getting attacked because you don't want to fight. That would be a waste of time and resources. You're attacked because that other country wants something. And if that country is at the other side of the World and isn't interested in you, why start war? Being neutral DOES exist in a war. In the first World War, the Netherlands were neutral and didn't get trouble from either side, despite sharing borders with them.

So that's your idea of justice? Avenging innoscent people by killing MORE innoscent people who had nothing to do with it and did nothing to you? If you start slaughtering innoscents for revenge and 'to return the favor', you're not the good guy. You're just aselfish and trigger-happy person in a uniform who takes pleasure in killing people. It only makes things worse as well. You are the bad guy then.

They did, actually. The Iraqi military and goverment were the main reason terrorist groups weren't free to do what they wanted, because they'd track them down and fight them. Saddam was ruthless, but he kept order. When the US wrecked the Iraqi military and goverment, the terrorist groups they were originally after gained more power and freedom then ever, which is very ironic. The US invasion helped the terrorists and in the end, was plain uneccery. It was just a slaughter for revenge with the excuse of hunting down terrorists, even though that promise was far from fullfilled. Revenge on people who were in no way connected to what had happened in America. People there still hate America with every fiber in their body for the injustice that was done to them. They don't see a group or good guys who fight against terrorists, they see monsters that slaughter their families for something they didn't do. And yet you say they deserved it? It were the US who started a war on the wrong people.

And how could they have stopped them? Perhaps there is someone in your country who is planning a terrorist attack right now. Do you know exactly where he or she is and how you can stop him or her? The terrorists aren't shouting from their rooftops they're terrorists and that they're going to fly airplanes into buildings. No one knew what they were planning, nor could have stopped them. And back to that terrorist in your country: if that terrorist attacks, is it justice if the country he attacked will start killing you and your family, even if you had nothing to do with it and might just be as shocked at his or her crime? If a black person kills someone, does that mean ALL black people have to be punished for it?

And your moral code is killing innoscent people for revenge, even if they never comitted the crime you're avenging in the first place? You're not attacking the one's responsible, you're just killing for the sake of killing.

So...Hitler's way of murdering people who opposed him or even spoke against him was good? How he started the racial hierarchy in Germany was good? How he started a war that resulted in the deaths of millions purely for power, revenge and to ensure the superiority of the Germans was good? How he used propoganda to indoctrinate the people was good? How he started discriminting and murdering people purely for their race was good, untill children became part of his list of victims? Hitler turned a Third World country into one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world. That's the only good thing he did.

For someone who says he values honor and morals, you sure are willing to throw those out of the window simply because someone else does it. If your wrath is directed at the leaders, I would agree. But why should the innoscent suffer? Is it justice to make innoscent people suffer for something they're not a part of, and if it is uneccery, simply because you feel their deaths satisfy you as a means of revenge? You seem to view people as tools, and lives as expandeble. I believe the responsible person should be punished. Not random people who just happen to share his etchnicity. And if they are suffering, we should look first for another way and only sacrifice them if there is no other choiche. Causing civillain casualties should be a last resort, as killing innoscents doesn't usually stop wars. It either causes them or makes them worse. You are, despite denying it, still looking at things in a very black-and-white way. A terrorist who just happen to be Middle-Eastern commits crime? Better kill thousands of random Middle-Eastern people to return the favor! An Amseican commits a crime? Better kill thousands of Americans to repay the favor! How is that not trigger-happy exactly?

The Shivering Shores for one. Other Tribes were mentioned, though not by name, and we saw the Chieftains of other Tribes in HTTYD2. And Astrid mentioned how pirates lurked around Breakneck-Bog, and they were also mentioned when they were on Patrol a couple of times. Trader Johan also mentioned that there are many Pirates in the ship-graveyard where Hiccup found the Dragon Eye.

Maybe the Tribes in the Movie!Universe aren't as social as in the books? They probably just keep to their own business and only have relations with a few other Tribes. That's nothing outstanding or weird, really, as plenty of real cultures have that as well.

Yeah. For her fighting skills. If someone liked me ONLY because I'm good at sport, I wouldn't want to be friends with that person either. And Hiccup was incompetent at fighting, putting her and the other's in danger during the training. She had a reason to be angry at him after the accident with the Nadder.

Meh. Its kind of like her thing, I suppose. My opinion on it is rather neutral. I don't consider it to be real violence, but I also wouldn't be really upset if it stopped.

As for the date, probably also happened off-screen. We only see events in the series that are for character development (Usually Fishlegs, which I'm really puzzled about...No, seriously! Aside from Hiccup, Fishlegs has the most episodes centered around him.) introducing a new character or Dragon species, or showing an important event. We don't get to see the everyday life of the characters. Which sucks, because I'm all for seeing an episode centered around Hiccup's and Astrid's relationship.