Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[Travesty]

lol, "he didn't kill Ra's"?

Batman: Hey Gordon, here's keys to the Batmobile, I need you to blow the tracks, so the train is derailed. Cool?

Ra's: ....and that's why you can't stop this train.
Batman: Who said anything about stopping?
<Batman flies out of the train, leaving Ra's to die in the death trap he created>



See, it's even easy for someone like you to understand. No amount of semantics can get you out of this. Hope that helps, and have a great day.

Satan bless you!

[Dagenspear]

lol, "he didn't kill Ra's"?

Batman: Hey Gordon, here's keys to the Batmobile, I need you to blow the tracks, so the train is derailed. Cool?

Ra's: ....and that's why you can't stop this train.
Batman: Who said anything about stopping?
<Batman flies out of the train, leaving Ra's to die in the death trap he created>

See, it's even easy for someone like you to understand. No amount of semantics can get you out of this. Hope that helps, and have a great day.

Satan bless you!

Ra's Al Ghul stabbed the console. He's the one who sealed his fate. But I never said in this particular conversation that Batman didn't kill Ra's. I said he didn't execute him, which is in accordance with his stated rule. Batman certainly had a hand in Ra's death, by it being his plan to blow out the tracks. For all intents and purposes, his plan was to stop the train and Ra's prevented that, which put him on a track to plan B. Bruce was apart of killing him, but he didn't execute him.

Here's two more definitions to add to your pile.

Incompetent: not competent; lacking qualification or ability; incapable.
Dumb: lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.

Baleman was a joke. In his apparent effort not to kill anybody he killed plenty of people.
Batfleck intends to kill and he does. Baleman doesn't intend to kill and he does. And Batfleck is meant to be the danger?
Those two children sitting in the backseat of the car in TDK are alive by the grace of God.
If Baleman told me 'don't worry, I won't hurt you', I'd be sweating bullets.

When Baleman wasn't getting people killed like a clueless buffoon, he had his mouth open like a sedated senior citizen. And when he spoke it was like gargling marbles. His fighting style was underwhelming at best.

Have a very great day! God bless you!

Batman never said that he wouldn't kill people. Yes, Batfleck is the danger, because Baleman never tried to murder in cold blood a for all intents and purposes innocent man. Like it or not, our world has structures of rules that dictate guilt. Intention to kill is dictated as worse than unintentional killing. In truth the only people Baleman did kill, intentionally or unintentionally, was a man who was about to murder a child and a number of admitted terrorists. He never set out, with malice of forethought, to murder someone had done nothing directly wrong by legal standards. Batfleck set out to murder someone who'd helped prevent the deaths of billions of people and did directly with malice of forethought kill many others to achieve this goal, needlessly. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

If Batman wanted Ras to live, he would've saved him. He didn't.

See, it's even easy for someone like you to understand. No amount of semantics can get you out of this. Hope that helps, and have a great day.

It would be most unwise to underestimate the power of the Semantics King.

Satan bless you!

I'm not a religious person in the slightest. The only 'religious' policy I follow is Fair Game from the money making cult that is Scientology. It's a con job of an organization but any policy that says enemies "may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" gets my tick of approval. That's the only good thing going for it.

[Dagenspear]

If Batman wanted Ras to live, he would've saved him. He didn't.

For all intents and purposes, he didn't want him alive.

[Travesty]

It would be most unwise to underestimate the power of the Semantics King.

Ahhh, Semantics King, aka, Lord TattleTale. Yes, it would be most unwise, indeed. For he acts of that of a 12 year old, who tries to punish thee, with quips to higher ups, because he can't handle his own. Yes, I have run into him on multiple of forums.

[The Dark Knight]

Batman wanted Ras Al Ghul dead. If someone is getting bashed up and you can do something to stop it, but willingly choose to do nothing, you're condoning the violence. That's how I see it. One of the messages of Batman Begins is "what chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Batman did nothing.

He wanted to save the murderer at the LOS base. So by that reasoning, he should have wanted to save Ras as well.

[thecolorsblend]

Batman wanted Ras Al Ghul dead. If someone is getting bashed up and you can do something to stop it, but willingly choose to do nothing, you're condoning the violence. That's how I see it. One of the messages of Batman Begins is "what chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Batman did nothing.

He wanted to save the murderer at the LOS base. So by that reasoning, he should have wanted to save Ras as well.

I view the matter in a pretty similar way. If Batman intended to pull Ra's off the train, he would've pulled Ra's off the train. Batman makes a philosophical distinction between actively taking Ghul's life vs. passively taking it... but either way, he's still taking Ghul's life.

It does show Batman learning from his mistakes. He saved Ra's earlier in the movie and that ended up not being such a good idea. So in similar circumstances, he opted not to save him... but the end result is Ghul is just as dead as he would've been if Batman had personally throttled the life from his body.

Batman killed Ra's in Batman Begins. And the hell of it is I think he was right to do it. But I don't see why we can't all acknowledge that's what happened in Batman Begins.

[The Laughing Fish]

I view the matter in a pretty similar way. If Batman intended to pull Ra's off the train, he would've pulled Ra's off the train. Batman makes a philosophical distinction between actively taking Ghul's life vs. passively taking it... but either way, he's still taking Ghul's life.

It does show Batman learning from his mistakes. He saved Ra's earlier in the movie and that ended up not being such a good idea. So in similar circumstances, he opted not to save him... but the end result is Ghul is just as dead as he would've been if Batman had personally throttled the life from his body.

Batman killed Ra's in Batman Begins. And the hell of it is I think he was right to do it. But I don't see why we can't all acknowledge that's what happened in Batman Begins.

While I don't like BB by any means, I consider it as the lesser of the three evils, in the sense that Batman's actions actually saved Gotham. Yes, he was a hypocrite and a reckless buffoon. But the ends justified the means. His justification to kill Ra's for trying to eradicate the city made sense, which is the reason why this thread exists in the first place.

What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

Let's face it, the only reason the whole fake moral dilemma was forced in that movie was because Nolan wanted Batman to take the fall for Two-Face. If Batman was more consistent and honest about himself, he would've ran the Joker over with his Batpod, and the second half of the movie would never have happened (shame, the movie actually would've been salvaged otherwise).

And to think people say Zack Snyder is such a worthless director, but claim Nolan films is so much better. Absolute fools, I say.

[Travesty]

What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

Let's face it, the only reason the whole fake moral dilemma was forced in that movie was because Nolan wanted Batman to take the fall for Two-Face. If Batman was more consistent and honest about himself, he would've ran the Joker over with his Batpod, and the second half of the movie would never have happened (shame, the movie actually would've been salvaged otherwise).

And that's one reason why these movies are a bit irritating, at times. They keep contradicting themselves, and like you said, do so for plot conveniences. In BB he kills Ra's and a TON of LOS ninjas, but in TDK he keeps talking about his no-kill rule. Or in TDK, he wants to retire, and says Gotham needs a hero with a face, and then cut to TDKR, he tells Blake that he needs to wear a mask if he wants to be doing this hero stuff. In BB he says Gotham  needs to have a theatrical hero be a symbol, and then in TDK, he says that Harvey is more affective, cause he's the symbol he could never be(even though he could as Bruce Wayne). Or when he's talking about not using guns, but keeps using them on all of his vehicles, etc. And seriously, who trains for 7+ years, to then retiring in about a year?

And these are huge plot points for the character arcs, but they're constantly contradicting themselves with no explantation at all, other than to serve the plot of a particular movie.

[thecolorsblend]

What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

It's not usually any of my business to be a Nolan apologist.

But I'll say that the Joker's situation was different from Ra's. It wasn't possible to arrest Ra's. He was on the train and the police were all trapped in the Narrows. Ra's would never allow himself to be taken alive anyway. Batman made the best choice he could under those circumstances.

With the Joker, the police were already on the scene. To Batman's thinking, locking the Joker securely enough in the right room might be enough to permanently end his threat.

The other thing is that the Joker maybe doesn't WANT Batman to kill him... but would still regard it as a moral victory if Batman did kill him.

So in the short term, I can see where Batman might've thought allowing the Joker to live after TDK might've been the best idea. Not perfect but not terrible under the circumstances.