Try this one, Apple:
Originally posted by plawrence:
...As far as Fredo having been already "warned" by Michael against going against the family before goes, surely you are not comapred his publicly disagreeing with Michael with complicity in a possible assassination plot against him?
Surely you don't mean to imply that had Fredo publicly disgareed with Michael a second time, that that would have been grounds for his assassination?
Originally posted by AppleOnYa:
Yes to both.
Permit me to make a comparison here.
Sonny had a weakness. He allowed his temper to rule over his reason, and he spoke without thinking - to the detriment of the family - at least once that we know of.
Fredo had a weakness. He was stupid and gullible.
You suggest above that had Fredo's second transgression been similar to the his first - a public disagreement with Michael - that would have been justifiable grounds for killing him.
Well, how about Sonny?
He
had a second instance where his tendency to act or speak without fully thinking things through cost the family dearly:
With his beating of Carlo, (Carlo deserving it notwithstanding) he created an enemy
within the family, and by doing it out in the open he exposed a ch*nk in the Corleone armor which Barzini was able to exploit, and which ultimately led to his own (Sonny's) death.
So Sonny made two stupid mistakes which put the family at risk.
You argue above that a second stupid, yet simple, mistake, like disagreeing with Michael in public would have justified killing Fredo.
Did Sonny's two stupid, and considerably more serious, mistakes warrant his death as well?
