Irina: Good Or Evil?
- Thread starter Azhria Lilu
- Start date
I think that she is just trying to prove herself a whole bunch to get Syd to completely trust her. Then she's gonna turn. Like use Syd and Vaughn's feelings or something, but I am convinced that she is evil. And I know I said that already but man, I seem to be the only one who thinks that.
IluvVaughn13
Vaughnster's Girl
ITS REALLY HARD TO TELL IF IRINA IS GOOD OR BAD. bUT YOU CAN TELL SHE IS TRYING TO GET A BETTER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HER AND SYDNEY. ITS GREAT WHEN YOU SEE THEM HUG. A MOTHER DAUGHTER MOMENT. i THINK SHE IS REALLY TRYING TO HELP THE CIA WITH WHATEVER THEY NEED. I HOPE IT TURNS OUT GOOD.
zazalias04
Cadet
All of my friends who also watch and are in love/obsessed with Alias think that Irina Derevko is totally clean and is only looking to make peace with Jack and Sydney Bristow, but there is something so very underlyingly evil about her appearance. I urge all of you out there just to look at how she acts around Sydney and Jack and everyone around her...
clarissima
Cadet
I don't care if she is good or evil. I just want to be her, she's so cool.
AliasRules
Cadet
I agree with what Jack said on the show, that she may be plotting a long term scheme.
twinzz2003
Cadet
This is one poll I'm not sure on!! I voted that I wasn't sure because Irina has done so many bad things ( including killing Vaughn's dad!), but she seems to want to be friends with her daughter. She seems so innocent on the show, but then when she smiles that evil smile (like at the end of Trust Me) she looks like the devil! :redhair:
jason bourne
Cadet
I am confident that she will turn out to be good.
Okay, so she may have killed dozens and dozens of people. Maybe even innocent people. And she may have lied and betrayed even Sydney and Jack. Yes, she manipulated and schemed but I think that for a woman in that kind of job and living a life where survival is the priority, it justifies her actions.
She's good in the sense that she loves Sydney and Jack so much she would do anything she thinks is best: lie, kill, betray, manipulate...for their ultimate good.
Okay, so she may have killed dozens and dozens of people. Maybe even innocent people. And she may have lied and betrayed even Sydney and Jack. Yes, she manipulated and schemed but I think that for a woman in that kind of job and living a life where survival is the priority, it justifies her actions.
She's good in the sense that she loves Sydney and Jack so much she would do anything she thinks is best: lie, kill, betray, manipulate...for their ultimate good.
V
verdantheart
Guest
All right.
1) Right now we have no evidence that Irina is still working for her country. She appears to be freelance. It is possible that she is working under deep cover, but that is an assumption we should not make without supporting evidence.
2) We have seen Sydney sometimes and Jack more often resort to lethal means during the course of their work. However, lethal means are not their means of choice. You see them tranq the bad guys when they can, sometimes risking their mission and their lives because of it. It's when they must defend their lives that they must resort to lethal force.* For Irina, lethal means are the means of choice. They are, after all, the more expedient and sure means, aren't they? I've seen it argued that Irina is old school, this is how she was trained. Well, she's also a very intelligent woman, not some robot who can't adapt. She was exposed to Jack and other ways of thinking for an extended period of time. Are you saying she's incapable or learning? Nothing is forcing her to continue to act in this way and yet she does. Jack's life, Sydney's life may be meaningful to her, but others are meaningless and expendable. This does not make her "good" by any definition that I'm familiar with.
3) Her behavior in undermining Jack's trust as his wife can be debated. I first find it impossible to imagine that Jack would have ever agreed to undertake such a mission and use another person in that way if their roles had been reversed. Then let's picture them getting married and Irina falling in love with Jack. What's more important? Her responsibility to her love, or to her country? I'd go with love every time--good thing I'm not in the CIA, huh? Our evidence shows that Irina went with country--or her own agenda. Whether this behavior is "good" or not depends on your viewpoint. Do you think Elsa Caplan or Irina Derevko made the better choice?
4) Irina walks in to use Sydney and Jack to obtain intel, gather the Rambaldi parts for the Telling, and finally escape. Oh, right, she just walked in to help Sydney, uh huh . . . She could have manipulated the CIA, they seemed willing enough, but she went straight for the easiest target--until Jack made himself look even easier (sorry, didn't mean it that way . . . ^_^ ). She seems awfully willing to hurt the ones she loves to further her own ends. "Justified" or not (and we have to make assumptions there), is this "good"?
5) No matter how you slice it, you have to make some huge assumptions that her ultimate ends somehow "justify" her questionable means. Here we get into a "do the ends justify the means?" discussion wherein the means get pretty darn Third-Reichean. We don't know what Irina's ends are. Are they "good"? Or will she become, in fact, the "highest power"? And if her ends are so good, why can't she share them with Jack (and now Sydney)? She might call Jack "idiot," but she knows that he's a more than capable agent. With him on her side, she'd be unstoppable--so why does she insist on keeping him on the other side if her reasons are so compelling? Surely he'd understand and help her. If her reasons are so good, then there are few reasons indeed that would explain why she would hide the facts from the man she loves most and her own daughter--both of whom could swing the tide so far in her favor. I can imagine one or two possibilities, but there is almost nothing that makes any sense.
So, what I'm saying is, yeah, sure, it's possible, but only barely, and with a great deal of 'splainin'--and it better be good, fellas! I don't want to see something 10 times worse than this whole boring Lauren-is-evil (yawn! darn, I expected that) thing . . .
* Jack's comments to Vaughn indicate that he may have had to, in fact, carry out some of Sloane's assassination orders. The circumstances of these and upon how many occasions this would have occurred, we do not know. Sydney was forced to kill the "unimportant man" in cold blood--a sort of self-defense assassination, one could live or both could die. Jack's undertaking was a little different--he went in with his eyes open--but the likelihood was that any target that he didn't save would be a criminal. But does that make it "right"? And why was he working for Sloane, anyway? My guess--trace it back to Sydney/Irina/Sloane. He didn't see a lot of choice. Can't debate the murky question of whose assassinations would be "eviller."
1) Right now we have no evidence that Irina is still working for her country. She appears to be freelance. It is possible that she is working under deep cover, but that is an assumption we should not make without supporting evidence.
2) We have seen Sydney sometimes and Jack more often resort to lethal means during the course of their work. However, lethal means are not their means of choice. You see them tranq the bad guys when they can, sometimes risking their mission and their lives because of it. It's when they must defend their lives that they must resort to lethal force.* For Irina, lethal means are the means of choice. They are, after all, the more expedient and sure means, aren't they? I've seen it argued that Irina is old school, this is how she was trained. Well, she's also a very intelligent woman, not some robot who can't adapt. She was exposed to Jack and other ways of thinking for an extended period of time. Are you saying she's incapable or learning? Nothing is forcing her to continue to act in this way and yet she does. Jack's life, Sydney's life may be meaningful to her, but others are meaningless and expendable. This does not make her "good" by any definition that I'm familiar with.
3) Her behavior in undermining Jack's trust as his wife can be debated. I first find it impossible to imagine that Jack would have ever agreed to undertake such a mission and use another person in that way if their roles had been reversed. Then let's picture them getting married and Irina falling in love with Jack. What's more important? Her responsibility to her love, or to her country? I'd go with love every time--good thing I'm not in the CIA, huh? Our evidence shows that Irina went with country--or her own agenda. Whether this behavior is "good" or not depends on your viewpoint. Do you think Elsa Caplan or Irina Derevko made the better choice?
4) Irina walks in to use Sydney and Jack to obtain intel, gather the Rambaldi parts for the Telling, and finally escape. Oh, right, she just walked in to help Sydney, uh huh . . . She could have manipulated the CIA, they seemed willing enough, but she went straight for the easiest target--until Jack made himself look even easier (sorry, didn't mean it that way . . . ^_^ ). She seems awfully willing to hurt the ones she loves to further her own ends. "Justified" or not (and we have to make assumptions there), is this "good"?
5) No matter how you slice it, you have to make some huge assumptions that her ultimate ends somehow "justify" her questionable means. Here we get into a "do the ends justify the means?" discussion wherein the means get pretty darn Third-Reichean. We don't know what Irina's ends are. Are they "good"? Or will she become, in fact, the "highest power"? And if her ends are so good, why can't she share them with Jack (and now Sydney)? She might call Jack "idiot," but she knows that he's a more than capable agent. With him on her side, she'd be unstoppable--so why does she insist on keeping him on the other side if her reasons are so compelling? Surely he'd understand and help her. If her reasons are so good, then there are few reasons indeed that would explain why she would hide the facts from the man she loves most and her own daughter--both of whom could swing the tide so far in her favor. I can imagine one or two possibilities, but there is almost nothing that makes any sense.
So, what I'm saying is, yeah, sure, it's possible, but only barely, and with a great deal of 'splainin'--and it better be good, fellas! I don't want to see something 10 times worse than this whole boring Lauren-is-evil (yawn! darn, I expected that) thing . . .
* Jack's comments to Vaughn indicate that he may have had to, in fact, carry out some of Sloane's assassination orders. The circumstances of these and upon how many occasions this would have occurred, we do not know. Sydney was forced to kill the "unimportant man" in cold blood--a sort of self-defense assassination, one could live or both could die. Jack's undertaking was a little different--he went in with his eyes open--but the likelihood was that any target that he didn't save would be a criminal. But does that make it "right"? And why was he working for Sloane, anyway? My guess--trace it back to Sydney/Irina/Sloane. He didn't see a lot of choice. Can't debate the murky question of whose assassinations would be "eviller."
alias_freak69
Cadet
i would rather her EVIK *evil grin* *walks out laughing*
Irina is a survivor. She deals with the task at hand in a cold a calculating manner. There is no good or evil in her thought process only completion. For your own safety it would be best to view her as evil and stay out of her way. When around her don't draw any attention to yourself. Try to be invisible. The less she knows about you the better.
