Bit late to the discussion, but on the other side of the equation: the first thing Mustang says: "That man is an Ishvalan survivor. In a sense, his revenge is justified." So it's not like the narrative unequivocally condemns Scar.

Ed disagrees because he and Al were attacked, as well as Nina, but I don't think we're necessarily meant to agree with him. Certainly, in the story as a whole it's Mustang and Hawkeye who are the most clear-eyed about their roles and culpability on the side of the perpetrators. And Ed sounds like an angry child here.

The way I see the narrative depicting this issue: it says Scar's revenge is justified to some extent, but his crusade will end up killing the innocent as well as the guilty whether he wills it or not, as exemplified by Winry's parents, and thereby will only feed the circle of hate. Scar turns from his path of revenge because of the examples given him by his brother and his former mentor and very importantly Winry, who does not forgive him but nonetheless stops the cycle of revenge. And yes, Miles' showing him another path to take is the final step in this journey, although I'd say it's by no means the most important one.

You've a point that Miles' part of the story has some issues and pretty much tries to show us a false equivalence between Miles and Scar, since Scar never had the luxury of walking Miles' path. Shame, I liked the story (and Miles' character) more before I read your post, but well. Live and learn. Still, I don't think this undermines the story of the Ishvalan genocide completely.

I do dislike Ed's attitude towards Scar though.

In the dub at least he says it. I doubt the translation is that far off.

Ed: "I don't understand. We were told all soldiers from Ishval were purged before the extermination."

Miles: "It's true that Ishvalan blood flows in my veins, but my father and my grandfather were not from that region. They were a... different race. My eyes are Ishvalan, though. My grandfather's blood runs strong."

Perhaps he'd have been killed anyway without Olivier's support, because he looks pretty much Ishvalan. But it seems quite clear that he was spared because he was of mixed parentage.

Heh, true. I actually dislike Ed for much the same reasons I dislike Olivier. I simply couldn't be in the same room with him for more than 30 minutes before I'd run away screaming.

Mustang's alright though.

Gunaxf!

Naq lrnu, vg'f dhvgr cbffvoyr Zhfgnat jbhyq chg ure va punetr bs nezvrf vs ur orpnzr cerfvqrag. Byvivre vf dhvgr qvfzvffvir bs uvz, ohg abg ivpr irefn. Naq Nzrfgevf unf n ybg bs rarzvrf gung jvyy cebonoyl gel gb gnxr nqinagntr bs gurve pvivy qvfgheonaprf sbyybjvat Oenqyrl'f snyy, fb ur'yy arrq ure.

Zhfgnat vf na vqrnyvfg jub lrg unf cyragl bs phaavat naq n ehguyrff fgernx orfvqrf. Ur'f orra cercnevat sbe gur wbo sbe lrnef naq unf n fgebat ivfvba sbe gur pbhagel. Zber vzcbegnagyl, ur unf Unjxrlr. Frrzf yvxr n erpvcr sbe fhpprff.

Byvivre Nezfgebat frrzf yvxr fur'q or n greevoyr cbyvgvpvna. Fur'q nyjnlf vzcbfr ure jvyy guebhtu sbepr naq jbhyqa'g pner jubz fur jnf cvffvat bss. Naq juvyr fur'f abg n onq crefba, fur'f rkprrqvatyl ehguyrff naq qbrfa'g frrz gb pner zhpu nobhg pbyyngreny qnzntr. Fur jnagf gb or va punetr, ohg jr unir ab vqrn jung fur jnagf gung cbjre sbe. Sbe vgf bja fnxr? Sbe gur zvyvgnel'f orarsvg?

Fur qbrf unir Zvyrf gb or ure ibvpr bs ernfba, ohg V qba'g guvax Zvyrf unf arneyl nf zhpu vasyhrapr ba ure nf Unjxrlr qbrf ba Zhfgnat.

Jr xabj Zhfgnat vagraqf gb nobyvfu zvyvgnel qvpgngbefuvc naq ervafgngr qrzbpenpl. (Naq Unjxrlr jvyy fubbg uvz vs ur qbrfa'g sbyybj guebhtu jvgu guvf.) Fbzrubj, V qba'g frr Nezfgebat qbvat guvf.

Frrzf n cerggl rnfl pubvpr gb zr. V xabj juvpu bs gurfr V'q jnag qrsraqvat zl obeqref, naq juvpu bar V'q jnag yrnqvat zl pbhagel.

Gura ntnva, V yvxr Zhfgnat zhpu orggre guna Byvivre Nezfgebat fb V'z fbzrjung ovnfrq.

So, is there anybody else who does -NOT- like Olivier Armstrong?

She seems like a caricature of the badass officer to me and just doesn't seem to have much depth to her at all.

Now, it is fun that they flipped the gender on that stereotype and made her a very traditionally beautiful and feminine appearing woman on top of that, without sacrificing one iota of that intimidating badass nature. Naq fur qbrf unir fbzr gehyl njrfbzr fprarf naq yvarf yngre ba. Gurl'ir orra dhbgrq nyernql.

But I a] don't like her as a person, and b] don't find her that interesting or complex as a character.

Anyone else?

Ed claimed to be an atheist back in episode 3. Which had a rather... less-than-subtle evil religious figure as a villain. That episode certainly was all about Ed being right and Rose being wrong.

Moreover, Bradley's evil doesn't seem to be linked to his atheism in any way. He's a genocidal bastard who doesn't believe in anything, including god. But it's not like he's specifically oppressing religious people or anything. To me, this moment read more like this general disgust with humanity and everything they represent and all their silly ideals rather than a specific religious message. (See also: His discussions with Ling.)

So all in all I do not think FMA is a particularly egregious offender on this count.

Agreed with your other points, though. I do not ship characters, as a rule. But these two are the exception.

Hm. On the one hand, I don't think FMA particularly needs a sequel, even of the Korra kind. I don't find the setting -that- interesting compared to the characters.

On the other...

It'd mean we'd get to see more GENERATIONS of Armstrongs.

Yeah, I know. And I agree.

Except, paradoxically, the very reason I love these characters so much I do not want to see them hurt or punished is that they are actively trying to bring about that punishment. If they weren't doing that, I'd think they deserve it. So uh... yeah. I'm conflicted, to say the least.

I think that in the end I like Frobor's (spoilered) headcanon earlier in the thread best.

Roy and Riza plan to change their country so that what happened in Ishval can't happen again. And to do that, they need to make sure that the power is not in the hands of military dictators.

If Roy seized power in order to be a "benevolent" dictator and kept ruling that way... well, you know the saying about power corrupting. But more importantly it wouldn't really achieve that goal. What would happen in the long term, after his death? Who could seize power from him in turn?

Roy and Riza know they need to change the institutions of the country. They can't afford to take half measures. They can't afford favouritism or attempts to save their own skin "for the greater good" or any such hypocrisy. Only once there is a government in place that has the power and the authority to judge people like them, to judge even former Fuhrers, only then will everybody be protected from people like Bradley. And from people like Roy and Riza.

As for how they and people like them should be judged, that would be for the war-crimes tribunals to decide. But the whole point of it is that Roy and Riza know they do not get to pass judgement on their own crimes. They have to be judged.

In the end, they aren't doing this to protect a handful of their friends or their subordinate soldiers. Roy and Riza want to protect everybody in the country, and especially those like the Ishvalans. And for that, they need to make Amestris into a country that does not tolerate war-crimes. Not even their own.

(But yeah, this episode... heavy stuff. What does it say about this show that the episode I came to love Riza is the same episode that shows her gunning down the innocent? An amazing character, though. And an amazing episode.)