3478 réponses à ce sujet

[lucylips000]

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

Why is it that nobody likes TIM anyway?

I mean...that cigar.

I like T.I.M----if he turns out to be bad I'm joining his side.

[Yamo425]

I gave it to him. I figured even if they kill a ton of people and make a reaper, it would be to defend from the reaper invasion, which would be worse. I had second thoughts though when I saw the evil look on his face.

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Shandepared wrote...

Yet you speak with such authority. You might as well say that any business that at one time had an employee who was a serial killer could be accurately said to have funded their murderous activities. A tad underhanded, I think.

The United States funded, trained, and supplied guerilla's to fight the Soviet occupiers. In the following years some of those same rebels turned their knowledge towards terrorism, but the United States can't be held responsible for that. They (the US) gave money to the Pakestanis that may have found its way to Al-Qaeda members by virtue of the fact they were fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the United States however never directlly funded them.

I don't consider arguing against a twisting and stretching of the truth to be pedantic.

And yes the article implies Al-Qaeda may have been formed just prior to the war's end. However if you yourself want to call into doubt whether or not it actually exists then I don't know why you'd defend this claim.

II'm not disagreeing with you. It's just a nebulous issue overall - I mean, to Osama and his other Islamic extremist friends, they never (well, for obvious reasons I never asked them) make the distinction between their operations against the Soviets and the United States. They're just waging holy war. Furthermore, the wiki article (bearing in mind that it IS wiki) states that Al Qaeda became "official" in the dying years of the war, though for all likelihood they existed before then as an organization and just slowly started to be called/referred to themselves/by others as Al Qaeda.

But was there an organizational change when Al Qaeda became "official" in 1988? In practice, was there a significant difference in the idealogy/operational objectives of Osama's group in 1988 compared to 1984? Or 1982? etc. Or has it always been about carrying out their interpretation of the Koran against the enemies of Islam (basically, anyone who is NOT Islam)

The point is, nobody really knows except maybe Osama or some other high ranking Al Qaeda operatives. Which makes Wikipedia as good a source as any because it's all conjecture anyway, and IMO practically irrelevant - its not like Osama hates the U.S. because he was betrayed by them in 1988 or anything. He hates them because Western idealogy, culture, influence and virtues clash with his personal interpretation of the Koran.

Thus, IMO, the discussion of whether Al Qaeda existed back in the 80s has no practical relevance. Whether he was fighting the Soviets back then or the United States now, he is and always was an Islamic extremist. The only thing that changed was his enemy. Feel free to disagree.

And just because the United States never directly funded them doesn't mean they shouldn't be held responsible. There was no way the CIA could NOT have anticipated/predicted this outcome. Just because there a couple more steps to take before the result is reached does not absolve you, the party who set the wheels in motion, of responsibility if you are aware of the likely consequences of your actions.

Your analogy is a strawman - you use an ex-serial killer as an example. Well, Osama is not an ex-serial killer - in fact, at the time (1980s Soviet-occupied Afghanistan), it is probably more accurate to say that he is a person "at risk" for developing into a serial killer. Now, if you give that at-risk guy money to buy a gun, and you know he's at risk (arguable whether CIA knew or not, but I like to think they are not idiots) then you WILL be held responsible for his actions in a court of law.

That being said, I agree with the decision to fund the Afghani resistance in the 80s - a few billion dollars, a couple hundred civilian lives and some Stinger missiles is a small price to pay to screw with the Soviet Union...or force its economic collapse.

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 13 juillet 2010 - 07:16 .

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Wait, what does this have to do with the decision to keep/destroy the Collector Base? If it's because someone made the comparison between Al Qaeda and Cerberus/TIM, than that's a pretty poor parallel anyway. FML.

[tvih]

Some people also seem to forget that it was not Citadel Fleet vs Sovereign, it was Citadel Fleet vs Sovereign plus a big pile of Geth ships. Reapers are powerful, yes, but alone, or in small numbers, they are still vulnerable. Why do you think they have allies in the Geth and Collectors otherwise. As was also pointed out, the basis of their warfare tech is still quite similar to others, since their tach is the basis of organics' tech. So it just becomes mostly a matter of ship scale and numbers, especially after the recent tech improvements that are incorporated in the SR-2.



Of course, the biggest problem is that the Council wants to bury its head into the sand and disbelieve the Reapers' existence, so chances are we don't get to see the necessary numbers to take them on. Keeping the Collector base would not help with that at all, either. Maybe some of the intel gathered at the Collector base during the attack - whether you left it intact or not - could convince the Council, but I doubt it.



I just have to hope we don't end up with some silly Deux Ex Machina to solve it all in ME3

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Shandepared wrote...

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Well that's good. Let's get back on topic.

Keeping the Collector base is smart. I don't think TIM will share the gains with the other races directly, but humanity (or even just Cerberus) being able to field this tech against the Reapers will ultimately be to the benefit of everyone else. If we lose to the Reapers then we all lose so even one of us gaining advantage lowers the chances of a defeat. The base alone won't win the war, but it will most likely improve our odds. Even if you are concerned that Cerberus will botch the operation somehow then just let it be... after all they will be the ones taking the fall, and you hate them anyway, right?

If you blow up the base you gaurantee nothing of value can ever be learned from it.

If we forego meta-gaming there is every reason to believe the base could make the difference between winning or losing this war. It gives us a chance to better understand our enemy. Primarily it can teach us how they are built and how they operate, such knowledge could be used to develop the right tactics and technologies to help even the technological gap between us and the Reapers.

Another concern is if Cerberus alone were to keep it, would any useful tech be fielded in enough numbers to make a difference? Cerberus isn't a military - how many dreadnoughts/cruisers do they command?

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 13 juillet 2010 - 01:11 .

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

tvih wrote...

Some people also seem to forget that it was not Citadel Fleet vs Sovereign, it was Citadel Fleet vs Sovereign plus a big pile of Geth ships. Reapers are powerful, yes, but alone, or in small numbers, they are still vulnerable. Why do you think they have allies in the Geth and Collectors otherwise. As was also pointed out, the basis of their warfare tech is still quite similar to others, since their tach is the basis of organics' tech. So it just becomes mostly a matter of ship scale and numbers, especially after the recent tech improvements that are incorporated in the SR-2.

Of course, the biggest problem is that the Council wants to bury its head into the sand and disbelieve the Reapers' existence, so chances are we don't get to see the necessary numbers to take them on. Keeping the Collector base would not help with that at all, either. Maybe some of the intel gathered at the Collector base during the attack - whether you left it intact or not - could convince the Council, but I doubt it.

I just have to hope we don't end up with some silly Deux Ex Machina to solve it all in ME3

To be fair, all of the Geth warships appeared to be simply drop ships, unless I missed something. I don't remember seeing a Geth cruiser/dreadnought.

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

The Cerberus operation against the Collectors was led by Commander Shepherd commanding a small infiltration unit against a fixed military installation, that was considered a "suicide mission" - even if success was achieved, it was expected to be a one-way trip (and on the first playthroughs of many people their team did suffer casualties).

That same small team cannot possibly sustain those kinds of operations for very long. 

Furthermore, it doesn't seem that the Reapers have a base, or require any infrastructure/logistics to support their operations. They are semi-synthetic with no obvious requirement for food, and it seems that they have unlimited ammo (has there ever been a codex entry on warship weaponry ammunition? Seems like warships are still using the unlimited ammunition system of ME1).

And how would we find their precise locations, exactly? In ship-to-ship combat, finding enemy ships is like 90% of the battle from the codex entries. The Reapers could've stealth technology of their own, or maybe their massive ME cores allows them to jump around at FTL speeds much more frequently than our ships (which renders sensors useless).

What would Shepherd's team strike exactly?

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 13 juillet 2010 - 02:02 .

[mosor]

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

tvih wrote...

Some people also seem to forget that it was not Citadel Fleet vs Sovereign, it was Citadel Fleet vs Sovereign plus a big pile of Geth ships. Reapers are powerful, yes, but alone, or in small numbers, they are still vulnerable. Why do you think they have allies in the Geth and Collectors otherwise. As was also pointed out, the basis of their warfare tech is still quite similar to others, since their tach is the basis of organics' tech. So it just becomes mostly a matter of ship scale and numbers, especially after the recent tech improvements that are incorporated in the SR-2.

Of course, the biggest problem is that the Council wants to bury its head into the sand and disbelieve the Reapers' existence, so chances are we don't get to see the necessary numbers to take them on. Keeping the Collector base would not help with that at all, either. Maybe some of the intel gathered at the Collector base during the attack - whether you left it intact or not - could convince the Council, but I doubt it.

I just have to hope we don't end up with some silly Deux Ex Machina to solve it all in ME3

To be fair, all of the Geth warships appeared to be simply drop ships, unless I missed something. I don't remember seeing a Geth cruiser/dreadnought.

Maybe geth ships have the same design. It was missiles from geth ships that took out most of the turian cruisers and the destiny ascension, not sovereign. In the cutscence in the final battle, sovereign is just shown to ram one cruiser. All the other casualties must have been from the geth,

[lucylips000]

I kept the Collector base.

[Asheer_Khan]

Geth ships are universal type so they can perform landing operations as drop ships but as well they can be used as attack ships.



Sovieregin was able to inflict some damages in final part of the game when Alliance and Citadel ships swarm over him, but major casualties in early stage of the battle (including destruction of DA scenario) were made by Geth ships.

[Sniper11709]

Can i just point out that cut scenes are the worst things to take as canon in the ME games. In the Mass Effect universe cut scenes are only loosely related to the canon.

Examples of this would be Sovereign very obviously using a beam weapon but in ME2 that is retconned to be an unknown form of mass driver, and then the cut scene for the destruction of the collector cruiser has the Normandy firing said weapon as yet another form of beam. The Geth firing missiles is also very much a non canon thing, only fighters carry missile/torpedos with everyone else firing mass drivers. If the geth weapons were missiles then the DAs point defense lasers would have taken them out.

Modifié par Sniper11709, 13 juillet 2010 - 08:54 .

[FourSixEight]

Shandepared wrote...

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

I'm not disagreeing with you.

If we forego meta-gaming there is every reason to believe the base could make the difference between winning or losing this war. It gives us a chance to better understand our enemy. Primarily it can teach us how they are built and how they operate, such knowledge could be used to develop the right tactics and technologies to help even the technological gap between us and the Reapers.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. Meta-gaming would be if you went back and re-did the suicide mission so nobody died. What we're doing is just guessing. Neither decision is unreasonable in-character.

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

Sniper11709 wrote...

Can i just point out that cut scenes are the worst things to take as canon in the ME games. In the Mass Effect universe cut scenes are only loosely related to the canon.

Examples of this would be Sovereign very obviously using a beam weapon but in ME2 that is retconned to be an unknown form of mass driver, and then the cut scene for the destruction of the collector cruiser has the Normandy firing said weapon as yet another form of beam. The Geth friing missiles is also very much a non canon thing, only fighters carry missile/torpedos with everyone else firing mass drivers. If the geth weapons were missiles then the DAs point defense lasers would have taken them out.

I agree. Other inconsistencies in their space combat cutscenes is the fact that if these beam weapons were mass-driver type weapons firing streams of molten slugs (as described), then it is not possible for the the Collector cruiser to "aim" its cannon at the Normandy (in many cutscenes) without manuevering the entire ship.

i.e. You can see the weapon's beam/laser in many cut scenes "following" or tracking the Normandy, while the cruiser just sits there pointed in one direction. This is consistent with a laser weapon, not a mass driver type weapon.

As for the universal Geth ship design...the crashed Geth warship in the Overlord expansion looks nothing like a Geth dropship - it was way bigger.

Modifié par V0luS_R0cKs7aR, 13 juillet 2010 - 03:12 .

[V0luS_R0cKs7aR]

In case anyone missed that codex entry, mass driver type weapons must fire in the direction the ship is pointing because the slug accelerators run along the length of the ship. The longer the accelerators, the more powerful the slug. The codex states that dreadnoughts were basically designed around one massive mass driver that runs the length of the entire ship.



Also why these large weapons are ineffective at close range, as they require the ship to maneuver and point its nose at the enemy. There are smaller mass driver type weapons, but again, length of barrel/accelerator is proportional to projectile destructive power.

[Mecha Tengu]

V0luS_R0cKs7aR wrote...

Wait, what does this have to do with the decision to keep/destroy the Collector Base? If it's because someone made the comparison between Al Qaeda and Cerberus/TIM, than that's a pretty poor parallel anyway. FML.

lol I started when when comparing giving cerberus a base is similar to giving terrorists more weapons.

The united states funded millitant groups in afganhistan to fight the soviets. Now with the soviets gone, the terrorist group is now trouble to the united states. If we give cerberus the base now, they may use it to fight the common enemy, but what happens after?

[Giggles_Manically]

No point in arguing any of this:

Human Supremasicits think that genocide, murder, torture, and war crimes are ok since its not anybody we now who gets killed. When ME3 comes out and cerberus does stab you in the back I will laugh when posts go up saying "Bioware hates Renegades!" or "Cerberus is right!" or even " GAME IS BROKEN" show up.

[Sniper11709]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

No point in arguing any of this:
Human Supremasicits think that genocide, murder, torture, and war crimes are ok since its not anybody we now who gets killed. When ME3 comes out and cerberus does stab you in the back I will laugh when posts go up saying "Bioware hates Renegades!" or "Cerberus is right!" or even " GAME IS BROKEN" show up.

I'm sorry have you not been following the ME storyline closely enough, all the major factions in Mass Effect have skeletons in their closets.

War Crimes? In the ME universe where the primary power in the universe commited genocide (as far as they knew, dosen't matter that it didn't happen just that they thought they had) by uplifting a race and then attempting it again by hitting them with a bioweapon when their interests didn't align anymore i doubt anyone can really claim someone has commited war crimes.

Torture? Come on how naive are you, it's the ME universe i bet every faction has no qualms getting their information that way.

Genocide? I thought you were talking about Cerberus not the Council.

Having just spent the last minute typing this up i realized something, your a troll why am i bothering?

[Giggles_Manically]

Sniper11709 wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

No point in arguing any of this:
Human Supremasicits think that genocide, murder, torture, and war crimes are ok since its not anybody we now who gets killed. When ME3 comes out and cerberus does stab you in the back I will laugh when posts go up saying "Bioware hates Renegades!" or "Cerberus is right!" or even " GAME IS BROKEN" show up.

I'm sorry have you not been following the ME storyline closely enough, all the major factions in Mass Effect have skeletons in their closets.
War Crimes? In the ME universe where the primary power in the universe commited genocide (as far as they knew, dosen't matter that it didn't happen just that they thought they had) by uplifting a race and then attempting it again by hitting them with a bioweapon when their interests didn't align anymore i doubt anyone can really claim someone has commited war crimes.
Torture? Come on how naive are you, it's the ME universe i bet every faction has no qualms getting their information that way.
Genocide? I thought you were talking about Cerberus not the Council.
Having just spent the last minute typing this up i realized something, your a troll why am i bothering?

First things first, I was refering to people saying that since Cerberus is "saving:" humanity, anything they do is justified.
Secondly, I full well realize just what people in ME did before and still do (Genophage/Rachni) I was merely pointing out the humor in people saying "The Ends Justify any Means, since we is humans"
Thirdly- A troll is a person whos posts a  topic  to inicite an emotional and angry response. I was merely pointing out a humerous observation that people seem to be blind to what cerberus is, and will be angry when ME3 comes out.

Modifié par Giggles_Manically, 13 juillet 2010 - 11:17 .

[bobdouglas1982]

I blow it up almost everytime depanding if I am going paragon or renegade you don't know the long term effects it could have over you it might evn cause indoctrination over time. Even with everything dead in it could still be dangers lets not forget the derelict Reaper. The facts are you cant be 100% sure if it is safe and dicide to use and you wrong who knows what the consequences could be so to me it is not worth the risks