231 réponses à ce sujet

[krimesh]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
As a pragmaticist, my ethics find many of the arguments against the base to be short sighted, and arguments of the dangers of the Illusive Man versus the Reapers to be repugnant.

As a pragmatist, can you answer this: looking back at Cerberus operations from ME1 through ME2 and Retribution, isn't it amazing how many went awry? Independently, looking back at all known attempts to use Reaper tech, how well did that work out? A lot of disasters their too. The Thanix cannon and the Reaper IFF are the only two that ever worked; the former was inspired by a reaper which was turned into a rain of scrap metal prior to analysis; the latter cost the lives of a hole Cerberus team, took Shepard (a unique asset) to extract, caused the Normandy to lose her crew and nearly got the Ship blown away, before it could be put to use - and in all that the enemy was a DEAD reaper.

Given this history of both, Cerberus and Reaper tech, in addition to the fact that the Reapers, while denied direct access to the galaxy, are intent on gaining a foothold inside the relay-network (as we know from Retribution),
what exactly makes you think that sending a team of researchers into collector base will work out fine?

Somehow I do think that there might be indoctrination technology on board collector base. And this time the Reaper are watching closely. What will stop them from turning a team of researchers into servants, just as happened on the Derelict Reaper. Only this time they will have purpose and be under Reaper control, just as Grayson was.

By not destroying collector base you might gain valuable insight, or else you might hand the Reapers a great opportunity. I'd say that there is a lot of evidence that the latter outcome is a lot more likely.

[Giggles_Manically]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Many people probably destroy it simply because its a game and they know they can still win the game without it. I'd really like to see Bioware slap people in the face with this, either total failure or something the size and importance of earth gets taken out.

Considering in both DA and ME the eviler options tend to bite you in the ass, while the naive and bunnies option always comes off nicely, its a pain.

I dont think the descion will result in a win/loss option, merely a slightly different quest line that ends with the Reapers dying.

[Count Viceroy]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I dont think the descion will result in a win/loss option, merely a slightly different quest line that ends with the Reapers dying.

Whatever they do, it should have impact, not another "save/kill a council that will hate you regardless and gets relegated to a minor cameo"

That choice turned out to be friggin pointless.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 22 août 2010 - 02:44 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I dont think the descion will result in a win/loss option, merely a slightly different quest line that ends with the Reapers dying.

Whatever they do, it should have impact, not another "save/kill a council that will hate you regardless and gets relegated to a minor cameo"

That choice turned out to be friggin pointless.

Hopefully all the talk the choices will matter in 3 is not just talk.
Although with all the PS3 players not getting ME1, i doubt part 1 will have any major effect now.

[krimesh]

Count Viceroy wrote...

Many people probably destroy it simply because its a game and they know they can still win the game without it. I'd really like to see Bioware slap people in the face with this, either total failure or something the size and importance of earth gets taken out.

In the post before this one, I explained why I think collector base occupation might backfire, but you are certainly right about people destroying it simply because they think that they can win anyway. Were the situation real, fewer would choose to destroy the base.
But given that in ME you have an advantage of playing either paragon or renegade, destroyed collector bases are more likely to coincide with strengthened Geth, saved Rachni etc. So the renegade would have better tech and the paragon would have a lot more allies in ME3. In ME2 you can have the optimal result, i.e everyone alive after the mission, no matter if you choose renegade or paragon, so it is reasonable to assume the same for ME3; but no one really doubted that I think.

Modifié par krimesh, 22 août 2010 - 02:50 .

[Count Viceroy]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Count Viceroy wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I
dont think the descion will result in a win/loss option, merely a
slightly different quest line that ends with the Reapers dying.

Whatever
they do, it should have impact, not another "save/kill a council that
will hate you regardless and gets relegated to a minor cameo"

That choice turned out to be friggin pointless.

Hopefully all the talk the choices will matter in 3 is not just talk.
Although with all the PS3 players not getting ME1, i doubt part 1 will have any major effect now.

Well, they explicitly said it would, somewhere recent. I belive ps3 users will get to make all the decisions in their extra content, probably a shortened version of ME1. I'm just not seeing anything major decision made in Me1 and could have relevance. Though I suppose the council will have a bigger role in Me3 so that might be one. Rachni as well. Krogans, killing vrex or not.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 22 août 2010 - 02:49 .

[Count Viceroy]

krimesh wrote...

Count Viceroy wrote...

Many people probably destroy it simply because its a game and they know they can still win the game without it. I'd really like to see Bioware slap people in the face with this, either total failure or something the size and importance of earth gets taken out.

In the post before this one, I explained why I think collector base occupation might backfire, but you are certainly right about people destroying it simply because they think that they can win anyway. Were the situation real, fewer would choose to destroy the base.
But given that in ME you have an advantage of playing either paragon or renegade, destroyed collector bases are more likely to coincide with strengthened Geth, saved Rachni etc. So the renegade would have better tech and the paragon would have a lot more allies in ME3. In ME2 you can have the optimal result, i.e everyone alive after the mission, no matter if you choose renegade or paragon, so it is reasonable to assume the same for ME3; but no one really doubted that I think.

If thats the case, I'll neither have allies nor tech then. I'm so ****ed 

[krimesh]

Would they really do this though? There being the possibility of not being able to win or to survive or save your friends, no matter what you do in ME3, based on your decisions in ME1&2? Would be sorta realistic, but imagine the whining...

Modifié par krimesh, 22 août 2010 - 02:59 .

[Aradace]

I have yet to partake in reading Retribution but I can already tell you this:



I dont care if cerberus committed genocide....I refuse to allign myself with the Alliance in ME3 if I have that choice simply because I just dont like the Alliance. Now, if I have "secret option C" where I can choose to side with neither one of them, then THAT will be the option I'd choose. Because both "factions" have their faults and for me, I'd rather side with Cerberus than the Alliance under ANY circumstance.



The mission in ME2 where you get the agent data? Yea, that always goes to my personal file or cerberus but never the alliance. And the mission where you only have one kill switch to stop one of the missles? Yea, I always choose saving the colony....Not because I want to save all those people, but because it's a direct spit in the Alliance's face IMO lol. Sure, Im giving up probably the chance on some cool "upgrades" or a line or two of dialog in ME3 but you know what? It'll be so worth it .

[Giggles_Manically]

krimesh wrote...

Would they really do this though? There being the possibility of not being able to win or to survive or save your friends, no matter what you do in ME3, based on your decisions in ME1&2? Would be sorta realistic, but imagine the whining...

I doubt Bioware is even going to put in a you lose option in game. Most likely it will copy the end of Dragon Age, where you gather an army, and fight a titanic battle up to the last boss, to win.

[Asheer_Khan]

I really wish that pro cerberus activist would stop spread this "reapers will wipe out entire life in galaxy" nonsense to justyfy every ceberus deeds...



Reapers will NOT wipe out all life because that would be absolute counterproductive for them and actually threat for thier own existence... and cycle would end at first harvest since there will be no life in galaxy to replace what was destroyed during such harvest.



From my perspective for pro cerberus faction reapers are more boogey man used to hide behind them everything in cerberus activity what in normal circumstances would be inacceptable.



Beside Reapers are NOT so immediate disaster as many of you try to present because after plan to access Milky Way via Citadel relay fail they are forced to travel using own engines and that's mean depleting (i think already low) fuel reserves so they can't haste because it could turn out that in moment they will reach outskirts of MW they will run out of fuel.



It's very possible that they will reach MW in about two or three decades if not later UNLESS they will find a way to speed up thier travel without risking fuel reserves.



Harbinger already known that Reapers greatest trumpf card aka Element of Surprise is already gone and more and more part of the galaxy become aware of incoming threat and in the end worst fear of the reapers (according to Vigil) in form of united against them galaxy can become very possible scenario.

[Count Viceroy]

krimesh wrote...

Would they really do this though? There being the possibility of not being able to win or to survive or save your friends, no matter what you do in ME3, based on your decisions in ME1&2? Would be sorta realistic, but imagine the whining...

No way they'd do that. You still want newcomers to be able to pick up me3 and play that stand alone and win properly. I'd like to see proper dire consequences though. Sort of like morrigan leaving. I want people to think, damnit, I should have saved/destroyed the base.

Modifié par Count Viceroy, 22 août 2010 - 03:05 .

[krimesh]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I doubt Bioware is even going to put in a you lose option in game. Most likely it will copy the end of Dragon Age, where you gather an army, and fight a titanic battle up to the last boss, to win.

Actually I read somewhere that ME3 story was easier to write, because they simply let the game diverge in all directions, depending on the player choices... So I am optimistic about ME1&2 decisions mattering in ME3.

[Giggles_Manically]

I would like to see consequences too, but since EA wants people to be able to drop in, in the last act for some reason I dont believe we will see anything cool from ME1 or 2.

[Dean_the_Young]

krimesh wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
As a pragmaticist, my ethics find many of the arguments against the base to be short sighted, and arguments of the dangers of the Illusive Man versus the Reapers to be repugnant.

As a pragmatist, can you answer this: looking back at Cerberus operations from ME1 through ME2 and Retribution, isn't it amazing how many went awry? Independently, looking back at all known attempts to use Reaper tech, how well did that work out? A lot of disasters their too. The Thanix cannon and the Reaper IFF are the only two that ever worked; the former was inspired by a reaper which was turned into a rain of scrap metal prior to analysis; the latter cost the lives of a hole Cerberus team, took Shepard (a unique asset) to extract, caused the Normandy to lose her crew and nearly got the Ship blown away, before it could be put to use - and in all that the enemy was a DEAD reaper.

As a pragmatist, I also recognize your presumption is bunk. It's equivalent logic to saying that because policemen mainly deal with criminals, all people are criminals. Shepard runs into the failed projects because of the nature of the game (only see the problems) and the nature of covert agencies (successes/non-disasters never get discovered). If I were to disparige everyone I've had to help and rule them as incompetent, I would be a very lonely Shepard without any loyal crew members and no support from anyone else. No Council, no Cerberus, no anyone I ever was on a team with.

Saying everything failed but Thanix and Reaper IFF (and let's not forget EDI) is like saying all attempts at flight before the baloon and airplane failed. True as it may (and probably isn't in this case) be, it does not mean the benefits do not far outweigh the failures. You could not have beaten the Collectors without the IFF or EDI, and you could not have done so as easily/well/likely without the Thannix.

Given this history of both, Cerberus and Reaper tech, in addition to the fact that the Reapers, while denied direct access to the galaxy, are intent on gaining a foothold inside the relay-network (as we know from Retribution),
what exactly makes you think that sending a team of researchers into collector base will work out fine?

If there was an indoctrination threat (something invented by the opposers post-game) and it cost Cerberus lives to get something equivalent to the Reaper IFF... that would still be an amazing deal.

Somehow I do think that there might be indoctrination technology on board collector base. And this time the Reaper are watching closely. What will stop them from turning a team of researchers into servants, just as happened on the Derelict Reaper. Only this time they will have purpose and be under Reaper control, just as Grayson was.

Indotrination technology is one reason to keep the base. If you don't study it now, you'll never have any hope of a block/guard to it when the Reapers arrive, at which point it will be an existenal threat, not a nuisance that costs the lives of a Cerberus team.

By not destroying collector base you might gain valuable insight, or else you might hand the Reapers a great opportunity. I'd say that there is a lot of evidence that the latter outcome is a lot more likely.

What great opportunity? The Reapers don't have a Collector General through which to access the base. By the time any Cerberus people are indoctrinated (if they stayed there permanently, as opposed to rotating or sending in non-organic means to disable the indoctrination device) to do something they really don't want to, all they're good for is Husk fodder... which isn't a threat to the galaxy.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 août 2010 - 03:12 .

[krimesh]

Count Viceroy wrote...

krimesh wrote...

Would they really do this though? There being the possibility of not being able to win or to survive or save your friends, no matter what you do in ME3, based on your decisions in ME1&2? Would be sorta realistic, but imagine the whining...

No way they'd do that. You still want newcomers to be able to pick up me3 and play that stand alone and win properly. I'd like to see proper dire consequences though. Sort of like morrigan leaving. I want people to think, damnit, I should have saved/destroyed the base.

Well, of course they would never do that for the default option. But if you played both ME1 and ME2, messed up pretty badly, and barely survived, than imported. Shepard might not survive in that case.

[Asheer_Khan]

krimesh wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I doubt Bioware is even going to put in a you lose option in game. Most likely it will copy the end of Dragon Age, where you gather an army, and fight a titanic battle up to the last boss, to win.

Actually I read somewhere that ME3 story was easier to write, because they simply let the game diverge in all directions, depending on the player choices... So I am optimistic about ME1&2 decisions mattering in ME3.

One thing that Bioware teaches me when comes to thier sequels is -Expect worst case scenario so you won't be too badly dissapointed - instead of hyped up expectations and later on suffer heavy hit of hammer of dissapointment when game turned out as something other than i expected.

That's why i have NO expectations when comes to ME 3 because every hints i see now tells me that ME 3 could have very thin connection bridges with two previous games not to mention that decisions from both earliest games will have thin to none impact on ME 3 game story.<_<

[Dean_the_Young]

Amazing how you know that before ME3 has even come out.



May I subscribe to your newsletter that reviews movies before they are even filmed?

[krimesh]

@Dean_the_Young; I won't quote because that takes an awful lot of space. You're right about only finding out about the failures in the first place, but how many projects does Cerberus have to have, for so many failures being no representative sample? Quite a lot. I am not sure so many are realistic for them to have.

I don't know if you read Retribution but the Reapers took control of Grayson in a very sophisticated manner. Why should the Reapers only access the collector base through the collector general?
The collector base has been there quite a while and it seems reasonable to assume that it has several uplinks to the reapers. Why should they not be able to have full access on the base systems through such an uplink? The collector general may simply have been their chosen tool to address the collectors.

In short: how can you dismiss the idea that the collector base might have properties not unlike the Derelict Reaper, but with a purpose, since the reapers are watching it? True, its not in the game or any book I read, but it does seem like a plausible assumption. Especially with all these things we've seen. Nah, the reaper is dead, we are safe. What was that? Nah, its just some ancient piece of tech hidden away in a cave, not dangerous at all. Funny voices in my head though. Nah, I am the great Saren, I will use Sovereign, whatever it is for my own ends. Wanna join the club?

Modifié par krimesh, 22 août 2010 - 03:35 .

[krimesh]

Modifié par krimesh, 22 août 2010 - 03:34 .

[Dean_the_Young]

krimesh wrote...

@Dean_the_Young; I won't quote because that takes an awful lot of space. You're right about only finding out about the failures in the first place, but how many projects does Cerberus have to have, for so many failures being no representative sample? Quite a lot. I am not sure so many are realistic for them to have.

Neither is the portrayal of Cerberus, or the number of people we're told it has, or a great many things we hear about it. What we do know is that the closest Cerberus has come to creating a galactic threat was the Overlord VI, which (A) was something that went beyond TIM's knowledge and ( has to have been solved some other way for all the Shepards who did not download it/do it.

Considering that the Salarian STG were blind to a rogue agent with a conscious trying (and apparently making good progress) of curing the genophage for Krogan so bloodthirsty as the Blood Pack, and that the Quarians made the geth (and then the Geth ignorred and did nothing to stop the Heretics in ME1), I'm not inclined to suddenly bar Cerberus on grounds of past failures.

Cerberus wouldn't exist as it does now if it didn't have a solid basis. It wouldn't be wealthy if it always blew money on bad projects, it wouldn't be considered dangerous by the Council if it didn't have successes, and it wouldn't exist if it couldn't survive both the authorities and the mistakes.

I don't know if you read Retribution but the Reapers took control of Grayson in a very sophisticated manner. Why should the Reapers only access the collector base through the collector general?

Distance, and the fact they stooped to using a frail organic (the Collector General) in the first place? If they didn't need to control the CG to do computer work we see him doing, they would do it themselves and cut out the organic middleman.

As I understand, Grayson was corrupted by the Reaper cybernetics inplaced in him, not by the Reapers of afar. Not putting actual Reaper parts into the systems we intend to use, as opposed to our own produced systems, sounds like very good grounds of 'not here.'

The collector base has been there quite a while and it seems reasonable to assume that it has several uplinks to the reapers. Why should they not be able to have full access on the base systems through such an uplink? The collector general may simply have been their chosen tool to address the collectors.

The Reapers, the machines who think being the Reaper is the pinnacle of existence and that organics are pathetic innacurate, choose to rely on mindless organic drones despite having mysteriously unused access to the Base?

If I have a computer who wants to talk to a computer, I'm not going to go through a middle-organic. I'd talk straight to the computer.

In short: how can you dismiss the idea that the collector base might have properties not unlike the Derelict Reaper, but with a purpose, since the reapers are watching it? True, its not in the game or any book I read, but it does seem like a plausible assumption. Especially with all these things we've seen. Nah, the reaper is dead, we are safe. What was that? Nah, its just some ancient piece of tech hidden away in a cave, not dangerous at all. Funny voices in my head though. Nah, I am the great Saren, I will use Sovereign, whatever it is for my own ends. Wanna join the club?

Indoctrination doesn't work like that, for starts. It's not magic brainwashing: the more it has to change you against what you want to do, the more useless you become as a tool. Saren and the Asari Commandoes were useful because the indoctrination was light: what it wanted and what they wanted were closely aligned. When it goes against what you want, the results are debilitating: the Salarian STG prisoners, or the Derilect Reaper crew (which knew it was being affected, but was focused on getting the IFF). Those really against doing harm pretty much become husk fodder, which is not a threat to the universe.

Can I say the Collector Base does not have any unknown parts and functions? No. But then, I don't need to in order to say that the risk they pose is minor and containable. Indoctrination can be circumvented. Anything they could have done to stop us from taking the base, they would have (such as a remote self-destruct). If they had the ability to beat EDI-level cyberwarfare, they would have done so. If they intended to set post-loss retaliation traps, those don't actually need to be on the base in the first place and could go off if the base is destroyed as well.

[krimesh]

We do know little about how Reaper-Collector communication worked. But as you basically pointed out, why should the Reapers leave for themselves no other ways to control and oversee the collector base, except the general?
"The Reapers, the machines who think being the Reaper is the pinnacle of existence and that organics are pathetic innacurate"
Unlikely that they pinned all collectors on one fragile general, then.

People keep telling me that Cerberus doesn't fail a lot when they try to deal with science that is beyond them, be it the Thorian Kreepers, Rachni control, or indoctrination technology.
But lets just not debate their history then. Shortly before Collector Base Cerberus messed up the Derelict Reaper, in other words, they had no way to stop indoctrination then. No data was recovered from there, except a few med records and husk scans Shepard made. So they haven't learned much and presumably still cannot deal with indoctrination. So what will they do? Cerberus method: lets stick a few people in there and see what happens. "Study indoctrination" it is called. Well, they did that to Grayson, and look how that ultimately got Cerberus all but destroyed, Ascension project data uploaded to the Reapers and a lot of people killed, all in exchange for some data on indoctrination. Which is not much help to blow a hole into a Reaper btw.

Modifié par krimesh, 22 août 2010 - 05:07 .

[Neuzhelin]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...


Thank you zulu for the comedic relief.

And now Dean joined in. After all his numerous posts filled with denial of the things wrong with Cerberus and idealizations of the organisation instead of a slightest hint of criticism, vile distortion of facts and very poor rationalisations on Cerberus' behalf people still bite! I salute you, Dean, if there is a troll award to be rewarded for 2010, I will nominate you (I am sorry, Zulu, he is better)

Yea, after seeing the result of what the reapers did through just 1 man - Grayson (as in the greatest intelligence leak and a major blow to the galaxy when he sent the data), after seeing where indoctrination did to the smartest minds (like Dr. Shu Qian), most loyal servants of the galaxy (like Saren) there could in fact, be absolutely NO HARM in handing over, not just a reaper, but a reaper constructing base to a terrorist organisation, in the hands of a power hungry xenophobic dictator, with the organisation having a list of security breaches and failed projects longer than "War and Peace" novel! Wwhat could possibly go wrong when it is perfectly safe! What a paradigm shift!

Modifié par Neuzhelin, 22 août 2010 - 06:33 .

[Zulu_DFA]

[quote]Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

This is getting quite laughable. Zulu should apply to be Cerberus' spin doctor.

[quote]Zulu_DFA wrote...

How is US dominating the world good? We have no nаzism and very little communism, that's how.

[/quote]

Instead we have rampant inflation, world recession, consumerism, grosse consumption, child obesity and diabetes, disproportionate wealth, etc.
[/quote]
Hey what are you getting at? There is a solution to child obesity. It's called Hitler's Youth and Lenin's Pioneers. But there is a downside to it, you know?


[quote]Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

[quote]
But he can commit treason against the Alliance.[/quote]

Giving away intel that Cerberus agents would have access to given their infilitration of Alliance would be a problem. Good thing Anderson did NOT do that.
[/quote]
So, if anything, he gave away to the Turians the fact, that despite claiming Cerberus to be the "avowed enemy" the Alliance keeps sitting tight on their asses and doing nothing to solve the problem. That should raze a couple of eyebrows, or whatever they have for it, among the Turians...


[quote]Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...
[Quote]Yes
there is. Without Anderson's interference, there is a good chance that
Grayson would be promptly terminated and all would go smooth and neat.[/Quote]

Theorycraft and besides the point. Anderson interfering does not excuse the kind of experiments Cerberus is conducting.
[/quote]
The kind of experiments Cerberus is conducting does not excuse Anderson's treason. And the theorycraft is what the Cerberus haters resort to in this matter: "even if Anderson did not interfere, Grayson would inevitably cut loose" says they.

[quote]Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...
[Quote]Yes and yes. Both were right. "Unethical" science
is ethical, because it advances our knowledge of the world we live in,
giving us greater understanding of it and power manipulate it to our
convinience. The subjects for the "unethical" science's experiments
should be the wretches like Paul Grayson, who put his passions ahead of
his duty in a critical moment. You forgot about the third question: who
should engage in such activities? And the answer is: right, the
organizations like Cerberus, with the guts to do what's necessary, and
provide plausible deniability to the parties that have to maintain their
public image before millions of "paragon" citizens.[/Quote]

[Quote]Cerberus
isn't Alliance's enemy. Or else the Alliance would take proactive
action against Cerberus, and Anderson (and earlier Kahoku) could easily
rely on the Alliance's support.[/Quote]

Cerberus is a ROGUE faction of the Alliance.
[/quote]
When and why did Cerberus go rogue?

[quote]Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...
Nice try there. And the guts to do what is right? Lets see:

1) Abducting and/or murdering alliance personnel (including an Admiral)
[/quote]
A traitor admiral.


[quote]Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...
and civilians through various experiments on multiple counts:

- Akuze
[/quote]
Under Alliance jurisdiction. Cerberus wasn't "rogue" then.


[quote]
- Chasca
[/quote]
Not Cerberus.


[quote]
- Feros (Zhu's Hope)
[/quote]
What? Not Cerberus.


[quote]
- Depot Stigma-23
[/quote]
Finally, you score a point.


[quote]
2) Abducting and experimenting on children
[/quote]
Bad, bad Cerberus. L5x implants, anyone?


[quote]
4) Interfering with the Ascension project
[/quote]
See above


[quote]
- Experimentation on Gillian
[/quote]
You covered it already, don't cheat.


[quote]
- Attempted abduction of Gillian
[/quote]
See above.


[quote]
6) Murder of Quarian military personnel
[/quote]
That's sad, but they new the risks.


[quote]
Doesn't matter, Cerberus shouldn't be doing what they are anyways.
[/quote]
Ya? Let the Collectors rampage unchecked, I suppose. Why do you play as Commander Shepard and not as a bartender in the Presidium Diplomatic Lounge?


[quote]
[Quote]Son,
that may be a shock to you, but there is no sanctity to anything in
this world, including an individual's life. Unlike sanctity, the
pricetag is there to everything in this world. Including each
individual's life. Ever heard the expression: "It's nothing personal,
just business"?[/Quote]

Intangible garbage. Cerberus is breaking every known law on the books, in additional to practicing horrible ethics. Rights violations abound. They don't get a free pass just because you think they can.
[/quote]
But they do. Even a couple of treacherous Alliance admirals, a Council spectre and a Turian commando brigade can't stop them. They've earned their pass on that so far.

[quote]
[Quote]As
far as I know, Cerberus never took any hostile action against any
Turian asset. Even that Kurt Weisman's plan in Earthborn Shepard's
exclusive quest, that may be speculated as having a Cerberus connection
was foiled, and it may be speculated that not without it having been
planned to be foiled in the first place. Hence, the Turian action can be
classified as "pre-emptive" at best, and "unprovoked" in Cerberus
propaganda. That's not the first time, that the Turians take
preemptive/unprovoked action against the Humans...[/Quote]

Given a known terrorist organization conducting highly illegal experiments with claims of putting humanity on top (and their track record), pre-emptive strikes are completely within their rights, especiall given it was under the advice of Anderson.
[/quote]
You still don't get it, do you? There is no such thing in the world as "right". There is only "might". Wolves feed on sheep not because they got the "right" to do it, but they got the necessity. And the humans destroy wolves because of that. I am not saying that the Turians were wrong about what they did, but that doesn't change the nature of their action. It remains pre-emptive and unprovoked. And, BTW, it failed.

[quote]
[quote]The project was successful. It
provided a lot of insight into the indoctrination process, and the
records of it will be used in time to secure Human dominance against the
Reapers and beyond.[/Quote]

Speculative. You have zero knowledge about the outcome of the research experiment, and neither do I. Doesn't change the fact that it is still illegal and unethical.
[/quote]
AFAIK, the experiment was conducted outside of the Citadel space. Therefore, the fact is: it's not illegal. And its unethical-ness is largely speculative.
And TIM was willing to pay Aria a lot of money to get the data back, which sort of suggests it's not worthless, at least. So you are incorrect about "zero knowledge".

[quote]
[Quote]A lot of Cerberus assets were compromised
and the Repears got the information on the Ascension project as the
result of the hostile action of the Turians, facilitated by Rear Admiral
David Anderson's high treason[/Quote]

A high-ranking Alliance diplomat coordinating an attack on a rogue terrorist group constitutes treason? You're delirious. Play the games and read the books before posting again.
[/quote]
Anderson clearly overstepped his authority. And he took the decision to convey critical information to an alien power. On a sudden whim. For a woman's love. Riiight...

[quote]
tl;dr Zulu_DFA doesn't know what he's talking about.
[/quote]
tl;dr Dr. Peter Venkman doesn't know what he's talking about.