234 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

lovgreno wrote...
Just about everyone in the galaxy do think they are terrorists though so, where there is smoke there may very well be fire.

That's how political propaganda works. Repeat "they're terrorists" often enough that others repeat it, and everyone will think where there's smoke there may well be fire. Well, there may, but again, there may not. Political propaganda makes smoke appear where there is no fire. That's why it works.

Condemn Cerberus if you must, there are enough reasons for it, but don't fall victim to propaganda.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 octobre 2010 - 06:03 .

[Ieldra]

double post.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 octobre 2010 - 06:02 .

[lovgreno]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lovgreno wrote...
Just about everyone in the galaxy do think they are terrorists though so, where there is smoke there may very well be fire.

That's how political propaganda works. Repeat "they're terrorists" often enough that others repeat it, and everyone will think where there's smoke there may well be fire. Well, there may, but again, there may not. Political propaganda makes smoke appear where there is no fire. That's why it works.

Condemn Cerberus if you must, there are enough reasons for it, but don't fall victim to propaganda.

Alliance and Citadell certanly have a reason to use their propaganda weapon against Cerberus as their agenda are opposing that of the rulers of the galaxy so you do have a point there. Those in power are always willing to do a lot to stay there. But to openly show such a controversial agenda, right or wrong is a matter of who you ask in the galaxy and most say it is wrong, is not very conspiratory. On the contrary they must have known it would turn powerfull interests against them. It is more like they are politicians trying to make their opinions known through spectacular actions. It would be much more conspiratory to hide their agenda behind something less intimidating.

If they want to be a secret conspiracy they don't do a very good job. Everyone seems to know about them and very few doubt their illegal actions with violent results. TIM and other Cerberus personell even say so themselves.

Modifié par lovgreno, 01 octobre 2010 - 06:37 .

[lovgreno]

Nightwriter wrote...
Cerberus = the holy pursuit of the truth? Rofl. Ah, these internetz.

Cerberus has a very specified definition of what the only possible truth without any exceptions or possible alternative ways of seeing things that they follow with a great zeal: If TIM said it it must be true (even though he didn't explain why) and for the greater good.

[RiouHotaru]

I'm with Nightwriter on this one. Yes, Cerberus has noble objectives (Ms. Chambers herself said so), but their methods leave a rather rancid taste in my mouth, and it's hard to condone the kind of experiments they perform.



Also, there are multiple reasons why they went rogue: Cerberus sponsors/agents/etc felt the Alliance was holding them back from doing what they felt had to be done. The Alliance felt the projects Cerberus was working on were too extreme and tried to disband the organization. Cerberus discovered stuff involving the Reapers and decided to act on their own against a threat the Alliance wasn't prepared to recognize.



I could go on, but really, there are plenty of viable reaon to "go rogue." When or why aren't relevant.

[Zulu_DFA]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I'm with Nightwriter on this one. Yes, Cerberus has noble objectives (Ms. Chambers herself said so), but their methods leave a rather rancid taste in my mouth, and it's hard to condone the kind of experiments they perform.

Also, there are multiple reasons why they went rogue: Cerberus sponsors/agents/etc felt the Alliance was holding them back from doing what they felt had to be done. The Alliance felt the projects Cerberus was working on were too extreme and tried to disband the organization. Cerberus discovered stuff involving the Reapers and decided to act on their own against a threat the Alliance wasn't prepared to recognize.

I could go on, but really, there are plenty of viable reaon to "go rogue." When or why aren't relevant.

When did the Alliance hold Cerberus back? As late as 2177 the Alliance commited a platoon of marines to a certain mission with a very low survival probability. And when one marine was not accounted for it prefered to just forget about one MIA in a column of KIAs, so that Cerberus could do its stuff.

On the contrary, the Alliance seems only to be holding back their rear admirals who want to poke into Cerberus.

The only reason for TIM to go rogue of his own will is if he's discovered something real bad about the Alliance, such as the Alliance working for the Reapers, but nothing hints on that. And there again, why doesn't TIM smear the Alliance to try and secure Shepard's loyalty to the cause? Should the Alliance displease TIM, I have no doubt he'd go all out revolutionary in a blink of eye and enjoy it all the way to the end. But it looks like the status quo between Cerberus and the Alliance is perfectly satisfactory for TIM. In fact, Jacob is more critical of the Alliance than TIM!!!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 01 octobre 2010 - 07:28 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

"... in 2165, terrorists stole antimatter from the SSV Geneva, the sole figure arrested named his sponsor 'Cerberus'. Throughout the 2160s and 2170s, alleged Cerberus agents assassinated politicians, sabotaged starships bearing eezo, and conducted nightmarish experiments on aliens and humans."

There you go. I'm guessing this has something to do with their in-game terrorist designation. They did it to themselves.

I think you can only do so much of this kind of stuff before people start throwing the t-word around. Doing dangerous, radical, extremist things that inspire fear in people is going to lead to this word, correct or not.

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if many people in the Mass Effect universe thought of Shepard as a terrorist.

While I agree that incident in particular has more to do with their official designation, whether their official designation is correct or accurate is different. Many (most?) governments will brand people who target it's military facilities as terrorists, even when they are legitimate military targets. ('Air pirates', back in WW2.)

[Elyvern]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

When did the Alliance hold Cerberus back? As late as 2177 the Alliance commited a platoon of marines to a certain mission with a very low survival probability. And when one marine was not accounted for it prefered to just forget about one MIA in a column of KIAs, so that Cerberus could do its stuff.

On the contrary, the Alliance seems only to be holding back their rear admirals who want to poke into Cerberus.

The only reason for TIM to go rogue of his own will is if he's discovered something real bad about the Alliance, such as the Alliance working for the Reapers, but nothing hints on that. And there again, why doesn't TIM smear the Alliance to try and secure Shepard's loyalty to the cause? Should the Alliance displease TIM, I have no doubt he'd go all out revolutionary in a blink of eye and enjoy it all the way to the end. But it looks like the status quo between Cerberus and the Alliance is perfectly satisfactory for TIM. In fact, Jacob is more critical of the Alliance than TIM!!!

I've always wonder about the glaring lack of the option to grill Cerberus about the details of the Akuze incident. One way I can see TIM going rogue with all of Cerberus would be the Alliance trying to conduct a smear compaign against what they perceive as a strong voice of dissent and a lack of obedience in the organisation due to (??? use your imagination until BW writes otherwise) Perhaps Alliance brass began to accuse the organisation of things they didn't do, and even making those accusations stick because years of conducting black ops for the Alliance and having a number of their (failed) projects leak out would make the flypaper even more effective. Akuze could be one of those incidents for example.

[brfritos]

If crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they? (Geroge Carlin)

This word, "freedom fighters", this is propaganda.

Alright then Cerberus isn't evil, isn't terrorist, is part of the Alliance and is advocating the advancement of humanity.
Even if at expence of you, me and everyone else, that's what people are forgeting.

Then why the Coucil is so wrong in calling humans terrorists, bullies and racists?
We sure deserve this.
 

[Ieldra]

brfritos wrote...
Alright then Cerberus isn't evil, isn't terrorist, is part of the Alliance and is advocating the advancement of humanity.
Even if at expence of you, me and everyone else, that's what people are forgeting.

I never said Cerberus wasn't evil. I have a two-edged opinion of them, but saying they're evil is a valid opinion. This is not a Cerberus apologetics thread. If I may quote myself:

Cerberus may be an evil conspiracy with pretensions to galactic domination, or a regular black-ops organization necessary to protect humanity, or anything in between. But they're definitely not terrorists.

Calling them a ruthless cabal with pretensions to galactic domination is very likely correct. But that does not make them terrorists. Terrorism actually has a definition, it isn't a term you can use for any form of informal violence aimed at something you value. That definition does not cover what Cerberus does.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 octobre 2010 - 08:39 .

[brfritos]

Ieldra2 wrote...

brfritos wrote...
Alright then Cerberus isn't evil, isn't terrorist, is part of the Alliance and is advocating the advancement of humanity.
Even if at expence of you, me and everyone else, that's what people are forgeting.

I never said Cerberus wasn't evil. I have a two-edged opinion of them, but saying they're evil is a valid opinion. This is not a Cerberus apologetics thread. If I may quote myself:

Cerberus may be an evil conspiracy with pretensions to galactic domination, or a regular black-ops organization necessary to protect humanity, or anything in between. But they're definitely not terrorists.

Calling them a ruthless cabal with pretensions to galactic domination is very likely correct. But that does not make them terrorists. Terrorism actually has a definition, it isn't a term you can use for any form of informal violence aimed at something you value. That definition does not cover what Cerberus does.

The definition of "terrorism" is from a view point of a foreign government or alien race.

For us humans Cerberus is a conspiracy, but for another race is terrorism.

This happens today with real governments, so the Council is not wrong calling Cerberus "terrorists"

[fongiel24]

I think Cerberus went rogue sometime in ME1 (dependent on Shepard's actions) when their operations were blown wide open by Shepard (or if Shepard didn't do the missions, a generic special forces unit that would stand in for Shepard) and it became impossible for the Alliance to allow itself to maintain ties with Cerberus. Kohaku was probably the last straw.



There's two separate definitions of terrorism - the proper definition of a group that is deliberately using terror as a tool to pressure those in power and the public into societal or political change (which Cerberus doesn't fall into), and the popular definition of terrorism - a non-government-affiliated group that uses violence to achieve its aims (a much broader definition that Cerberus does fall into). Either way, terrorist is a simple, easy-to-use term. It might not be entirely accurate, but I can't think of any terms we could use to replace it that wouldn't sound ridiculous. Even if they're more accurately described as a conspiracy or a cabal, calling them "conspirators" or "cabalists" sounds even stranger than calling them "terrorists".

[Ieldra]

fongiel24 wrote...
There's two separate definitions of terrorism - the proper definition of a group that is deliberately using terror as a tool to pressure those in power and the public into societal or political change (which Cerberus doesn't fall into), and the popular definition of terrorism - a non-government-affiliated group that uses violence to achieve its aims (a much broader definition that Cerberus does fall into).

Then any organized violent criminal group would be a group of terrorists. Great. OK, you can add insurgency and it would fit better. But even then Cerberus is not a terrorist group, in fact, the only time they've used violence to achieve a political goal is when they assassinated some pope. Most of their violence isn't political, it's nothing more than a byproduct of their experiments. They certainly used violence to remove any obstacles in their operations, but almost all of those operations weren't political. They acted as "normal" criminals. Terrorism is a loaded term, therefore it shouldn't be used where not applicable.   

[Barquiel]

2171 - Pope Clement XVI assassinated via rosary beads coated with sodium nonacetate and dimethyl sulfoxide. Death attributed to age and heart failure. Replacement, Pope Leo XIV, has eschatological beliefs in-line with militarizing humanity; forgiving attitude to salarians re: genophage proves useful for strategic alliances against turians.
political

2173 - Inez Simmons resigns as head of Terra Firma party; front-runner Claude Mennau assassinated; Charles Saracino much more tractable.
political

2174 - Radium placed inside office chair of Systems Alliance parliamentarian Artyom Gavrikov. Gavrikov's death attributed to cancer. Emergency election much cheaper to manipulate than normal process. Cerberus-backed candidate loses; winning candidate approached, found susceptible to bribes.
political

2181 - Matriarch Tilia Eraza targeted with omega-enkaphalin. Claims of biotic superiority to non-biotics deflated once her powers fail. Voice in citizen legislature considerably diminished.
political

[fongiel24]

Ieldra2 wrote...

fongiel24 wrote...
There's two separate definitions of terrorism - the proper definition of a group that is deliberately using terror as a tool to pressure those in power and the public into societal or political change (which Cerberus doesn't fall into), and the popular definition of terrorism - a non-government-affiliated group that uses violence to achieve its aims (a much broader definition that Cerberus does fall into).

Then any organized violent criminal group would be a group of terrorists. Great. OK, you can add insurgency and it would fit better. But even then Cerberus is not a terrorist group, in fact, the only time they've used violence to achieve a political goal is when they assassinated some pope. Most of their violence isn't political, it's nothing more than a byproduct of their experiments. They certainly used violence to remove any obstacles in their operations, but almost all of those operations weren't political. They acted as "normal" criminals. Terrorism is a loaded term, therefore it shouldn't be used where not applicable.   

I've heard the term "terrorist" used for organized crime syndicates. It's just an en vogue term since 9/11. I'm not saying it's the correct usage, but it's the popular usage. Hell, violence isn't even a prerequisite anymore. It's become a favourite term of the Chinese government for use against anything from political enemies to corrupt officials. Considering the common usage of the term, I just can't think of a term that could replace "terrorist" for Cerberus.

TBH, I don't even like the term "insurgent". "Insurgency" implies organized rebellion against an established government. I've never gotten the impression that Cerberus was looking to overthrow or supplant the Alliance. I think Cerberus is seeking to supplement the Alliance and patch the holes where it doesn't feel the Alliance is doing a good enough job protecting humanity. Cerberus only comes into conflict with the Alliance when it has no choice. It doesn't appear to be actively seeking ways to fight the Alliance in the open or in the shadows.

The problem is that there is no single convenient term that can be accurately applied to Cerberus because they have no parallels in the real world. Until someone comes up with a better term, the most convenient term (though not the most accurate) for Cerberus is the label most people in the ME universe use - terrorist.

Modifié par fongiel24, 01 octobre 2010 - 10:34 .

[HazelrahFiver]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Not quite. A group of conspirators can carry out a conspiracy without a single goal, and any group can carry out such a conspiracy: terrorists, NGO's, governments, black agencies, etc.

Terrorist groups are public political actors, in the sense they want to be known, make their objectives known publicly (and target the public), even though they resort to secrecy as defense. Terrorism is public politics by terrorism.

Except a group, such as Cerberus, cannot be a conspiracy.  Unless of course, it's unknown if it truly exists, and then the distractions and coverups using the Cerberus name could be a conspiracy.  The actual group however, cannot be a conspiracy.  English demands that it is not so.  It'd be the same as saying that this ice cream is a conspiracy.  While I do agree that they aren't really terrorists... nothing else fits, and nothing is as close since Cerberus does in fact attack and destroy Alliance and Council objectives.  They may not brag about it, but they do.

It's more so that they are against the primary sources of government, as I said.  Both human and galatic, they work against them, and therefore are going to be labeled terrorists with ease since they produce violent actions.  I'm talking about in-game stuff here.

Nightwriter wrote...
Teltin I feel a little iffier about...
TIM had to know that children were being abducted and experimented on.
I have a hard time believing that the Teltin cell totally fooled him as
to what they were doing to children there.

I agree with you entirely on this.  I was kinding of hoping that Jack would still verbally want to act out against TIM and not buy Miranda's pandering if you take her along on Jack's Loyalty Mission.

[mosor]

Personally I don't see Cerberus as terrorists like Al-Qaeda or the IRA. I see them more of a cabal like the Illuminati or the Bilderburg group that conspiracy theorists accuse of running the world and influencing events.

[Arijharn]

mosor wrote...

Personally I don't see Cerberus as terrorists like Al-Qaeda or the IRA. I see them more of a cabal like the Illuminati or the Bilderburg group that conspiracy theorists accuse of running the world and influencing events.

Unsurprisingly, I agree with you. They say great minds think alike, but I think in our case it's just coincidence

[AntiChri5]

I think of them more as a cult.

[AntiChri5]

He has fanatic followers who are willing to do anything for him and his cause. Who worship him.

[AntiChri5]

I think we can classify those who work for Cerberus into three categories.

The inner ring, who are his mindless fanatics.

The outer ring, Cerberus operatives like those in the Lazarus Cell.

And then the outside contractors who are hired for specific jobs.