965 réponses à ce sujet

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

TIM is not a terrorist under any circumstances. He has never conducted an operation for the sole purpose of inciting terror in a populace.

All of his operations have been designed to further the cause of humanity in whatever capacity.

He also isn't evil. Whereas Hitler killed millions because he hated them plain and simple, TIM kills people because he believes it furthers the cause of humanity.

However, I don't like him and would kill him if given the opportunity. He's a risk and especially after Anderson cripples Cerberus in Retribution not worth the trouble.

No amount of aid from Cerberus in their current state is worth the risk they pose. While they don't have the numbers to provide any help just one man is all it takes to send the galaxy into chaos. He just so happens to have the perfect man for the job, Kai Leng.

So you feel that Stalin wasn't evil either? Or Mao? Or any other leader who killed thousands in the name of furthering their country? How many must die 'in the name of the state', not in direct defense of the state, but 'just in case' to consider them 'evil?

I have to agree with Moi here, at what point does one 'officially' become 'evil'?

Personally I think to be evil you have to do evil deeds with the no interest other than because it's 'evil.' I don't think comparing TIM to Hitler or Mao or Stalin is relevant though; because TIM hasn't killed (or given the order to kill) entities numbering in the millions.

I will concede though that if the Illusive Man is to be considered evil, he would have to be considered 'diet-coke evil' and not 'really evil.'

[Sandbox47]

Moiaussi wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

TIM is not a terrorist under any circumstances. He has never conducted an operation for the sole purpose of inciting terror in a populace.

All of his operations have been designed to further the cause of humanity in whatever capacity.

He also isn't evil. Whereas Hitler killed millions because he hated them plain and simple, TIM kills people because he believes it furthers the cause of humanity.

However, I don't like him and would kill him if given the opportunity. He's a risk and especially after Anderson cripples Cerberus in Retribution not worth the trouble.

No amount of aid from Cerberus in their current state is worth the risk they pose. While they don't have the numbers to provide any help just one man is all it takes to send the galaxy into chaos. He just so happens to have the perfect man for the job, Kai Leng.

So you feel that Stalin wasn't evil either? Or Mao? Or any other leader who killed thousands in the name of furthering their country? How many must die 'in the name of the state', not in direct defense of the state, but 'just in case' to consider them 'evil?

Well Stalin and Hitler weren't evil, they were insane (not sure whether there's a significant difference there). And Mao got in over his head, stupid idiot.
But TIM is neither mad nor desperate (yet) and he is still the leader of a terrorist group. Terrorist because of thorian things. Profit of mankind or not, that's terrorizing.
Furter more, Alliance isn't squat better, they are only having an easier time hiding their colours from the Council.

[Jagri]

marshalleck wrote...

Jagri wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

What bonafide terrorist acts has Cerberus performed? Attacks on military targets by their very nature can not be described as terrorism.

MSV Anixara sabotaged. Catalyst added to metastable metallic hydrogen fuel by timer injection. Ship breaks apart during FTL, all hands aboard lost, turian Hierarchy hawk Raherix Ursivus killed in the process. Explosion attributed to faulty engineering.

MSV is modular conveyor class vessel used primarly by civilians for the purpose of carrying passangers, cargo, and other related fuctionality. Would the sabotage and destruction of this civilian type of passanger vessel be the bonafide terrorist act you are inquiring about?

All turians serve in their military, so this might be considered a military target depending on Ursivus' status--especially since the turian in question was a hawk, an agitator, possibly an aggressor. 

Collateral damage is regrettable, but sometimes unavoidable.

MSV while being known as modular conveyor class vessels are also placed under the category of merchent vessels. MSV Anixara is more evidently civilian in construction and operation then military at this point unless in game evidence can be provided to contradict it.

Are you saying that merely the presents of at least one member of the Turian military and potential target for assassination invalidates the act from being considered terrorism? 

Modifié par Jagri, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:46 .

[marshalleck]

Jagri wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Jagri wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

What bonafide terrorist acts has Cerberus performed? Attacks on military targets by their very nature can not be described as terrorism.

MSV Anixara sabotaged. Catalyst added to metastable metallic hydrogen fuel by timer injection. Ship breaks apart during FTL, all hands aboard lost, turian Hierarchy hawk Raherix Ursivus killed in the process. Explosion attributed to faulty engineering.

MSV is modular conveyor class vessel used primarly by civilians for the purpose of carrying passangers, cargo, and other related fuctionality. Would the sabotage and destruction of this civilian type of passanger vessel be the bonafide terrorist act you are inquiring about?

All turians serve in their military, so this might be considered a military target depending on Ursivus' status--especially since the turian in question was a hawk, an agitator, possibly an aggressor. 

Collateral damage is regrettable, but sometimes unavoidable.

MSV while being known as modular conveyor class vessels are also placed under the category of merchent vessels. MSV Anixara is more evidently civilian in construction and operation then military at this point unless in game evidence can be provided to contradict it.

Are you saying that merely the presents of at least one member of the Turian military and potential target for assassination invalidates the act from being considered terrorism? 

If he was the target, yes. If his death was merely coincidental, no. Just because he was on a "civilian" ship (that only describes its make, not its crew or occupants) doesn't make it terrorism. 

[GuardianAngel470]

Arijharn wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

TIM is not a terrorist under any circumstances. He has never conducted an operation for the sole purpose of inciting terror in a populace.

All of his operations have been designed to further the cause of humanity in whatever capacity.

He also isn't evil. Whereas Hitler killed millions because he hated them plain and simple, TIM kills people because he believes it furthers the cause of humanity.

However, I don't like him and would kill him if given the opportunity. He's a risk and especially after Anderson cripples Cerberus in Retribution not worth the trouble.

No amount of aid from Cerberus in their current state is worth the risk they pose. While they don't have the numbers to provide any help just one man is all it takes to send the galaxy into chaos. He just so happens to have the perfect man for the job, Kai Leng.

So you feel that Stalin wasn't evil either? Or Mao? Or any other leader who killed thousands in the name of furthering their country? How many must die 'in the name of the state', not in direct defense of the state, but 'just in case' to consider them 'evil?

I have to agree with Moi here, at what point does one 'officially' become 'evil'?

Personally I think to be evil you have to do evil deeds with the no interest other than because it's 'evil.' I don't think comparing TIM to Hitler or Mao or Stalin is relevant though; because TIM hasn't killed (or given the order to kill) entities numbering in the millions.

I will concede though that if the Illusive Man is to be considered evil, he would have to be considered 'diet-coke evil' and not 'really evil.'

Actually, both Stalin and Mao weren't operating for the good of the State they were operating for their own good. The thing about every communist country to date is that the leadership doesn't believe in the tenants, of creating a country without want where all men are equal, they simply believe in tricking the population into putting them in power and once there, they terrorize it. Those two men were evil.

Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's KGB are perfect examples of using fear to control a population.

TIM isn't evil because he doesn't operate at the same level. At this point it is entirely possible that he is the mirror image of Hitler before he rose to power. Hateful, scheming, and revolutionary all fit TIM's description but he could go either way.

He might want to head a new Human Empire or he might be committed to helping humanity gain what it is capable of gaining.

[Moiaussi]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Actually, both Stalin and Mao weren't operating for the good of the State they were operating for their own good. The thing about every communist country to date is that the leadership doesn't believe in the tenants, of creating a country without want where all men are equal, they simply believe in tricking the population into putting them in power and once there, they terrorize it. Those two men were evil.

Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's KGB are perfect examples of using fear to control a population.

TIM isn't evil because he doesn't operate at the same level. At this point it is entirely possible that he is the mirror image of Hitler before he rose to power. Hateful, scheming, and revolutionary all fit TIM's description but he could go either way.

He might want to head a new Human Empire or he might be committed to helping humanity gain what it is capable of gaining.

Ok.. ordering the entire country to use the same farming techniques, sending plows to the rice paddies and mountains and expecting them to be used there, under penalty of death (china) or the introduction of social services (russia) were for personal gain?

In both cases there was obvious personal gain, and the mass killing of percieved political rivals is easily arguably personal, but that doesn't rule out either having strong ideologies or altruistic motives.

Much evil has been done in the name of 'good' all throughout history. It isn't enough to simply say or believe you are doing the right thing. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Did they make a public claim saying they did it? If it was attributed to 'faulty engineering' then while they have undoubtedly performed a dastardly deed, they haven't put forward their manifesto as responsible. To me; that sounds more 'black-ops' than terrorism.

Sounds like hair splitting to me... semantics. One doesn't have to claim responsibility to generate unrest or 'terror.'

Actually, it generally does.

Accidents are not public terrorism. Nor is death by natural causes. Nor is the minute disappearances from the edges of society if they are never noticed.

The difference between terrorism and general crimes is the intent towards a public impact. Cerberus acts far more secretly: it's successful operations are never noticed and/or attributed to Cerberus, and even it's greatest failures are barely noticed, retroactively, and not by intent. They aren't aimed to create terror in a populace, they by and large aren't public in nature enough to do so, and they don't. Cerberus is a little-known group that's more accurately called a cabal, not a terrorist group, by all the depictions to date.

[Wereparrot]

Barquiel wrote...

jbblue05 wrote...

Good and Evil is all perspective.

If your politically correct than he's evil
If you're a realist TIM is doing what has to be done

Yes, I am sure that Akuze, Pragia, Trapdoor, etc. had to be done...

You have a funny definition of "realism"

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

[gloops]

Isn't one of the features of terrorism using violence to intimidate or coerce for some sort of political gain? If so, I fail to see how those operations were acts of terrorism given that they were carried out clandestinely.

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

Oh no, don't you see? Those who oppose TIM can use whatever flimsy argumentation they want, but when it comes to TIM not being cognizant of what happened at Pragia we can't trust anything Cerberus says.

[GuardianAngel470]

Moiaussi wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Actually, both Stalin and Mao weren't operating for the good of the State they were operating for their own good. The thing about every communist country to date is that the leadership doesn't believe in the tenants, of creating a country without want where all men are equal, they simply believe in tricking the population into putting them in power and once there, they terrorize it. Those two men were evil.

Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's KGB are perfect examples of using fear to control a population.

TIM isn't evil because he doesn't operate at the same level. At this point it is entirely possible that he is the mirror image of Hitler before he rose to power. Hateful, scheming, and revolutionary all fit TIM's description but he could go either way.

He might want to head a new Human Empire or he might be committed to helping humanity gain what it is capable of gaining.

Ok.. ordering the entire country to use the same farming techniques, sending plows to the rice paddies and mountains and expecting them to be used there, under penalty of death (china) or the introduction of social services (russia) were for personal gain?

In both cases there was obvious personal gain, and the mass killing of percieved political rivals is easily arguably personal, but that doesn't rule out either having strong ideologies or altruistic motives.

Much evil has been done in the name of 'good' all throughout history. It isn't enough to simply say or believe you are doing the right thing. 

Stalin wasn't an ideologue. He killed to get to the top because he wanted the power. Most of his actions in the name of communism were simply internal politics.

I don't actually know much about Mao as I haven't taken much history about him.

And I thought I stated this in my first post but I don't agree with anything TIM has done, including the Lazarus Project. I know I've said I'd kill him if I got the chance.

I just don't think he's evil. Misguided sure, but not evil. As the old adage goes, "Don't attribute to Malice that which can be explained by Stupidity."

[GuardianAngel470]

gloops wrote...

Isn't one of the features of terrorism using violence to intimidate or coerce for some sort of political gain? If so, I fail to see how those operations were acts of terrorism given that they were carried out clandestinely.

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

Oh no, don't you see? Those who oppose TIM can use whatever flimsy argumentation they want, but when it comes to TIM not being cognizant of what happened at Pragia we can't trust anything Cerberus says.

Not really. I don't think he knew what they were doing but I do know he funded it. To me that makes him an accomplice and because he had the money and they were his subordinates, it was his responsibility to make sure what did happen didn't happen. He failed and thus what happened is his fault.

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

[Wereparrot]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

gloops wrote...

Isn't one of the features of terrorism using violence to intimidate or coerce for some sort of political gain? If so, I fail to see how those operations were acts of terrorism given that they were carried out clandestinely.

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

Oh no, don't you see? Those who oppose TIM can use whatever flimsy argumentation they want, but when it comes to TIM not being cognizant of what happened at Pragia we can't trust anything Cerberus says.

Not really. I don't think he knew what they were doing but I do know he funded it. To me that makes him an accomplice and because he had the money and they were his subordinates, it was his responsibility to make sure what did happen didn't happen. He failed and thus what happened is his fault.

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

Why? TIM gave resources in good faith to these people. That they betrayed his trust is nothing to do with him.

Edit: If I vote for a prime minister, that doesn't mean I am to be held responsible for his actions.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:19 .

[gloops]

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

You wouldn't be responsible if, at the moment of finding out what I was doing, you ordered me to shutdown whatever research I was doing. TIM did that so he's no responsibility.

[Sandbox47]

@gloops

But that is the same kind of logic like saying "I pulled the trigger, but I didn't force the bullet to kill you. I would have stopped it if I could."

[GuardianAngel470]

Wereparrot wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

gloops wrote...

Isn't one of the features of terrorism using violence to intimidate or coerce for some sort of political gain? If so, I fail to see how those operations were acts of terrorism given that they were carried out clandestinely.

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

Oh no, don't you see? Those who oppose TIM can use whatever flimsy argumentation they want, but when it comes to TIM not being cognizant of what happened at Pragia we can't trust anything Cerberus says.

Not really. I don't think he knew what they were doing but I do know he funded it. To me that makes him an accomplice and because he had the money and they were his subordinates, it was his responsibility to make sure what did happen didn't happen. He failed and thus what happened is his fault.

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

Why? TIM gave resources in good faith to these people. That they betrayed his trust is nothing to do with him.

Really? He's their boss, plain and simple. He's not one of the anonymous donors to Cerberus he IS Cerberus. He makes the decisions, he holds the power and everything Cerberus does is his responsibility, good and bad.

I really can't think of any other way to express this. I could make analogy after analogy but I get the distinct feeling I'd be talking to a wall.

[GuardianAngel470]

gloops wrote...

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

You wouldn't be responsible if, at the moment of finding out what I was doing, you ordered me to shutdown whatever research I was doing. TIM did that so he's no responsibility.

You would in fact be responsible. Just because you try to fix it doesn't mean you aren't responsible for what happens. It doesn't erase all guilt it simply adds context.

Responsibility doesn't work that way. Intent has very little to do with one's responsibility for something. At most it might influence a person's opinion of the perpetrator but it doesn't erase anything.

[Wereparrot]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

gloops wrote...

Isn't one of the features of terrorism using violence to intimidate or coerce for some sort of political gain? If so, I fail to see how those operations were acts of terrorism given that they were carried out clandestinely.

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

Oh no, don't you see? Those who oppose TIM can use whatever flimsy argumentation they want, but when it comes to TIM not being cognizant of what happened at Pragia we can't trust anything Cerberus says.

Not really. I don't think he knew what they were doing but I do know he funded it. To me that makes him an accomplice and because he had the money and they were his subordinates, it was his responsibility to make sure what did happen didn't happen. He failed and thus what happened is his fault.

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

Why? TIM gave resources in good faith to these people. That they betrayed his trust is nothing to do with him.

Really? He's their boss, plain and simple. He's not one of the anonymous donors to Cerberus he IS Cerberus. He makes the decisions, he holds the power and everything Cerberus does is his responsibility, good and bad.

I really can't think of any other way to express this. I could make analogy after analogy but I get the distinct feeling I'd be talking to a wall.

If he is boss, it just portrays him as a poor leader. It still does not make him responsible. I refer you to the edit in my previous reply. I could likewise make analogy after analogy.

[Wereparrot]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

gloops wrote...

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

You wouldn't be responsible if, at the moment of finding out what I was doing, you ordered me to shutdown whatever research I was doing. TIM did that so he's no responsibility.

 Intent has very little to do with one's responsibility for something.

Trust does though. If that trust is broken, then how can TIM be held responsible?

[gloops]

But that is the same kind of logic like saying "I pulled the trigger, but I didn't force the bullet to kill you. I would have stopped it if I could."

If I've pulled the trigger in your direction, unless I'm mentally impaired, I know that it's going to harm you in some fashion. Now how that example relates to TIM and Pragia I'm not too sure. Could you help me with that?

Really? He's their boss, plain and simple. He's not one of the anonymous donors to Cerberus he IS Cerberus. He makes the decisions, he holds the power and everything Cerberus does is his responsibility, good and bad.

So if a mentally impaired soldier shoots to death a civilian family, does that mean the leaders of the military and/or the nation are complicit when they'd no knowledge as to what would happen? It's obvious that they don't, just like it's obvious TIM has no responsibility in regards to Pragia (unless, of course, he knew what was happening).

[Arijharn]

Sandbox47 wrote...

@gloops
But that is the same kind of logic like saying "I pulled the trigger, but I didn't force the bullet to kill you. I would have stopped it if I could."

No it's not. For one, a bullet doesn't have free will or intelligence, it's an inanimate object.

The Illusive Man may be guilty of not vetting his operatives as thoroughly as possible, but I don't see how that makes him 'Evil.' In regards to Pragia, I get the feeling that while he authorized the tests on biotic children, he wasn't immediately aware of what they were doing, and when he started to have his suspicions, his own staff attempted to conceal information from him (hence his requesting of 'operational logs')

[GuardianAngel470]

Wereparrot wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

gloops wrote...

Isn't one of the features of terrorism using violence to intimidate or coerce for some sort of political gain? If so, I fail to see how those operations were acts of terrorism given that they were carried out clandestinely.

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

Oh no, don't you see? Those who oppose TIM can use whatever flimsy argumentation they want, but when it comes to TIM not being cognizant of what happened at Pragia we can't trust anything Cerberus says.

Not really. I don't think he knew what they were doing but I do know he funded it. To me that makes him an accomplice and because he had the money and they were his subordinates, it was his responsibility to make sure what did happen didn't happen. He failed and thus what happened is his fault.

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

Why? TIM gave resources in good faith to these people. That they betrayed his trust is nothing to do with him.

Really? He's their boss, plain and simple. He's not one of the anonymous donors to Cerberus he IS Cerberus. He makes the decisions, he holds the power and everything Cerberus does is his responsibility, good and bad.

I really can't think of any other way to express this. I could make analogy after analogy but I get the distinct feeling I'd be talking to a wall.

If he is boss, it just portrays him as a poor leader. It still does not make him responsible. I refer you to the edit in my previous reply. I could likewise make analogy after analogy.

And yes, to some degree a voter is responsible for a PM's actions. Not to the same degree as TIM is responsible for Pragia because it isn't the same sort of relationship but still.

That's why there's such a thing as voter's guilt. I'm sure the people who voted for Gordon Brown are feeling pretty stupid right about now and I know that some of the people that voted for Obama are feeling stupid.

A better and more relevant example would be a Lieutenant on the front lines being responsible when members of his squad start shooting at civilians. He's in command and they are his responsibility as their commanding officer. 

But if you don't understand the nature of responsibility then I'm wasting my breath. So good night (good morning really) and have fun continuing another fruitless forum discussion.

[Wereparrot]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

gloops wrote...

Isn't one of the features of terrorism using violence to intimidate or coerce for some sort of political gain? If so, I fail to see how those operations were acts of terrorism given that they were carried out clandestinely.

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

Oh no, don't you see? Those who oppose TIM can use whatever flimsy argumentation they want, but when it comes to TIM not being cognizant of what happened at Pragia we can't trust anything Cerberus says.

Not really. I don't think he knew what they were doing but I do know he funded it. To me that makes him an accomplice and because he had the money and they were his subordinates, it was his responsibility to make sure what did happen didn't happen. He failed and thus what happened is his fault.

If I gave you a hundred thousand dollars to find a cure for cancer every month and you used that constant stream of cash to kill everyone with cancer then it would be my responsibility because I enabled you to do that with my money.

Why? TIM gave resources in good faith to these people. That they betrayed his trust is nothing to do with him.

Really? He's their boss, plain and simple. He's not one of the anonymous donors to Cerberus he IS Cerberus. He makes the decisions, he holds the power and everything Cerberus does is his responsibility, good and bad.

I really can't think of any other way to express this. I could make analogy after analogy but I get the distinct feeling I'd be talking to a wall.

If he is boss, it just portrays him as a poor leader. It still does not make him responsible. I refer you to the edit in my previous reply. I could likewise make analogy after analogy.

A better and more relevant example would be a Lieutenant on the front lines being responsible when members of his squad start shooting at civilians. He's in command and they are his responsibility as their commanding officer. 

Responsible through poor leadership? Yes. Directly responsible? Absolutely not.

Edit: And please don't be condescending. I do understand responsibility, but I also value trust highly; far more so than you appear to.

And yes, to some degree a voter is responsible for a PM's actions.

Second edit: So if the said prime minister turns traitor I am to be held complicit in that treason? I don't think so.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 18 janvier 2011 - 08:56 .

[Sandbox47]

gloops wrote...

But that is the same kind of logic like saying "I pulled the trigger, but I didn't force the bullet to kill you. I would have stopped it if I could."

If I've pulled the trigger in your direction, unless I'm mentally impaired, I know that it's going to harm you in some fashion. Now how that example relates to TIM and Pragia I'm not too sure. Could you help me with that?

Easy. He missed. He wanted to make stronger biotics, ended up with torturing kids. It doesn't have to be a bullet. Could be candy to a child who dies of diabetes or something like that.

[Barquiel]

Wereparrot wrote...

I thought it was established that Pragia was outside TIM's control. Also, have we any direct evidence that he was involved in, or knew of, other unethical Cerberus activities? Not to my knowledge, although I am not privy to the books etc.

He's described as a control freak. We know that Cerberus monitors every quarter aboard the Normandy...but he doesn't care about a whole cell?

[Jagri]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Did they make a public claim saying they did it? If it was attributed to 'faulty engineering' then while they have undoubtedly performed a dastardly deed, they haven't put forward their manifesto as responsible. To me; that sounds more 'black-ops' than terrorism.

Sounds like hair splitting to me... semantics. One doesn't have to claim responsibility to generate unrest or 'terror.'

Actually, it generally does.

Accidents are not public terrorism. Nor is death by natural causes. Nor is the minute disappearances from the edges of society if they are never noticed.

The difference between terrorism and general crimes is the intent towards a public impact. Cerberus acts far more secretly: it's successful operations are never noticed and/or attributed to Cerberus, and even it's greatest failures are barely noticed, retroactively, and not by intent. They aren't aimed to create terror in a populace, they by and large aren't public in nature enough to do so, and they don't. Cerberus is a little-known group that's more accurately called a cabal, not a terrorist group, by all the depictions to date.

Cerberus covertly contacts Michael Moser Lang, a political dissident on Earth, and provides him with funding to purchase weapons. Cerberus continues to monitor him after contact ends. One year later, Lang assassinates United North American States president Enrique Aguilar and Chinese People's Federation premier Ying Xiong. The resulting political shuffle benefits Cerberus' shell companies and plans for the Systems Alliance Parliament.
Would this be a better example of terrorism then? 

Cerberus provided funds and resources to Michael Moser Leng and clearly directed him towards the quite public assassination of the United North American States President and Chinese People's Federation Premier. It has been disputed that fear wasn't a primary objective with this political assassination but it seems that Cerberus made a profit and that public fear and or shift in leadership help pushed plans for the System Alliance Parliament.

Modifié par Jagri, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:10 .