82 réponses à ce sujet

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

There is, however, a very broad category for actions in and between 'terrorism' and 'war', and that category is 'criminal'.

Most war and all terrorism is 'criminal.' It isn't like any given state condons war against itself. Criminal organizations from time to time have been described as being at war with the state. Sometimes it isn't portrayed as war for various reasons, but it is war nonetheless.

]Neither is it exactly war.

There is no trinary classification of peace, war, or terrorism.

Semantics again. How do you define war? Do you know what guerrilla war is and how it differentiates from conventional or open war? Terrorism is a means of fighting a war, not some third classification.

And the only real difference between 'fight' and 'war' is scale.

When your classification of war is either so flawed or so broad that the term is meaningless. Successful coups aren't civil wars: they simply don't have the scale.

Cerberus has been working at this for how long now? With at least a few assassinations in there. They are cautious about when and how they fire their shots, but that doesn't preclude it being a state of war. It isn't a game of tiddly winks. Anyone Cerberus targets, or for that matter any Cerberus cell anyone else targets doesn't get to throw up their hands and say 'wait, this is unfair we weren't ready' or 'this isn't fun anymore, can we play a new game?'

Same in a coup. Unless the other side simply surrenders, it isn't peace. it isn't a one on one duel. It may be quick but it is an armed insurrection. It is war. The scale doesn't have to be that big either. The Six Day war between Israel and Syria is still called a war. A gang war with much fewer people on both sides is still called a gang war.

The cold war, with no actual troop engagements at all is still known as the cold war. 

Now are we done with semantics? Can you at least accept what I mean when I say 'war,' even if you don't completely agree with it for whatever reason?

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm not Zulu, nor do I stand by what he said, but in regards to your second paragraph: because other parts of the Alliance don't think that those lower alliance/national politicians are right for the Alliance, and should be removed.

The Alliance would hardly be the first government to secretly kill its own officials when certain people felt it was called for.

The killings are almost always done by a political party using the power of the government rather than as the government per se, though. It is not like they hold a vote in the house and the house of representatives formally vote for the assassination of some of their members, with those members present for the vote.

This is why the right to order assassinations was taken away from the US executive branch.

[Zulu_DFA]

Moiaussi wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The Alliance is not a nation. And Cerberus does not wage war against it.

Ok, so this thread is going to devolve completely into semantic garbage now. What exactly is the Alliance then? Would you prefer empire? State? Political entity? 

Empire.

Moiaussi wrote...

If Cerberus and the Alliance are the same entity, then why does Cerberus need to eliminate Alliance politicians that don't agree with it? You are suggesting that Cerberus is into attacking itself (not to mention treating the Alliance as a one party system).

Competition.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

There is, however, a very broad category for actions in and between 'terrorism' and 'war', and that category is 'criminal'.

Most war and all terrorism is 'criminal.' It isn't like any given state condons war against itself. Criminal organizations from time to time have been described as being at war with the state. Sometimes it isn't portrayed as war for various reasons, but it is war nonetheless.

Indeed, much of war and all terrorism is 'criminal', but that just emphasizes that 'criminal' is an appropriate umbrella grouping, while war and terrorism are not all-inclusive.

Semantics again. How do you define war? Do you know what guerrilla war is and how it differentiates from conventional or open war? Terrorism is a means of fighting a war, not some third classification.

And the only real difference between 'fight' and 'war' is scale.

And factions. And organization. And regular combat and direct conflict of scale and frequency.

Whatever your definition is irrelevant: war, peace, and terrorism are not trinary unless you broaden the definitions and make them meaningless, and debase the language. Semantics you can call it, but meaningful Semantics.

The cold war, with no actual troop engagements at all is still known as the cold war.

And is also recognized as not actually being a war. The name is a metaphor, not a literalism or a description.

Now are we done with semantics? Can you at least accept what I mean when I say 'war,' even if you don't completely agree with it for whatever reason?

Not when you go far pass meaningless quibbles of semantics and start abusing entire concepts to score points with false labels.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I'm not Zulu, nor do I stand by what he said, but in regards to your second paragraph: because other parts of the Alliance don't think that those lower alliance/national politicians are right for the Alliance, and should be removed.

The Alliance would hardly be the first government to secretly kill its own officials when certain people felt it was called for.

The killings are almost always done by a political party using the power of the government rather than as the government per se, though. It is not like they hold a vote in the house and the house of representatives formally vote for the assassination of some of their members, with those members present for the vote.

This is why the right to order assassinations was taken away from the US executive branch.

And yet the US executive branch still assassinates.

Moreover, the Alliance isn't the US. It isn't even necessarily a good government in the first place: regardless of what a government claims it can/can not do (the Soviet bill of rights comes to mind), what it actually does is even more important. Reality of 'did' surpasses the legality of 'shouldn't have'.

[samagent]

Omnicrat wrote...

So, I'm thinking there are four possibilities, in order of precived likelyhood;  1)  Cerberus history was altered to make it fit the naritive the writers of Mass Effect wanted.  2)  I missed something (either in ME1, 2, or both[or it is explained in some other media]) and there is no discrepency.  3)  The alliance is lieing about Cerberus to distance themselves from any connection to Cerberus that used to be there.  4)  The alliance is lieing about Cerberus because they are still in the fold.

So, what is it?

1. All of you really need to get the comic, that will answer most of your questions.

2. ME1 just doesn't really touch with Cerberus because they are not playing a big part in that game.

3. A lot of Alliance soldiers are Cerberus and Cerberus is broken into three cells that act independently so one Cerberus op cant identify another.

4.TIM's name is Jack and everyone that knew him before his "little" change died in the First Contact War. Jack was not part of the Alliance, he was a rebel group helping defend a human colony that the Turians wanted because of a Reaper artifact.

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And yet the US executive branch still assassinates.

Moreover, the Alliance isn't the US. It isn't even necessarily a good government in the first place: regardless of what a government claims it can/can not do (the Soviet bill of rights comes to mind), what it actually does is even more important. Reality of 'did' surpasses the legality of 'shouldn't have'.

Who has the US executive actually assassinated? I don't mean the military generally as part of congress authorized military action, I mean, who has the president specificly ordered assassinated? And in particular, which US citizens?

And no, we are not going to get into US foreign policy here. As for russia, it is a one party system and any such assassinations are thus not black ops. They are regular ops, with the targets officially known as enemies of the state.

[Zulu_DFA]

samagent wrote...

4.TIM's name is Jack and everyone that knew him before his "little" change died in the First Contact War. Jack was not part of the Alliance, he was a rebel group helping defend a human colony that the Turians wanted because of a Reaper artifact.

Let's wait for the remaining three issues to nail all the details.

For instnace, I've got an impression that the Turian did not want that colony. They knew about the artifact, and becasue of it Shanxi was a forbidden planet. The Humans settled it in between the Turian patrols, so the Turians decided to expel them assoon asthey found them there. When it failed due to armed resistance of the newcomers, the Turians decided to remove the artifact (probably to save it from the coming carpet bombings that forced the Human Garrison to surrender).

But Jack Harper is definitely not just a "rebel group helping defend a human colony". He is a civilian specialist called up from elsewhere to this Alliance colony by an Alliance general to provide additional operational reach.