57020 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

One man's terroist is another man's revolutionary. 

He's both.  

That saying is about subjective popular perception, not an objective either/or dichotomy.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 mai 2011 - 06:40 .

[ipgd]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

One man's terroist is another man's revolutionary.  This makes us both correct.

Nobody was saying they are mutually exclusive.

[Frishmet]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

GailRana wrote...

blarg, i suck at debating and usually stay out if it for that reason, so feel free to rip this post apart if you wish.

No need.  I figure the best I can do to help in this case is simply explain - in as basic and general a way I can given the thread and forum we're in - the nature of al-Qaeda's goals and why the comparisons do work, at least when they're applied thoughtfully.

Note:  This is going to be mostly off-topic to the extent that it discusses the details of the comparison and not exactly Anders himself.

Anyway, I believe you've simply fundamentally misunderstood what al-Qaeda - though it's better to say Islamic pan-nationalism (Qutbism) at large - is really about.   Essentially, they believe the world has become berift of morality and left the grace of God, and that includes other Muslims, but the main antagonists - to them - are the West and socioeconomic imperialism.  There's more detail in the links below.  That their cause isn't sympathic to us - or indeed most people - doesn't really change that. 

The reason the comparison works better than many would think is they associate al-Qaeda and the ideological basis behind it with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. How many people here, or in the West, have even heard of Sayyid Qutb?  He's the man who established a lot of the philosophies on which groups are based, and he started out by writing manifestos, and limiting violence to a targeted attempt at overthrowing the government of Egypt via membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, for which he was eventually tried and executed.  His ideas spread to what would become al-Qaeda through their current leader and former second in command Ayman al-Zawahiri. 

That we could read Qutb's "Milestones" and disagree with all of it really doesn't change the fact that for me, I see a lot of similarities between guys like him and Anders, the difference of course being the nature of the injustices both saw, and the ideal world they both imagine.  The way they both went about it is the key. Both Qutb and Anders essentially endorsed  the idea of putting to use tools that had previously been justified - ideologically and even theologically - for self defense, jihad and magic respectively, as offensive weapons to bring about radical change.

The idea that Anders' actions/ideological position could eventually escalate into something even more violent and extreme in the future, like Qutb leading to people like bin Laden, isn't out of the realm of possibility.  It depends if the writers want to go there, but it would be one of many reasonable places to take it.

Most of what I know of this subject comes from two books I highly recommend:  "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright, and "How To Win A Cosmic War" by Reza Aslan.  Also one documentary, "The Power of Nightmares" by Adam Curtis.

I agree completely that what Anders does is terrorism (as it is strictly defined) and you can definitely compare both the act itself and the philisophical similarities in motivation and ultimate goals with these real life counterparts. 

Where the comparison fails for me though is the different groups of people involved and their situations. Sure, you still have power and less power, perceived and real oppression. But the members of al-Qaeda, or the IRA are miles away from the mages of Thedas.  The Western goverments are not the Chantry and the templars. Perhaps in a very abstract way.. but definitely not in their every day experiences.  So for me, even though the actions are comparable - the specific situation and people involved cannot in any real way be compared.  Our world does not have magic, or a (sometimes very thin) veil between us and spirits and demons that take direct interest in our lives.  We don't have monsters that come up out of the ground and spread blights or extremely powerful beings (such as Flemeth or archdemons) that directly involve themselves in the world. The specific act may be the same but the people involved are literally worlds apart.

I'm not trying to justify anything by saying this... I guess my point is to say that you have to put things in the proper context and while part of it is comparable to real life, a whole lot of it is very specific to the world in which it took place.

Modifié par Frishmet, 05 mai 2011 - 06:42 .

[Patriciachr34]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Stroud is awesome though. His mustache would impress even the great Ron Swanson.

Yes, but he hates cats.  How can you balance awesome mustaches with cat hating?

[upsettingshorts]

I agree - to an extent - which is why I never take the comparisons further.

Typically if I want to go into an argument along those lines I usually cite fiction, like Babylon 5's telepaths.

Patriciachr34 wrote...
Yes, but he hates cats.  How can you balance awesome mustaches with cat hating?[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/unsure.png[/smilie]

Ron Swanson, I'm pretty sure, is a dog person.  It's quite possible. 

But then there is this.  So who knows.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 mai 2011 - 06:42 .

[Dreaming-in-Shadow]

Ryzaki wrote...

ipgd wrote...
No? It's not out of the question that he'd figure out what happened without Hawke.

True. 

But we all know what happens when you play telephone. 

I bet despite being a DLC, we see Seb in DA3.
Even if he blew up in the Chantry, he would survive.

Evidence on this thread in the form of ZWNC (Zombie-Wynne necroboners. How did I end up starting a conversation that formed such bizarre products!?)

[Patriciachr34]

ipgd wrote...

Patriciachr34 wrote...

One man's terroist is another man's revolutionary.  This makes us both correct.

Nobody was saying they are mutually exclusive.

Very true.  I think the ultimate question is whether the cause justified his actions.  Was there any other alternative to evoke change, or was this the only way?

[dpMeggers]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

dpMeggers wrote...

Patriciachr34 wrote...

I know there is a case to be made for Anders the terrorist, but it is my impression that Anders was not trying to terrorize and intimidiate a population.  Nor was he trying to destroy and rebuild all of the moires of a society.  He was trying to escalate a conflict by removing the one thing that was keeping "the lid on the pot", that being Althena and the Chantry (the Chantry being a symbol of opression for mages).  In essence, he was trying bring about change for one group of people within a society and not destroy that society as a whole.  I beleive that this distinction is important here.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
terrorism: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

The Chantry explosion was unofficial/unauthorized insofar as no governing body gave the command for it to happen. Violence was most certainly used - the building was obliterated. The intent of the action was to kickstart a war between the Chantry in the form of templars and mages so that the mages finally fight for their rights, which can be deemed a political aim, given that the Chantry does sort of govern most of southern Thedas from the background.

From the Oxford English Dictionary: 
terrorist: a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

Anders certainly used terrorism (see above) in the pursuit of political aims - mage freedom. I would say that what he did certainly is a textbook case of an act of terrorism. Thus Anders is a terrorist.

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary
Definition of REVOLUTION1  2 a[/i] : a sudden, radical, or complete change b[/i] : a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed c[/i] : activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation d[/i] : a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm <the Copernican revolution>

One man's terroist is another man's revolutionary.  This makes us both correct.

I'm not saying he is not a revolutionary. What I'm saying is that he is also a terrorist. There's no reason for the two terms to be mutually exclusive.
Anders is both a revolutionary and a terrorist. He uses violence to further his revolution.

[YamiSnuffles]

thebrute7 wrote...

Dreaming-in-Shadow wrote...

On a quick unrelated post (yet still on topic according to my signature) DA2 has left me subconsiously spelling justice with a capital "J".

This made me laugh... I have caught myself doing it a couple ties too.

While I don't always capitalize justice, I do find myself perking up anytime I hear the word now. So commercials for lawyers and such have suddenly become much more amusing than they once were.

[upsettingshorts]

That question isn't something that ought to have an easy answer, even with hindsight. A lot of controversial violence remains controversial decades after the winners and losers have already been determined, and conflicts long settled.

[Ryzaki]

Dreaming-in-Shadow wrote...

I bet despite being a DLC, we see Seb in DA3.
Even if he blew up in the Chantry, he would survive.

Evidence on this thread in the form of ZWNC (Zombie-Wynne necroboners. How did I end up starting a conversation that formed such bizarre products!?)

Magically like Leliana.  "The Maker decided it wasn't my time!" Bah. Thankfully I never bothered recruting Leliana if I planned on tainting the ashes. (which I only did about twice). 

Wait...Wynne resurrects?  (Other than the whole spirit of Faith thing?) 

[ipgd]

Frishmet wrote...

I agree completely that what Anders does is terrorism (as it is strictly defined) and you can definitely compare both the act itself and the philisophical similarities in motivation and ultimate goals with these real life counterparts. 

Where the comparison fails for me though is the different groups of people involved and their situations. Sure, you still have power and less power, perceived and real oppression. But the members of al-Qaeda, or the IRA are miles away from the mages of Thedas.  The Western goverments are not the Chantry and the templars. Perhaps in a very abstract way.. but definitely not in their every day experiences.  So for me, even though the actions are comparable - the specific situation and people involved cannot in any real way be compared.  Our world does not have magic, or a (sometimes very thin) veil between us and spirits and demons that take direct interest in our lives.  We don't have monsters that come up out of the ground and spread blights or extremely powerful beings (such as Flemeth or archdemons) that directly involve themselves in the world. The specific act may be the same but the people involved are literally worlds apart.

I'm not trying to justify anything by saying this... I guess my point is to say that you have to put things in the proper context and while part of it is comparable to real life, a whole lot of it is very specific to the world in which it took place.

The point isn't drawing exact comparisons between their actions and motivations, it's the reactions they inspire. Even though the west has flanderized Al-Qaeda to the point where practically no one has any actual idea what they actually stand for, there are people who genuinely feel their actions are justified.

Modifié par ipgd, 05 mai 2011 - 06:48 .

[nekhbet]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Patriciachr34 wrote...

One man's terroist is another man's revolutionary.  This makes us both correct.

Nobody was saying they are mutually exclusive.

Very true.  I think the ultimate question is whether the cause justified his actions.  Was there any other alternative to evoke change, or was this the only way?

There's rarely change without someone doing something radical and others thinking afterwards if it could have been done some other way. Usually after tens of years of trying other ways.

No, I doubt there would have been real change without someone doing something radical in Thedas. Was blowing a chantry the only radical thing that could have triggered change (for better or worse)? I doubt it. But we'll never know.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Also that freedom thing doesn't really hold weight when he roamsn around Kirkwall freely for 7 years. No matter how much he says the templars are hunting him they never actually do anything to give his words weight (other than that isolated event with his recruitment). (which was a weakness in the narrative frankly). 

Oh, also, on this point, I blame that purely on game mechanics.  Can't figure out how the Devs could manage to overlook the rather bizarrely illogical point of, since Kirkwall is this hyper-super-ultra-anti-mage place with a bat-crazy Knight-Commander and a far more oppressive Circle than elsewhere, having the Templars, especially Cullen, of all people, happily disregard the fact that several known apostates are being allowed to romp through the city completely unmolested, and well before Hawke has the flimsy plot-armour of being the Champion.  It's one thing for Anders to somehow live freely in Darktown, since we do at least hear and see indicators that the refugees are prepared to die protecting him.  But for him to stroll into Hightown, or the bloody Gallows, and all Cullen does is give him the stink-eye?! 

I just chalk it up to poor lore execution and pretend while I'm playing the game that the templars really are harassing and stalking my mage!Hawke and her mage companions.  Just like, with my blood mage PT, I pretend that Anders is just as upset over Hawke's use of blood magic as he is Merrill's, and doesn't whistle and look the other direction whenever she stabs herself in the hand.  Or the same reason that I adjust things in my head so that the NPCs aren't completely oblivious and don't have to have it spelled out for them that yes, Hawke is indeed a mage, and she's not just wearing the traditional garb of mages or wielding the traditional weapon of mages because she had an inclination to play dress-up that day.

[Dreaming-in-Shadow]

YamiSnuffles wrote...

thebrute7 wrote...

Dreaming-in-Shadow wrote...

On a quick unrelated post (yet still on topic according to my signature) DA2 has left me subconsiously spelling justice with a capital "J".

This made me laugh... I have caught myself doing it a couple ties too.

While I don't always capitalize justice, I do find myself perking up anytime I hear the word now. So commercials for lawyers and such have suddenly become much more amusing than they once were.

I know. I do that too.
Worse, my friend dropped a cookie, and I told her off jokingly, and allowed my subconsious to handle the words. What came out was "THIS IS AN INJUSTICE!!!"


I love that in the middle of a heated debate, there's a tiny conversation about DA2 and the effect that the word "Justice" has on us now because of it.

[Silfren]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

ipgd wrote...

ElleMullineux wrote...

Edit
And it's my perception that the seekers think that Hawke did it/ masterminded it all, they weren't aware of Ander's involvement.

If you let Anders live, Sebastian would definitely make sure everyone knows what Anders did.

Doesn't that only apply if you recruited Sebastian? 

Not recruiting him doesn't mean he doesn't exist.  He just isn't with Hawke at the time when the Chantry explodes.  I'm sure he'd find whoever was responsible for Elthina's death and hunt them down regardless.

Not if, since he couldn't find anyone to carry out his vengeance against the Flint company, he stayed in the Chantry and got blown up along with the Grand Cleric.

[dpMeggers]

Silfren wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Also that freedom thing doesn't really hold weight when he roamsn around Kirkwall freely for 7 years. No matter how much he says the templars are hunting him they never actually do anything to give his words weight (other than that isolated event with his recruitment). (which was a weakness in the narrative frankly). 

Oh, also, on this point, I blame that purely on game mechanics.  Can't figure out how the Devs could manage to overlook the rather bizarrely illogical point of, since Kirkwall is this hyper-super-ultra-anti-mage place with a bat-crazy Knight-Commander and a far more oppressive Circle than elsewhere, having the Templars, especially Cullen, of all people, happily disregard the fact that several known apostates are being allowed to romp through the city completely unmolested, and well before Hawke has the flimsy plot-armour of being the Champion.  It's one thing for Anders to somehow live freely in Darktown, since we do at least hear and see indicators that the refugees are prepared to die protecting him.  But for him to stroll into Hightown, or the bloody Gallows, and all Cullen does is give him the stink-eye?! 

I got around that by never bringing mages into the Gallows. Especially easy on my non-mage playthroughs. But I agree it was a bit strange before Act II, when you had enough money and influence that people were willing to look the other way. 

During Act I, I just figured that by the time they figured out where you were, it was because you were helping Cullen, and had rescued Seamus, so they just kind of ignored you because you were helpful.

[Silfren]

SmilingDeceit wrote...

Dreaming-in-Shadow wrote...

I can imagine a conversation a bit like this:

NPC: So, you remember that mage friend of yours in the Arl's dungeon?
Arion: Jowan?
NPC: That's the name. You said you got into trouble over that?
Arion: I helped him get away from the Chantry, and he turned out to be a blood mage. I swore never to be so stupid again. Your point?
NPC: Anders was one of the wardens you conscripted, right? Well... he just blew up the Chantry.
Arion: ...GODDAMNIT NOT AGAIN!!!

Which leads to this if Anders ever runs into the WC again..

I hate you.  I mean, I've snorted a lot of things in my life, but you just made me snort alcohol.  Let me just say, OW.

[Dreaming-in-Shadow]

Ryzaki wrote...

Magically like Leliana.  "The Maker decided it wasn't my time!" Bah. Thankfully I never bothered recruting Leliana if I planned on tainting the ashes. (which I only did about twice). 

Wait...Wynne resurrects?  (Other than the whole spirit of Faith thing?) 

I did that once, just for the conversation where Leliana puts Zevran off of having sex. Hardened Leli is scary.

This was the conversation: 

Dreaming-in-Shadow wrote...

Nilfalasiel wrote...

And further on that note: does Wynne still show up in Awakening if you kill her in DAO?

She did for me!
I killed her in origins and she was standing there, I went to talk to her and she goes:

Wynne: Oh. It's you again.
Warden: Yeah. Me again. I just have a quick question: Why the **** are you still here!?!

Bloody spirits... [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

And stupid bugs.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
Oh, also, on this point, I blame that purely on game mechanics.  Can't figure out how the Devs could manage to overlook the rather bizarrely illogical point of, since Kirkwall is this hyper-super-ultra-anti-mage place with a bat-crazy Knight-Commander and a far more oppressive Circle than elsewhere, having the Templars, especially Cullen, of all people, happily disregard the fact that several known apostates are being allowed to romp through the city completely unmolested, and well before Hawke has the flimsy plot-armour of being the Champion.  It's one thing for Anders to somehow live freely in Darktown, since we do at least hear and see indicators that the refugees are prepared to die protecting him.  But for him to stroll into Hightown, or the bloody Gallows, and all Cullen does is give him the stink-eye?!  

It's worse. You can march up to Cullen with Anders in Hawke's party and tell Cullen Anders' is plotting against the Chantry. And Cullen does not immediately arrest Anders. 

It's ridculous. 

I love DA2 but it was rushed. Way rushed. 

I just chalk it up to poor lore execution and pretend while I'm playing the game that the templars really are harassing and stalking my mage!Hawke and her mage companions.  Just like, with my blood mage PT, I pretend that Anders is just as upset over Hawke's use of blood magic as he is Merrill's, and doesn't whistle and look the other direction whenever she stabs herself in the hand.  Or the same reason that I adjust things in my head so that the NPCs aren't completely oblivious and don't have to have it spelled out for them that yes, Hawke is indeed a mage, and she's not just wearing the traditional garb of mages or wielding the traditional weapon of mages because she had an inclination to play dress-up that day.

Yeah I'm starting to see why people can't play mages anymore. There's too much "...huh?" going on during a mage playthrough. 

It's harder for me to ignore bloodmagic. I just can't use it anymore (does help that the spec is pretty lackluster). Hawke constantly berating people for using bloodmagic makes him look like a world class hypocrite. 

[upsettingshorts]

Ah gameplay-story segregation.

I honestly don't think that more development time would have fixed many of those issues, though.  Stuff like repeated areas, and perhaps Act pacing might be fixed... but not fundamental issues like that. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 mai 2011 - 06:57 .

[Heidenreich]

Revolutionaries and terrorists are effectively the exact same thing. The only difference is, in the view of history. As history will tell it, a terrorist is someone who lost the war, where a revolutionary won. Of course, it also depends upon who's telling the history ;p

A very clear example of this is the founding fathers of the U.S. Had the Revolutionaries lost the war they started, then history would remember it as being nothing more then a terrorist movement, and the US would still be called the Colonies ;p

[Silfren]

Dreaming-in-Shadow wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

ipgd wrote...
No? It's not out of the question that he'd figure out what happened without Hawke.

True. 

But we all know what happens when you play telephone. 

I bet despite being a DLC, we see Seb in DA3.
Even if he blew up in the Chantry, he would survive.

Evidence on this thread in the form of ZWNC (Zombie-Wynne necroboners. How did I end up starting a conversation that formed such bizarre products!?)

And for me that just randomly conjured up the twisted notion that Sebastian is the son that Wynne was forced to give up.

[ipgd]

Silfren wrote...

And for me that just randomly conjured up the twisted notion that Sebastian is the son that Wynne was forced to give up.

MALCOLM IS WYNNE'S SON


I BELIEEEEEVE

[upsettingshorts]

Heidenreich wrote...

Revolutionaries and terrorists are effectively the exact same thing. The only difference is, in the view of history.

Not necessarily. 

You can be a revolutionary without being a terrorist just as you can be a terrorist without being a revolutionary.

But it is often the case that the same individual or group qualifies for both labels, and then history does tend to focus on one label over the other.