RetroActiv wrote...
Errrr..... It's pretty obvious that he knew exactly what he was doing and what would happen after he murdered all those people. That was exactly what he wanted and even admited as much for crying out loud. You really are trying to minimize his atrocity as much as possible but there is just no getting around the fact that Anders Bin Laden with that single act of mass murder and terrorism became a murdering scumbag worse than crazy old Merridith. Sorry
Really? Anders came right out and admitted he wanted Meredith to slaughter all the mages in the Gallows?
No, I'm not trying to minimize his atrocity. I just see him as fighting for a righteous cause. His actions were extreme, and bloody, yes, but the same can be and often is said of historical figures. I'm guessing you're an American like myself, based on your insistence on the bin Laden references (said because I don't know anyone beyond Americans who draw parallels to terrorism with phrases like "Anders bin Laden), so I wonder, do you think any of our Great American Heroes never, ever shed innocent blood? None of the American Revolutionaries?
History is written by the victor, and the victors rarely paint themselves as terroristic murderers, even though objective observations of history usually reveals that the primary difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is the cause being championed.
There's a few significant differences between Anders and bin Laden, however. bin Laden went out of his way to target innocent people. He also didn't actually put himself in harm's way, and he spent years actively avoiding capture or execution. All the available evidence we have suggests that in Laden rejoiced in the deaths of innocents even as he sent other people to do the killling. By contrast, Anders doesn't send anyone to do his dirty work, but takes it upon himself. Given his words to Hawke, it seems that he specifically wanted to make sure that he, and only he, was responsible for his crime. He didn't rejoice in the deaths he caused, but acknowledged that what he did was horrific. Depending on whether you romanced him, he even acknowledges that his victims deserve justice. And even though innocent people likely--not absolutely, but likely--were caught in the crossfire,
he did not target them. He targeted the Chantry rather than a soft target (like, say, the Hanged Man), and the Grand Cleric, who was by no means innocent.
Oh, and this is the part you're really going to hate me for...like it or not, bin Laden's attack on the U.S. was successful in large part because of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Before you toss around any accusations, I'm not saying that he was right, or justified, to mastermind the slaughter of over three thousand people (including other terrorist acts beyond the Twin Towers, such as the
Cole). But if you pay any attention to U.S. foreign policy at all, and our, erm, rich history of dealings with the world at large...there's no getting around the fact that we, as a nation, fostered the hatred that led to people wanting to attack us in the first place.
There's a similar situation in-game between Anders and the Chantry. A lot of people keep saying that Anders' action only proves the Chantry correct, but that's a serious misunderstanding of cause-and-effect logic. His actions don't justify Chantry law; it is Chantry law that created Anders to begin with.
Modifié par Silfren, 05 mai 2011 - 05:23 .
Retour en haut
I just felt cheated really. I think it is for that reason I can't really like him. I just see wasted money, on what can feel like walls.
