4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

...Are you serious?

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

And I can imagine more than a few mages will see him as a terrorist as well. 

If it leads to the continued emancipation of the Circles of Magi, I can see history seeing him favorably.

Ryzaki wrote...

The Chantry blowing up was an act of terrorism. He's a terrroist. It doesn't matter how noble his goals were.

Anders wanted to see mages freed from their dictatorship under the Chantry and its templars.

Ryzaki wrote...

Osama Bin Laden may have had noble goals to his followers. That didn't make him any less of a terrorist. 

Usama Bin Ladin had no noble goals, he was a monster. Anders is trying to emancipate his people from a system he condemns as slavery, where entire populations can be massacred in an act of genocide.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
According to whom?  You?  You are not the final authority.  

According to the definition of a terrorist. 

I could just as easily say he may be a terrorist to you, but he still counts as a freedom fighter.  There's an argument to be had that he qualifies as both, because the terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  But it is also a fact that "terrorism", far more than "murder", is an emotionally-laden term that depends a great, great deal on a person's perspective.  That is the reason why many people throughout history whose actions more or less fall under most standard definitions of terrrorism...are very pointedly never once referred to as terrorists, especially not by the people who are the cultural inheritors of the history those people created.  Ahem.

He is BOTH. I never argued that they were mutally exclusive. Hell I even said some people may consider him the later. He's still a terrorist. He'll always be a terroist. He used terrorist means. 

I hold that Anders' actions were necessary to topple an oppressive institution that has historically done far more harm than good, and quite beyond the question of mages.  So as far as I'm concerned, he's not a terrorist, but a liberating hero.  Of course, I'm capable of understanding that my opinion is not the end of the discussion, and that it's more complicated than my assessment.  That's just the side I happen to agree with.  

I also think that John Brown, to reference someone I've brought up several times on threads such as this, was not a terrorist either.  But my perspective of Brown doesn't change that that's not how he was seen by the people whose institution he was trying to abolish, nor by the state that executed him for treason.  And technically his actions do fall under the definition of terrorism.  But one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary, and terrorism is a highly loaded term for that reason.

And that doesn't mean he's not a terrorist. He's just the terrorist that you happen to agree with. 

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

What are we discussing?  Our opinion on what the law will say about Elthina's death?  Or whether we, the players, consider her death to be justified homicide or murder?

There's also the issue that if Grand Cleric Elthina's death ultimately means the liberation of the mages across Thedas from the Chantry and the Order of Templars, it might historically be favored as the first steps in the emancipation of the Circles of Magi. It's not like Andraste wrote the Imperium a strongly worded letter when she wanted to free her people, after all.

Exactly this.  There's no escaping the fact that how we view a person depends very, very much on the direction history takes.  I have no doubt that many of Andraste's contempories thought she was a madwoman, a murderer, etc.  Most people just don't take the time to consciously remind themselves that our personal, modern convictions, and how they influence our opinion of a historal figure, in addition to what our textbooks and our teachers tell us about how that figure is "meant" to be perceived, are usually radically different to how that person's own peers viewed them, how their enemies viewed them, and what the law had to say on the issue.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
If it leads to the continued emancipation of the Circles of Magi, I can see history seeing him favorably.

Oh it will. But it doesn't stop him from beinga terrorist. They'll call him a freedom fighter but he will always be a terrorist. 

Anders wanted to see mages freed from their dictatorship under the Chantry and its templars.

And? He still used terrorist means to prove his point. Osama Bin Laden didn't just blow up the Trade Center for kicks and giggles. He like Anders was trying to prove his point. 

Usama Bin Ladin had no noble goals, he was a monster. Anders is trying to emancipate his people from a system he condemns as slavery, where entire populations can be massacred in an act of genocide.

...*sighs* I'm gonna quote UpsettingShorts here. 

Upsetting Shorts wote...

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.

He was trying to prove his point.  One I can't fully understand but it wasn't "for the evilulz" 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 10:05 .

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
According to whom?  You?  You are not the final authority.  

According to the definition of a terrorist. 

Technically speaking, you could consider the American revolutionaries terrorists as well. However, Silfren has a point: the definition of terrorism has proven to be controversial because not everyone sees it the same way. There are various legal systems and government agencies that use different definitions of "terrorism" as a result.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki

No. The fact that no matter how you think it's justified it does still count as murder in the eyes of the law. It's that simple. It's like me not liking the name "blue" so everything's blue I call "pink". It's not. It'll alway be blue no matter how much I say it's not. 

Pick a better analogy.  The terminology we create in order to distinguish one color from another is not correlateable to the question of how to define what constitutes murder.

You're making a judgement call on this not me. I'm not saying Murder is inherently good or evil. It just is. And that's exactly what Anders did. He assassinated the Grand Cleric in a terrorist attack. Those are facts. 

It may be for the greater good but that's what he did. 

Just like those who fulfill the RoA may end up murdering innocent mages. That's just the way it is. For good or ill. 

Maybe that's part of the confusion.  Most people consider the term murder to carry a strongly negative connotation.  In fact I've never seen anyone try to separate "murder" from that aspect and argue that it is a totally connotatively neutral term.  This is a first.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
According to whom?  You?  You are not the final authority.  

According to the definition of a terrorist. 

Technically speaking, you could consider the American revolutionaries terrorists as well. However, Silfren has a point: the definition of terrorism has proven to be controversial because not everyone sees it the same way. There are various legal systems and government agencies that use different definitions of "terrorism" as a result.

I do consider them terrorists. Just terrorists that ended up helping people ather than pulling them down. 

And which defintion of terrorism does Anders not fit? 

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

I could just as easily say he may be a terrorist to you, but he still counts as a freedom fighter.  There's an argument to be had that he qualifies as both, because the terms are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  But it is also a fact that "terrorism", far more than "murder", is an emotionally-laden term that depends a great, great deal on a person's perspective.

The phrase "emotionally -laden" seems to be the key here.  When someone uses the legal definition of murder to dispassionately label Anders as a murderer that's hard to argue against.  The trick is when you use "murderer" as an epithet and want the emotional response rather than the legal one.  It's all semantics, but it didn't feel like Ryzaki wanted you to accept the label for academic purposes but rather as a condemnation of his character.  That's where lots of individual interpretation can come into play.

[Sylvianus]

.......

Yes indeed, many Islamists, even Hamas and Moudjajins view bin Laden as a freedom fighter.  Each his interpretation....

Modifié par Sylvianus, 06 mai 2011 - 10:09 .

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
Pick a better analogy.  The terminology we create in order to distinguish one color from another is not correlateable to the question of how to define what constitutes murder.

Then how did he not murder Elthina? Since plotting and aiming directly for her with the intent to kill is somehow not murder when his life was in no immediate danger from her. (Or anyone's life considering she was in the Chantry as usual). 

Maybe that's part of the confusion.  Most people consider the term murder to carry a strongly negative connotation.  In fact I've never seen anyone try to separate "murder" from that aspect and argue that it is a totally connotatively neutral term.  This is a first.

Nope. I freely admit my Hawke has murdered innocent people. Some of it for the better some of it for the worse. It's just an action. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 10:31 .

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

It is. People are denying he's a terrorist? 

Some of us say he's a freedom fighter.

*slams the lid back down on the can of worms she just opened*

He's a terrorist. He may be a FF to you as well but he still counts as a terrorist. 

time for some Ghost in the Shell quotes that apply here.


"All of us fight in the name of what we believe to be just and ethical. If you ask me, nothing else is worth following." -- Major Motoko Kusunagi


"I once heard that people turn to terrorism because they run out of hope." -- Batou.


Anders is both a freedom fighter and a terrorist. They are not two separate things, but rather an issue of ideals and how a person views them. You can say he's more of a FF than a terrorist or vice-versa but that does not mean he is not a terrorist at all.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 mai 2011 - 10:11 .

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
The phrase "emotionally -laden" seems to be the key here.  When someone uses the legal definition of murder to dispassionately label Anders as a murderer that's hard to argue against.  The trick is when you use "murderer" as an epithet and want the emotional response rather than the legal one.  It's all semantics, but it didn't feel like Ryzaki wanted you to accept the label for academic purposes but rather as a condemnation of his character.  That's where lots of individual interpretation can come into play.

For the love of Christ. I like Anders. He's a murderer though. (So is 99% of the people you meet in BW games). I'm not trying to "condemn" him. (He does that perfectly fine on his own). I'm not trying to "convert" someone from liking him. 

It is for the plain fact that yes he's a murder and yes it's okay to like someone who's a murder. The world isn't gonna explode.   

As it is right now I'm getting THIS

And I hate when my favorite characters become that. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 10:15 .

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
time for some Ghost in the Shell quotes that apply here.


"All of us fight in the name of what we believe to be just and ethical. If you ask me, nothing else is worth following." -- Major Motoko Kusunagi


"I once heard that people turn to terrorism because they run out of hope." -- Batou.


Anders is both a freedom fighter and a terrorist. They are not two separate things, but rather an issue of ideals and how a person views them. You can say he's more of a FF than a terrorist, but that does not mean he is not a FF at all.

 

Freedom fighters and terrorist are two different things but they can intersect (like they do with Anders). I find him more of a terrorist than freedom fighter (mostly because he planned on kicking the bucket and leaving others to deal with his mess) but he's always gonna be both. 

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If it leads to the continued emancipation of the Circles of Magi, I can see history seeing him favorably.

Oh it will. But it doesn't stop him from beinga terrorist. They'll call him a freedom fighter but he will always be a terrorist. 

You could call the American revolutionaries trying to emancipate the thirteen colonies terrorists under the general definition; even the former slaves who fought to liberate Saint Domonique or the Cuban rebels who fought against the dictatorship of General Batista could be viewed as terrorists and freedom fighters.

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Anders wanted to see mages freed from their dictatorship under the Chantry and its templars.

And? He still used terrorist means to prove his point. Osama Bin Laden didn't just blow up the Trade Center for kicks and giggles. He like Anders was trying to prove his point. 

Which makes Anders no different than the Sons of Liberty, who fought against the British after 1766.

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Usama Bin Ladin had no noble goals, he was a monster. Anders is trying to emancipate his people from a system he condemns as slavery, where entire populations can be massacred in an act of genocide.

...*sighs*

Anders didn't blow up a building in the name of his religion, although the Chantry does oppress every mage across Thedas in the name of theirs. I'd say the religious fanatics that you keep mentioning have much more in common with the Chantry than they do with Anders or the Resolutionists.

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
time for some Ghost in the Shell quotes that apply here.


"All of us fight in the name of what we believe to be just and ethical. If you ask me, nothing else is worth following." -- Major Motoko Kusunagi


"I once heard that people turn to terrorism because they run out of hope." -- Batou.


Anders is both a freedom fighter and a terrorist. They are not two separate things, but rather an issue of ideals and how a person views them. You can say he's more of a FF than a terrorist, but that does not mean he is not a FF at all.

 

Freedom fighters and terrorist are two different things but they can intersect (like they do with Anders). I find him more of a terrorist than freedom fighter (mostly because he planned on kicking the bucket and leaving others to deal with his mess) but he's always gonna be both. 

But the thing to be proud of him for is that he didn't offer himself to death so he could become a martyr, though killing him will most likely make him one. He did it so that the people he killed, Elthina included, would receive justice.

In a banter with Isabella, he even says something along those lines

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

The phrase "emotionally -laden" seems to be the key here.  When someone uses the legal definition of murder to dispassionately label Anders as a murderer that's hard to argue against.  The trick is when you use "murderer" as an epithet and want the emotional response rather than the legal one.  It's all semantics, but it didn't feel like Ryzaki wanted you to accept the label for academic purposes but rather as a condemnation of his character.  That's where lots of individual interpretation can come into play.

Thank you for getting this.  I run into trouble because I can usually see, when I'm arguing something, that there's usually several different aspects to an issue that often need to be distinguished and warrant entirely separate discussions, and get called dishonest or accused of being disingenuous or any number of things because I forget that not everyone does that, or is capable of doing that, so I forget to be specific and make distinguishing points and it always gets me into trouble when I have to go back and qualify everything in retrospect.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You could call the American revolutionaries trying to emancipate the thirteen colonies terrorists under the general definition; even the former slaves who fought to liberate Saint Domonique or the Cuban rebels who fought against the dictatorship of General Batista could be viewed as terrorists and freedom fighters.

If they fit the definition of a terrorist yes I would consider them such. Terrorists that fought for the greater good but terrorist nonetheless. 

Ryzaki wrote...

Which makes Anders no different than the Sons of Liberty, who fought against the British after 1766.

And? You say this as though I'm saying all terroism = BAD

It doesn't. 

Ryzaki wrote...

Anders didn't blow up a building in the name of his religion, although the Chantry does oppress every mage across Thedas in the name of theirs. I'd say the religious fanatics that you keep mentioning have much more in common with the Chantry than they do with Anders or the Resolutionists.

He blew it up to stop the religion from oppressing his people. He goaded the chantry into a war while using the Grand Cleric as a sacrifice. 

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
But the thing to be proud of him for is that he didn't offer himself to death so he could become a martyr, though killing him will most likely make him one. He did it so that the people he killed, Elthina included, would receive justice. 

In a banter with Isabella, he even says something along those lines

 

Yeah well justice doesn't exactly resurrect all those people (kids included) that he killed. 

I just dislike the fact that people are trying to downplay the fact that he's a terrorist and a murder. I understand why people like him really I do but the whole thing smacks of this. 

And it cheapens it. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 10:23 .

[TEWR]

Terrorism with truly noble intentions where there is a greater good to be gained is something to be proud of, although still disapprove of because of lives lost. (Anders)


Terrorism for the sake of terrorism is where you should want to put a bullet (or dagger) in the person's head (Osama).

[LobselVith8]

Sylvianus wrote...

.......

Yes indeed, many Islamists, even Hamas and Moudjajins view bin Laden as a freedom fighter. Each his interpretation....

Many Andrastians view the Chantry and the templars as heroes. In fact, doesn't Hamas rule Gaza in a dictatorship? Aren't they religious extemists who oppress people?

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

Thank you for getting this.  I run into trouble because I can usually see, when I'm arguing something, that there's usually several different aspects to an issue that often need to be distinguished and warrant entirely separate discussions, and get called dishonest or accused of being disingenuous or any number of things because I forget that not everyone does that, or is capable of doing that, so I forget to be specific and make distinguishing points and it always gets me into trouble when I have to go back and qualify everything in retrospect.

It's hard to have any sort of nuanced conversation on these boards.  Text just doesn't convey enough.  But I do like that moment of clarity when what someone else is trying to say finally sinks in 

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
But the thing to be proud of him for is that he didn't offer himself to death so he could become a martyr, though killing him will most likely make him one. He did it so that the people he killed, Elthina included, would receive justice. 

In a banter with Isabella, he even says something along those lines

 

Yeah well justice doesn't exactly resurrect all those people (kids included) that he killed. 

I just dislike the fact that people are trying to downplay the fact that he's a terrorist and a murder. I understand why people like him really I do but the whole thing smacks of this.

well, I don't downplay his flaws. But I do justify him.

You're assuming though that there were kids in that Chantry. While this is something the Chantry does, I remember two sisters/mothers/something saying how the orphans refused Chantry aid and were living in Darktown.

[Sylvianus]

Now I hope you understand why YOUR mage view, can not necessarily be interpreted in the same way that those who are in no side and the side of anyone, even people.

You tolerate this act of terrorism in your name and those of the Magi, you tolerate and justify the murder, do not expect that others are necessarily agree.

YOU consider that Eltina is guilty of inertia, just as bin Laden has decided that Americans were guilty of inertia, have allowed their government for doing stupid things.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 06 mai 2011 - 10:26 .

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
well, I don't downplay his flaws. But I do justify him.

You're assuming though that there were kids in that Chantry. While this is something the Chantry does, I remember two sisters/mothers/something saying how the orphans refused Chantry aid and were living in Darktown.

Children are given to become chantry sisters/brothers at a very young age. (Hi Alistair) Like with the gallows these children are never shown. (And if you don't let Bethany become a mage you're never even aware of them). So yeah...I'm pretty sure there's children in the chantry. 

Some of the children ran off but I doubt all of them ran. There's usually gonna be a few that take the help. 

I don't mind justication. It's whitewashing that bothers me. 

Both sides committ horrible atrocities and kill innocents. Neither side has any moral high ground. That's what I like about the conflict. Whitewashing removes that and tries to pretend one side has a moral high ground. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 10:29 .