1529 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

I do not accept an uncited Wiki paragraph as a reliable source. I'm asking for explicit examples of terrorist activities or quotes to that effect from the Mass Effect games, books, or comics.

[piemanz]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I don't like it because it's a plot hole. Your liking it doesn't make it any less a plot hole.

The facts all seem to suggest otherwise......

leonia42 wrote...


It's kind of like saying "I don't like Cerberus.. they must be terrorists!"

Sorry i'm not sure what you mean by that.

Just to clarify though, Cerberus is known as a terrorist organistion, just becasuse you personally have not witnessed any terrorist acts does not mean they didn't happen.

Modifié par piemanz, 01 avril 2011 - 05:52 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Also... hasn't anyone here heard of a show trial? Heck, they could take Shepard to the actual Hague, and say "See, we're totally serious, we're trying him where we have tried all our greatest war criminals throughout history! We're sooooo serious!"

[GreenDragon37]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I do not accept an uncited Wiki paragraph as a reliable source. I'm asking for explicit examples of terrorist activities or quotes to that effect from the Mass Effect games, books, or comics.

If you read the SB dossiers and if you actually listened to the Quarians, you'll see what I mean.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 01 avril 2011 - 05:53 .

[piemanz]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I do not accept an uncited Wiki paragraph as a reliable source. I'm asking for explicit examples of terrorist activities or quotes to that effect from the Mass Effect games, books, or comics.

If you read the SB dossiers and if you actually listened to the Quarians, you'll see what I mean.

Yup, or read Ascension.

Modifié par piemanz, 01 avril 2011 - 05:53 .

[Leonia]

The actions on the Idenna weren't taken against the quarian people, that was Cerberus trying to reclaim one of their operative's children. Sure, stuff blew up and people died but they never said:

"This is a statement against the quarian people!"

Just because the quarians called Cerberus terrorists for the disruption doesn't mean they actually were terrorists.

The Galactic Empire in Star Wars calls the Rebel Alliance terrorist all the time but they're the good guys, right?

Modifié par leonia42, 01 avril 2011 - 05:55 .

[GreenDragon37]

leonia42 wrote...

The actions on the Idenna weren't taken against the quarian people, that was Cerberus trying to reclaim one of their operative's children. Sure, stuff blew up and people died but they never said:

"This is a statement against the quarian people!"

Reguardless, they still caused an uproar on the Idenna, a place where they weren't supposed to be. What about the assassination of that pope mentioned in the Dossiers?

[Zulu_DFA]

Nashiktal wrote...

Ok I am a bit lost. How is it a plot hole? No seriously, i'm usually on top of these things.

Is it because the Alliance is a separate entity from Earth entirely? (Operational wise at least)

That's right.

[upsettingshorts]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If you read the SB dossiers and if you actually listened to the Quarians, you'll see what I mean.

If you are referring to the events in Mass Effect:  Ascension... that's not terrorism.  As far as the SB dossiers go, you'll have to be more specific.  

[piemanz]

leonia42 wrote...

The actions on the Idenna weren't taken against the quarian people, that was Cerberus trying to reclaim one of their operative's children.

No.

Gillian was being used by cerberus for their experiments due to her biotic potential.Grayson was pretending to be her father but was actually a cerberus operative.Cerberus tried to take gillian because she was valuble to them and nothing else.

Modifié par piemanz, 01 avril 2011 - 05:57 .

[GreenDragon37]

leonia42 wrote...

The actions on the Idenna weren't taken against the quarian people, that was Cerberus trying to reclaim one of their operative's children. Sure, stuff blew up and people died but they never said:

"This is a statement against the quarian people!"

Just because the quarians called Cerberus terrorists for the disruption doesn't mean they actually were terrorists.

The Galactic Empire in Star Wars calls the Rebel Alliance terrorist all the time but they're the good guys, right?

But the Rebel Alliance didn't experiment on childern, did they? Nor did they have a pro-Human supremecy attitude. You can't apply the Rebels from SW to ME. They don't go together.

[Zulu_DFA]

piemanz wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

It's kind of like saying "I don't like Cerberus.. they must be terrorists!"

Sorry i'm not sure what you mean by that.

Just to clarify though, Cerberus is known as a terrorist organistion, just becasuse you personally have not witnessed any terrorist acts does not mean they didn't happen.

The facts seem to suggest otherwise.

[Leonia]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

The actions on the Idenna weren't taken against the quarian people, that was Cerberus trying to reclaim one of their operative's children. Sure, stuff blew up and people died but they never said:

"This is a statement against the quarian people!"

Reguardless, they still caused an uproar on the Idenna, a place where they weren't supposed to be. What about the assassination of that pope mentioned in the Dossiers?

http://masseffect.wi...ssiers/Cerberus

That was rather downplayed by Cerberus and nobody knows that Cerberus was responsible. When a terrorist commits an act of terrorism, they want everyone to know they did it. How else are people supposed to be, you know, terrified of them?

It's crazy that I am defending Cerberus here as I am not a strong supporter of their methods or goals (the ones other than stopping the Reapers, that is). But to call them terrorists simply because I don't like how they do things is ignorant.

Modifié par leonia42, 01 avril 2011 - 05:59 .

[GreenDragon37]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Ok I am a bit lost. How is it a plot hole? No seriously, i'm usually on top of these things.

Is it because the Alliance is a separate entity from Earth entirely? (Operational wise at least)

That's right.

However, Earth still falls under the banner of the Alliance. They can try Shephard there if they want to.

[upsettingshorts]

piemanz wrote...

No.

Gillian was being used by cerberus for their experiments due to her biotic potential.Grayson was pretending to be her father but was actually a cerberus operative.Cerberus trid to take gillian because she was valuble to them and nothing else.

So they take part in totally unethical experiments and view human assets as property.  Still not terrorism.  

You know, Cerberus can be a completely amoral and reprehensible organization that deserves to be put out of business and still be the victims of a propaganda campaign to dismiss them as terrorists.  It's possible, people just have to use words for what they actually mean.

GreenDragon37 wrote...

But the Rebel Alliance didn't experiment on childern, did they? Nor did they have a pro-Human supremecy attitude. You can't apply the Rebels from SW to ME. They don't go together.

Sure they do, because terrorism is a tactic not a way of life or even a motivation or goal.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2011 - 06:00 .

[Nashiktal]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Ok I am a bit lost. How is it a plot hole? No seriously, i'm usually on top of these things.

Is it because the Alliance is a separate entity from Earth entirely? (Operational wise at least)

That's right.

That makes more sense. I thought everyone was talking about a different plot hole. 

In this case Zulu is right. The Alliance is the Human governing body as far as galactic matters are concerned. So a human causing such a crime would be tried by the Alliance on an Alliance governing Station/ship. (Wasn't it arcturus or something similar?)

Then again the Trial could be a symbolic thing or something. However then the problem arises on which country would you be tried in... Earth is stull a bunch of independant nations, and I doubt any would want this headache in their country.

[piemanz]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

piemanz wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

It's kind of like saying "I don't like Cerberus.. they must be terrorists!"

Sorry i'm not sure what you mean by that.

Just to clarify though, Cerberus is known as a terrorist organistion, just becasuse you personally have not witnessed any terrorist acts does not mean they didn't happen.

The facts seem to suggest otherwise.

I agree i don't think Cerberus can be labelled terrorist at worst i would say moraly questionable, but thats not the point of this thread anyway

Modifié par piemanz, 01 avril 2011 - 06:02 .

[upsettingshorts]

Nashiktal wrote...

Then again the Trial could be a symbolic thing or something.

That's all it is.

[GreenDragon37]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

piemanz wrote...

No.

Gillian was being used by cerberus for their experiments due to her biotic potential.Grayson was pretending to be her father but was actually a cerberus operative.Cerberus trid to take gillian because she was valuble to them and nothing else.

So they take part in totally unethical experiments and view human assets as property.  Still not terrorism.  

You know, Cerberus can be a completely amoral and reprehensible organization that deserves to be put out of business and still be the victims of a propaganda campaign to dismiss them as terrorists.  It's possible, people just have to use words for what they actually mean.

GreenDragon37 wrote...

But the Rebel Alliance didn't experiment on childern, did they? Nor did they have a pro-Human supremecy attitude. You can't apply the Rebels from SW to ME. They don't go together.

Sure they do, because terrorism is a tactic not a way of life or even a motivation or goal.  

It seems you'll say anything to defend Cerberus. This will go no-where.

And again, how are the Rebels terrorists in SW? If anything the Empire were full-blown terrorists! The Tarkin Doctrine pretty much advocated the use of terror. Where did the Rebels use terrorism?

[GreenDragon37]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Then again the Trial could be a symbolic thing or something.

That's all it is.

Source? For all you know, it could be a full-blown real trial.

Modifié par GreenDragon37, 01 avril 2011 - 06:03 .

[Weskerr]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Ok I am a bit lost. How is it a plot hole? No seriously, i'm usually on top of these things.

Is it because the Alliance is a separate entity from Earth entirely? (Operational wise at least)

That's right.

However, Earth still falls under the banner of the Alliance. They can try Shephard there if they want to.

I thought the Alliance fell under the banner of Earth.

[Almostfaceman]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

piemanz wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If the Alliance higher-ups want the trial on Earth, they can do it. Looks like they are doing it. Simple as that.

OOC, and plot hole. Simple as that.

Again, how is it a plot hole? I think you are only calling "plot hole" because you don't like it!

We have a winner!

No, you don't.

I don't like it because it's a plot hole. Your liking it doesn't make it any less a plot hole.

It's not a plot hole.

[piemanz]

Weskerr wrote...

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Ok I am a bit lost. How is it a plot hole? No seriously, i'm usually on top of these things.

Is it because the Alliance is a separate entity from Earth entirely? (Operational wise at least)

That's right.

However, Earth still falls under the banner of the Alliance. They can try Shephard there if they want to.

I thought the Alliance fell under the banner of Earth.

It does.

[Leonia]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

And again, how are the Rebels terrorists in SW? If anything the Empire were full-blown terrorists! The Tarkin Doctrine pretty much advocated the use of terror. Where did the Rebels use terrorism?

I was making the point that just becaues you call someone a terrorist doesn't mean they actually are one. A terrorist always has the goal of scaring people into believing their cause. Just committing a crime does not make one a terrorist, no matter how bad the crime is. There must be a cause and a statement attached to the crime for it to be labelled as terrorism. Also, terrorists feel completely justified and "good" about what they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. They don't view themselves as terrorists at all.

Modifié par leonia42, 01 avril 2011 - 06:06 .

[upsettingshorts]

GreenDragon37 wrote...

It seems you'll say anything to defend Cerberus.

I'll say "anything" to explain how they're not terrorists.  I'm not defending Cerberus, I'm defending the term "terrorism" from those who would alter its meaning.  I do the same thing in the DA2 Anders threads by explaining how what he did was terrorism even if he was morally justified.

I'm all for criticizing Cerberus for what they actually are, not what convenient dismissive labels have been applied to them.

GreenDragon37 wrote...

If anything the Empire were full-blown terrorists! The Tarkin Doctrine pretty much advocated the use of terror.

State terrorism is a form of terrorism, yes. 

As far as the Rebels actions, I believe the argument was that they were being accused of terrorism, not that they were ultimately terrorists.  The point is that an accusation alone isn't really indicative of anything other than the position of the person making said accusation.

GreenDragon37 wrote...

Source? For all you know, it could be a full-blown real trial.

Based on what Hackett says.  That's just my interpretation though.

The difference between show trials and real trials is all in the motivation, anyway.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 avril 2011 - 06:07 .