245 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...
Yes, that definition is much better (it's actually very similar to the definition I came up with myself about a dozen posts ago) but there's one key ingredient missing: the intention to create fear. Surely any decent definition of terrorism would have to bear some relation to the word terror?

The attack on the flotilla sure caused fear, because everyone thought their ships were vulnerable to more attacks, thanks to Cerberus.

But was fear the goal? Was the point of the attack to use that fear to prompt some political goal.

'Fear' itself springs from, well, anything dangerous. Economic disaster, or even standard military operations. Fear as a consequences, as opposed to fear as the intent, is an important distinction between terrorism and general criminality.

We don't, say, label every murder or theif a case of terrorism simply because they can spark unease and fear. Terror and public coercion needs to be an objective. 

[onelifecrisis]

Saaziel wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Because if fear was a side-effect, rather than the actual objective, then it's not really terrorism in my book.

That's a rather odd statement.

Rarely , if ever , will "Actual" objectives be , internally , objectionable ; It always out of necessity or in order to lead to all the wonderful things (Whatever those may be).

With the "Side effect / Actual" dichotomy , i could develop justifications for countless depravities.

I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps I should have worded my post better; IMO terrorists create fear with the intention of using that fear to help them meet some other objective - the "real" objective - but the point I was making is that the creation of fear is intentional, not a side-effect. Does that make my statement less odd or am I missing your point?

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 20 juin 2011 - 04:12 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But was fear the goal? Was the point of the attack to use that fear to prompt some political goal.

'Fear' itself springs from, well, anything dangerous. Economic disaster, or even standard military operations. Fear as a consequences, as opposed to fear as the intent, is an important distinction between terrorism and general criminality.

We don't, say, label every murder or theif a case of terrorism simply because they can spark unease and fear. Terror and public coercion needs to be an objective. 

And I'm sure the people in danger knew that an act of terrorism wasn't Cerberus' goal.

[onelifecrisis]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But was fear the goal? Was the point of the attack to use that fear to prompt some political goal.

'Fear' itself springs from, well, anything dangerous. Economic disaster, or even standard military operations. Fear as a consequences, as opposed to fear as the intent, is an important distinction between terrorism and general criminality.

We don't, say, label every murder or theif a case of terrorism simply because they can spark unease and fear. Terror and public coercion needs to be an objective. 

And I'm sure the people in danger knew that an act of terrorism wasn't Cerberus' goal.

If Cerberus were terrorists, and if the fear was their goal, then you can bet they'd do everything they could to make sure that the public (a) know it, and ( know what Cerberus want. That's how real terrorists work.

[Ahglock]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Of course they would, especially by politicians. And that label would tell us what exactly? That they are "bad people" that we should automatically hate? Sorry, but that's lame.

How is that lame? Sorry, but there is nothing noble about terrorism. Cerberus thinks they are too good to stay lawful and think it's nessesary to resort to coercion to achieve their goals, goals who are within themselves not noble either. Cerberus is just an organisation of terrorists and their goals are fascist to say the least.

Then call them Fascist.  The issue is random fascist, racist group does not mean you are a terrorist.  The Klan is a terrorist gorup, not because they are racist but because they do things like lynch peopel not just to lynch that guy but to scare  a group of people.  Cerberus why did they plant the bomb on the flotlla, was it to sacre them or was it so they could get back there super biotic?   When they did project overlord was it because they were trying to scare people in order to motivate a political result or were they coming up with a weapon to use in a probable future war?  

'Fascist' is even less accurate than 'terrorist', if you can believe it.

'Cabal' really fits them, and it's even been used in the CDN.

True in the games about the only real hint of facism is the Cerberus is humanity tirade. But assuming that was a peek at his and Cerberus's true motives/goals, they are fairly fsacist.  Cabal is a pretty good choice, it is probablly the closest thing out there for a one word descriptor of Covert criminal organization with the poltical goal of human dominance in the galaxy.  

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But was fear the goal? Was the point of the attack to use that fear to prompt some political goal.

'Fear' itself springs from, well, anything dangerous. Economic disaster, or even standard military operations. Fear as a consequences, as opposed to fear as the intent, is an important distinction between terrorism and general criminality.

We don't, say, label every murder or theif a case of terrorism simply because they can spark unease and fear. Terror and public coercion needs to be an objective. 

And I'm sure the people in danger knew that an act of terrorism wasn't Cerberus' goal.

Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. Quite frankly, it's irrelevant.

It's very easy to make an argument that all crime inspires fear and terror. But not all crime is terrorism: there's a reason we use that label for an exceptional subset of criminal acts.

[Flashlegend]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But was fear the goal? Was the point of the attack to use that fear to prompt some political goal.

'Fear' itself springs from, well, anything dangerous. Economic disaster, or even standard military operations. Fear as a consequences, as opposed to fear as the intent, is an important distinction between terrorism and general criminality.

We don't, say, label every murder or theif a case of terrorism simply because they can spark unease and fear. Terror and public coercion needs to be an objective. 

And I'm sure the people in danger knew that an act of terrorism wasn't Cerberus' goal.

If Cerberus were terrorists, and if the fear was their goal, then you can bet they'd do everything they could to make sure that the public (a) know it, and ( know what Cerberus want. That's how real terrorists work.

By your definition, most of the organizations the world has labeled terrorist(now and in the past) wouldn't be terrorist organizations.

[Dean_the_Young]

Ahglock wrote...

'Fascist' is even less accurate than 'terrorist', if you can believe it.

'Cabal' really fits them, and it's even been used in the CDN.

True in the games about the only real hint of facism is the Cerberus is humanity tirade. But assuming that was a peek at his and Cerberus's true motives/goals, they are fairly fsacist.  Cabal is a pretty good choice, it is probablly the closest thing out there for a one word descriptor of Covert criminal organization with the poltical goal of human dominance in the galaxy.  

Not even the humanity tirade implies fascism: fascist ideology is actually independent of racism. It's focused primarily under identity, but the nature of identity can vary. In so much that Cerberus has a political label, it's xeno-nationalist, like the rest of the galaxy: in terms of desired political system, Cerberus is quite happy with humanity being a representative democracy, while Cerberus itself does all sorts of nasty things that democracies, fascist dictatorships, and communist oligarchies all do.


'Conspiracy' is another label that could apply, but that's a bit too single-plan focused.

[onelifecrisis]

Flashlegend wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But was fear the goal? Was the point of the attack to use that fear to prompt some political goal.

'Fear' itself springs from, well, anything dangerous. Economic disaster, or even standard military operations. Fear as a consequences, as opposed to fear as the intent, is an important distinction between terrorism and general criminality.

We don't, say, label every murder or theif a case of terrorism simply because they can spark unease and fear. Terror and public coercion needs to be an objective. 

And I'm sure the people in danger knew that an act of terrorism wasn't Cerberus' goal.

If Cerberus were terrorists, and if the fear was their goal, then you can bet they'd do everything they could to make sure that the public (a) know it, and ( know what Cerberus want. That's how real terrorists work.

By your definition, most of the organizations the world has labeled terrorist(now and in the past) wouldn't be terrorist organizations.

How do you figure? Could you give at least one example, with an explanation?

[Dean_the_Young]

Flashlegend wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But was fear the goal? Was the point of the attack to use that fear to prompt some political goal.

'Fear' itself springs from, well, anything dangerous. Economic disaster, or even standard military operations. Fear as a consequences, as opposed to fear as the intent, is an important distinction between terrorism and general criminality.

We don't, say, label every murder or theif a case of terrorism simply because they can spark unease and fear. Terror and public coercion needs to be an objective. 

And I'm sure the people in danger knew that an act of terrorism wasn't Cerberus' goal.

If Cerberus were terrorists, and if the fear was their goal, then you can bet they'd do everything they could to make sure that the public (a) know it, and ( know what Cerberus want. That's how real terrorists work.

By your definition, most of the organizations the world has labeled terrorist(now and in the past) wouldn't be terrorist organizations.

Most? You'd have to support that assertion. But there are certainly some cases in which nations call various groups 'terrorist' for political, as opposed to objective, reasoning. Governments are notorious for labeling things to their own advantage, and terrorism is nothing different.

The modern distinction between 'terrorist' and 'insurgent' is actually a somewhat new and nebulous practice.

[onelifecrisis]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

'Fascist' is even less accurate than 'terrorist', if you can believe it.

'Cabal' really fits them, and it's even been used in the CDN.

True in the games about the only real hint of facism is the Cerberus is humanity tirade. But assuming that was a peek at his and Cerberus's true motives/goals, they are fairly fsacist.  Cabal is a pretty good choice, it is probablly the closest thing out there for a one word descriptor of Covert criminal organization with the poltical goal of human dominance in the galaxy.  

Not even the humanity tirade implies fascism: fascist ideology is actually independent of racism. It's focused primarily under identity, but the nature of identity can vary.

But racial traits can qualify as a fascist identity and often have done in real life. I agree that fascist is not the best description of Cerberus, but I think it's more accurate than "terrorist" and Ahglock has a point wrt the identity part.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 20 juin 2011 - 04:28 .

[Ahglock]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

'Fascist' is even less accurate than 'terrorist', if you can believe it.

'Cabal' really fits them, and it's even been used in the CDN.

True in the games about the only real hint of facism is the Cerberus is humanity tirade. But assuming that was a peek at his and Cerberus's true motives/goals, they are fairly fsacist.  Cabal is a pretty good choice, it is probablly the closest thing out there for a one word descriptor of Covert criminal organization with the poltical goal of human dominance in the galaxy.  

Not even the humanity tirade implies fascism: fascist ideology is actually independent of racism. It's focused primarily under identity, but the nature of identity can vary. In so much that Cerberus has a political label, it's xeno-nationalist, like the rest of the galaxy: in terms of desired political system, Cerberus is quite happy with humanity being a representative democracy, while Cerberus itself does all sorts of nasty things that democracies, fascist dictatorships, and communist oligarchies all do.


'Conspiracy' is another label that could apply, but that's a bit too single-plan focused.

I'm not just talking about the racist aspect.  The cerberus is humanity tirade is basiaclly saying this tiny ass group of people should control all of humanity, they are the strong leader we need, they are humanity.  They want to be a single party state and they have experimented in methods of control inclusing indocrtirnation, eugenics etc.  They really nail quite a few of the facist ideologies and methods.  The Cerbeus is huamnity tirade just ties the strong leader, singualr collective identity motives on top of there facist like methods.  It isn't a perfect fit, but one word definitions rarely are.  

Modifié par Ahglock, 20 juin 2011 - 04:32 .

[Saaziel]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Because if fear was a side-effect, rather than the actual objective, then it's not really terrorism in my book.

That's a rather odd statement.

Rarely , if ever , will "Actual" objectives be , internally , objectionable ; It always out of necessity or in order to lead to all the wonderful things (Whatever those may be).

With the "Side effect / Actual" dichotomy , i could develop justifications for countless depravities.

I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps I should have worded my post better; IMO terrorists create fear with the intention of using that fear to help them meet some other objective - the "real" objective - but the point I was making is that the creation of fear is intentional, not a side-effect. Does that make my statement less odd or am I missing your point?

I think the problem still persists ; Its just shifted from identifying /cataloguing "Side effects" & "Actual objectives" to "Intentional" & "Real objectives". Its possible to frame any situation in such a manner as to either deny or allow the label of Terrorism.

The only notable exception would be the typical cartoon Villain that explicitly state that he's consciously taking such actions (Terrorism) . But I'd like to think that part of the "Charm" of Cerberus is exactly that they act in the opposite way ,with ambiguous methods.

That said , this topic is/was more spammed than i anticipated. I'll try and keep up with what you're saying , no guarantees though.

[onelifecrisis]

Saaziel wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Saaziel wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Because if fear was a side-effect, rather than the actual objective, then it's not really terrorism in my book.

That's a rather odd statement.

Rarely , if ever , will "Actual" objectives be , internally , objectionable ; It always out of necessity or in order to lead to all the wonderful things (Whatever those may be).

With the "Side effect / Actual" dichotomy , i could develop justifications for countless depravities.

I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps I should have worded my post better; IMO terrorists create fear with the intention of using that fear to help them meet some other objective - the "real" objective - but the point I was making is that the creation of fear is intentional, not a side-effect. Does that make my statement less odd or am I missing your point?

I think the problem still persists ; Its just shifted from identifying /cataloguing "Side effects" & "Actual objectives" to "Intentional" & "Real objectives". Its possible to frame any situation in such a manner as to either deny or allow the label of Terrorism.

The only notable exception would be the typical cartoon Villain that explicitly state that he's consciously taking such actions (Terrorism) . But I'd like to think that part of the "Charm" of Cerberus is exactly that they act in the opposite way ,with ambiguous methods.

That said , this topic is/was more spammed than i anticipated. I'll try and keep up with what you're saying , no guarantees though.

I'm still having trouble with what you're saying. Would you give me an example (real or hypothetical) of the bold part?

[Vengeful Nature]

Flashlegend wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
But was fear the goal? Was the point of the attack to use that fear to prompt some political goal.

'Fear' itself springs from, well, anything dangerous. Economic disaster, or even standard military operations. Fear as a consequences, as opposed to fear as the intent, is an important distinction between terrorism and general criminality.

We don't, say, label every murder or theif a case of terrorism simply because they can spark unease and fear. Terror and public coercion needs to be an objective. 

And I'm sure the people in danger knew that an act of terrorism wasn't Cerberus' goal.

If Cerberus were terrorists, and if the fear was their goal, then you can bet they'd do everything they could to make sure that the public (a) know it, and ( know what Cerberus want. That's how real terrorists work.

By your definition, most of the organizations the world has labeled terrorist(now and in the past) wouldn't be terrorist organizations.

Yep. It's an easy label to give to your enemy.

Terrorism is an act, not an ideology. A weapon in the arsenal of international politics. One that Cerberus don't use.

[Yakko77]

Even if Cerberus aren't textbook "terrorists" they're guilty for a wide range of atrocities, murder, torture and utter brutality that it's hard to justify even if you agree with their motives or goal.

[Dean_the_Young]

Luc0s wrote...


Okay I do have to admit that you indeed make some valid points. However, never does it say that you need to be public in order to be a terrorist. Some terrorists work underground to achieve their ultimate political goal. But I do agree that 'fascist' or 'cabal', as you suggested somewhere else in this topic, is probably a better definition for Cerberus. Both 'fascist' and 'cabal' describe Cerberus.

Various definitions do include that. Moreover, terror has to be known to actually exist: when Cerberus assassinates Popes or Presidents, its role is generally never known. To terrorize, the actual crimes have to be known. Most Cerberus projects haven't come close to that.

Fascist describes a particular social/economic/political system that Cerberus has shown no particular interest or inclination towards. Cerberus is no more fascist than it is communist.

But in the end, what matters most is, that Cerberus is corrupt and criminal. My Shepard, or any reasonable Shepard, does not want to be identified with these ruthless bastards, even though they did bring Shepard back alive and even though they did help you to stop the collectors.

And let it never be said I've disputed that Cerberus is criminal. Abhorrent, humane in all the worst ways, and worth being brought to heel? Certainly.

Terrorist? Not really: people throwing that buzzword around are losing sight.

In the end, dealing with Cerberus is going to bite you in the ass. I already preditect that Cerberus is going to betray you a long time ago, but now we know for certain after seeing the E3 demo of ME3.

Sadly, the pre-ME3 inclinations and evidence don't really support the assumption.

[Saaziel]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I'm still having trouble with what you're saying. Would you give me an example (real or hypothetical) of the bold part?**

Of course.

Saaziel ; "Hello everyone, I'm Saaziel. I always act towards establishing Ümanity's dominance, no matter the cost."
OLC : "Hello everyone , I'm Onelifecrisis. And i also ...
Saaziel : *BOOM!*
Tali : "Keelah , Sheppard ! I mean Saaziel. You killed him!"
Saaziel : "I'm testing Üman limits & frailties Tali ,its a scientific inquiry." *Sips some whiskey*
Tali : "But he's dead!"
Saaziel : " A side effect .We needed to know if Ümans could survive point-blank Claymores to the chest. We need  better armour . Think of how many lives we saved !" *Exhales smoke*
Tali : "Well , i can't argue with your sexy logic. But you're scaring everyone!"
Saaziel : "That's unintentional. It's for the betterment of all Ümans Tali ... All surviving Ümans."
OLC : "ARGhhh , I'm not .... I'm not dead yet . Help...
Saaziel : *BOOM!*
Tali : "Oh Keelah , you shot him again!"
Saaziel : "Better to put him out of his misery."
Tali : "But you're reckless and dangerous! We don't know what you'll do next !"
Saaziel : "And doesn't that excite you Tali ? The danger."
Tali : "Well, yes. And now that you mention it , I've always been attracted to selfless men with a blatant disregard for the feeling & safety of others... Your cold calculating attitude is as firmly tight as your chiselled good looks ... and now I'm babbling like an idiot..."
Saaziel : "Its okay , come'here ."
------

The "real" objective and what was "intended" here could be interpreted as ; "Establishing human dominance through sacrifices". Taken what i said at face value i did, what i thought were, necessary sacrifices on 2 separate occasions. The fear experienced by others was a misunderstanding. In this instance , nothing i could ever do would be considered terrorism (barring the cartoon villain stereotype that i mentioned before.)

Alternatively The "real" objective and what was "intended" could also be summarized as "Establishing my dominance through fear". For anyone else the Fear was real enough and my statements weren't genuine at all. Simply obfuscating my true motives. In this circumstance , the label of Terrorism is very much a possibility by cataloguing Intentionalities /side effects & Objectives (Actual or Real) differently.

The example above , i hope , makes clear parallels with Cerberus and experiments on Subject Zero , Project overlord (And all those i don't know of). The problem is first ; taking statement/rational at face value. And second ; Taking incident in a vacuum. Cerberus has consistently shown the willingness to do what ever it takes to establish human dominance. That - in and of it self- would be , i imagine , very scary to anyone who's not Cerberus.

Is Cerberus using this fear to their own goal? Again, its relative to who you choose to believe; I'm sure Cerberus's personnel don't think so , others would object. What's the old saying : "A person's freedom fighter is an other's terrorist"

P.S. Sorry for the length. I've shorten it , though it still feel needlessly long . More over it feel incomplete. A lot of room for misunderstandings. Hopefully it will be resolved in subsequent replies.

**The "bold part" : Its just shifted from identifying /cataloguing "Side effects" &
"Actual objectives" to "Intentional" & "Real objectives". Its possible to frame any situation in such a manner as to either deny or allow the label of Terrorism.**

Modifié par Saaziel, 20 juin 2011 - 08:52 .

[Darth Death]

I doubt Cerberus shares the same opinion as the Alliance. The logo for Cerberus stands for humanity, plain & simple.