245 réponses à ce sujet

[Flashlegend]

onelifecrisis wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Are people taking the books and Cerberus' deeds in them into the account of whether or not Cerberus is a terrorist organization?

What they did on the Quarian flotilla was quite a terrorist action, resulting in the deaths of many, and was directly sanctioned by TIM, not by some rogue cell.

I haven't read any ME books or comics. Furthermore, I don't think I should have to. They should be optional extra reading, not required reading.

That said, I'm curious: was the attack on the flotilla intended to create fear and panic? Because if fear was a side-effect, rather than the actual objective, then it's not really terrorism in my book.

There is no cut and dry definition of terrorism. So even if people debate all day they won't necessarily come to resolution. As for the attack on the flotilla; Cerberus sent in soldiers to reclaim one of their most important biotic child subjects who had taken safe haven on a ship in the flotilla. Not only did 20+ innocent quarians die, if people on the ship hadn't sucessfully disarmed the bombs cerberus brought with them, all 600-700 quarians on the ship would have died.

edit: They were workng with an exiled quarian(a scumbag btw) who wanted vengeance. Cerberus is generally pretty despicable in the books. All the main agents we run across are xenophobes that hate all aliens and TIM is really no different.

Modifié par Flashlegend, 20 juin 2011 - 03:37 .

[onelifecrisis]

Flashlegend wrote...

There is no cut and dry definition of terrorism.

Yeah, so people keep saying.
Let me make my point this way:
If the word means what I think it means then Bioware's use of it is bad writing.
If the word has no meaning then the use of it is bad writing.
Either way, it's bad writing. They really should have used a different word.

[Flashlegend]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Flashlegend wrote...

There is no cut and dry definition of terrorism.

Yeah, so people keep saying.
Let me make my point this way:
If the word means what I think it means then Bioware's use of it is bad writing.
If the word has no meaning then the use of it is bad writing.
Either way, it's bad writing. They really should have used a different word.

Not really. If we had an organization like cerberus in real life, they would most definitely be labeled terrorists.

And if we really want to go the definition route, the most Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts
which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a
religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or
disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

You can't just say terrorism is one thing because that's not the way we look at it in real life.

Modifié par Flashlegend, 20 juin 2011 - 03:47 .

[onelifecrisis]

@Luc0s

Not this again.
The definition is vague to the point of being almost completely useless, regardless of who wrote it.

[Someone With Mass]

According to Google's definition of the word "terrorism", it's the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.

[onelifecrisis]

Flashlegend wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

Flashlegend wrote...

There is no cut and dry definition of terrorism.

Yeah, so people keep saying.
Let me make my point this way:
If the word means what I think it means then Bioware's use of it is bad writing.
If the word has no meaning then the use of it is bad writing.
Either way, it's bad writing. They really should have used a different word.

Not really. If we had an organization like cerberus in real life, they would most definitely be labeled terrorists.

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.

[onelifecrisis]

Luc0s wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

@Luc0s

Not this again.
The definition is vague to the point of being almost completely useless, regardless of who wrote it.

It's not vague. All dictionaries say roughly the same. It's only vague to people who are not willing to accept what terrorism really means. If we follow the dictionary's entry on terrorism, then we can clearly say that Cerberus indeed are terrorists. It's not vague at all. It's quite simple really.

As I already said...
By the definition you posted, any school kid who steals another's money is a terrorist. Hell, half the people on the planet have been terrorists at some point in their life by the definition you posted. That's pretty damn vague.

[onelifecrisis]

Someone With Mass wrote...

According to Google's definition of the word "terrorism", it's the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.

Yeah, that definition came up just a few posts ago.
It's better than the definition posted by Luc0s, but still pretty vague. All soldiers are terrorists by that definition. Are you American by any chance? If so, I imagine that the realisation that your troops in the middle east are actually terrorists must be quite a shock...

[Dean_the_Young]

Mesina2 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Cloned rachni. Cerberus fail at everything they touch. With few exceptions.

With exception of Lazarus Project that almost failed as well, I don't see any other exception.

They sured failed at finding a Reaper IFF.

[Saaziel]

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.

[Dean_the_Young]

Luc0s wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

As I already said...
By the definition you posted, any school kid who steals another's money is a terrorist. Hell, half the people on the planet have been terrorists at some point in their life by the definition you posted. That's pretty damn vague.

Learn to read. I already posted a new, better defined dictionary entry.

1: the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion 

What's so vague about that? That definition is pretty damn clear. School children are not terrorists neither are you and I. Cerberus however, are indeed terrorists.

Cerberus really doesn't fit that definition either, because their actions generally aren't public or coercive on the public or governments. The biggest thing about Terrorism is that it's supposed to, well, terrorize. It's big, flashy, and public, and meant to push public opinion and official policy this way or that.

Cerberus doesn't go by that. Their assassinations are generally secret and not noticed. Their political influence is covert. It's only the failed projects that we become aware of, and even then they don't qualify for terrorism either. The fact that we have to go out of our way to uncover them, or have Cerberus itself bring incidents to our attention, generally undermines the label.

Cerberus is criminal, but it simply isn't public enough in action or policy to warrant the label 'terrorist' in a practical sense. It's really more of a cabal... but 'cabal' doesn't have the political weight for the Alliance and Council.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 juin 2011 - 04:01 .

[Ahglock]

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?  

[Someone With Mass]

onelifecrisis wrote...
Yeah, that definition came up just a few posts ago.
It's better than the definition posted by Luc0s, but still pretty vague. All soldiers are terrorists by that definition. Are you American by any chance? If so, I imagine that the realisation that your troops in the middle east are actually terrorists must be quite a shock...

Wrong continent, wrong side of the world. 

[Someone With Mass]

Overlord would've been public as hell if Shepard wasn't there.

[onelifecrisis]

Luc0s wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

As I already said...
By the definition you posted, any school kid who steals another's money is a terrorist. Hell, half the people on the planet have been terrorists at some point in their life by the definition you posted. That's pretty damn vague.

Learn to read. I already posted a new, better defined dictionary entry.

1: the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion 

What's so vague about that? That definition is pretty damn clear. School children are not terrorists neither are you and I. Cerberus however, are indeed terrorists.

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?

[onelifecrisis]

Someone With Mass wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...
Yeah, that definition came up just a few posts ago.
It's better than the definition posted by Luc0s, but still pretty vague. All soldiers are terrorists by that definition. Are you American by any chance? If so, I imagine that the realisation that your troops in the middle east are actually terrorists must be quite a shock...

Wrong continent, wrong side of the world. 

Okay *shrug* but you get my point? Or no?

[Dean_the_Young]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Overlord would've been public as hell if Shepard wasn't there.

Maybe. Maybe not: if Shepard said 'no', there's nothing stopping Cerberus from sending someone else instead.

Not, mind you, that it would make Overlord terrorist even if it did trigger digital apocolypse whenever: Overlord's fallout was never intended, aimed for, or in pursuit of the consequences of the fallout. Inadvertant disaster doesn't qualify.

[Someone With Mass]

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.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

[Someone With Mass]

onelifecrisis wrote...
Okay *shrug* but you get my point? Or no?

Yes, I get it. It's all a matter of perspective and all that.