1939 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

Someone With Mass wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Perhaps we should establish arguments based on what is actually being said instead of delving into the realm of mind-reading?

Or perhaps people should just word their sentences better so they can't be misread.

Or you could stop reading things that aren't there in the first place. There's no conspiracy going on with Dave's posts. Stop looking for things that just aren't there and maybe we can have a rational conversation.

[Homebound]

leonia42 wrote...

Pulletlamer wrote...

Still blewing up/attacking one ship could be perfectly considered an attack against a political government (quarians in this case) and a declaration of opposition against this governement / war.

Which I think it's terrorism.

If you read the novel, you will realise that TIM wanted the operation to be as quiet as possible. He was trying to AVOID such a conflict with the quarian people. Get the girl, get out, minimum casualties. If he wanted to directly attack the flotilla he might have brought in more than Kai Leng and actually made his intentions known as such.

Sure, the quarians see it as an attack, no question about that.. Tali makes that pretty clear. But that doesn't mean it WAS an attack or was supposed to be an attempt to undermine the Flotilla's government. The quarians got in the way, that was all. 

Again, you are using the term terrorism wrong, by the way.

Cerberus was going to carry out an operation against someone under Quarian care.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Dave of Canada wrote...
They've been the only people supporting you through all of Mass Effect 2. They've been reverse engineering left over Collector technology and sending it's results to you.

Why would Shepard suddenly assume this would stop?

The premise of Mass Effect 3 unfortunately...

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

It's actually gotten to the point that I don't even care about the CB decision anymore.
I now flip a coin to decide what happens to the base.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:30 .

[Merci357]

What's the point of your discussion? You argue whether Cerberus could be labeled a terrorist cell or not, in the timeline of the ME games - up to the decision to blow up the base, or not?

I know, Dave corrected me, since apparently Retribution happened after ME2. So it's meta game knowledge, but honestly, after reading Retribution they _are_ terrorists, and nothing else. And with the start of ME3, the events of Retribution are considered canon.

[Leonia]

Hellbound555 wrote...

They still attacked.

So did the qurians. There was a firefight, both sides defending themselves. Did you read the novel?

There would have been no casualties if the quarians had given the girl to Cerberus willingly. Who is to blame for the loss of quarian life?

[Someone With Mass]

leonia42 wrote...

Or you could stop reading things that aren't there in the first place. There's no conspiracy going on with Dave's posts. Stop looking for things that just aren't there and maybe we can have a rational conversation.

Then again, this topic is about Cerberus. Reason and logic went out the window the second it started.

[Homebound]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

It's actually gotten to the point that I don't even care about the CB decision anymore.
I now flip a coin to decide what happens to the base.

people seem to be hung up on the definition of terrorism instead of actually making a choice that matters.

[Someone With Mass]

leonia42 wrote...

So did the qurians. There was a firefight, both sides defending themselves. Did you read the novel?

There would have been no casualties if the quarians had given the girl to Cerberus willingly. Who is to blame for the loss of quarian life?

Cerberus shot first. It's a little hard to negotiate when the enemy is shooting at you.

[Homebound]

leonia42 wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

They still attacked.

So did the qurians. There was a firefight, both sides defending themselves. Did you read the novel?

There would have been no casualties if the quarians had given the girl to Cerberus willingly. Who is to blame for the loss of quarian life?

So what you are saying is the quarians were wrong for protecting Gillian?

[Merci357]

leonia42 wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

They still attacked.

So did the qurians. There was a firefight, both sides defending themselves. Did you read the novel?

There would have been no casualties if the quarians had given the girl to Cerberus willingly. Who is to blame for the loss of quarian life?

Cerberus? Who else? Or do you really think if you harbor a innocent child and come to harm while protecting it, you are to blame?

[Leonia]

Someone With Mass wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Or you could stop reading things that aren't there in the first place. There's no conspiracy going on with Dave's posts. Stop looking for things that just aren't there and maybe we can have a rational conversation.

Then again, this topic is about Cerberus. Reason and logic went out the window the second it started.

Come again? That is one hell of a biased statement. If you don't want to talk about Cerberus in a rational tone then perhaps this isn't a debate worth participating in. To deny that Cerberus is rational and thus conclude that having a conversation about them must also be such is just so childish. Either engage in the argument at hand or leave it alone. Side-tracking with your anti-Cerberus agenda isn't helping anyone, certainly not your own argument at any rate.

Regardless we're now debating whether Cerberus is or is not a terrorist group and which crimes are considered terrorist or not, we're hardly even talking about the decision regarding the keeping/destroying of the Collector Base any more so maybe it is time to go completely off-topic.

[Someone With Mass]

Cerberus didn't even try to end it in non-violent way, since they killed the crew of a quarian ship to infiltrate the fleet to begin with. If you honestly think they had peaceful intentions, you're delusional beyond reason.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Hellbound555 wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

It's actually gotten to the point that I don't even care about the CB decision anymore.
I now flip a coin to decide what happens to the base.

people seem to be hung up on the definition of terrorism instead of actually making a choice that matters.

But it won't matter.
Make Saving the base a good idea and paragons will b*tch.
Make destroying the base a good idea and renegades will b*tch.
No win scenario.

[Homebound]

I chose not to give cerberus the collector base because they have proven themselves to me as untrustworthy and incapable of carrying out major projects such as this. Also they are marked by the alliance as a terrorist group and they I know them for their criminal activities.

Modifié par Hellbound555, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:37 .

[Leonia]

Merci357 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

They still attacked.

So did the qurians. There was a firefight, both sides defending themselves. Did you read the novel?

There would have been no casualties if the quarians had given the girl to Cerberus willingly. Who is to blame for the loss of quarian life?

Cerberus? Who else? Or do you really think if you harbor a innocent child and come to harm while protecting it, you are to blame?

Does it matter if the child is innocent or not? They knew she was being chased by Cerberus. Whether she is a child, an illegal immigrant, a drug trafficker.. doesn't matter. They know Cerberus wants her and they know by taking her in they are putting themselves at risk. It is no surprise when Cerberus does indeed come to reclaim her (whether that is right or wrong is another debate).

By your rationale, terrorists would start using children as protection because hey we're not allowed to attack the innocent.

[Someone With Mass]

And I have said it before: If I had the option to hand over the base to a faction that don't have their brains up their ass, I'd have done it. Alas, that's not the case. Which is why I blew it up and hoped someone could salvage the remains.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:38 .

[Leonia]

Hellbound555 wrote...

I chose not to give cerberus the collector base because they have proven themselves to me as untrustworthy and incapable of carrying out major projects such as this.

Here's a cookie for staying on target and saying something I can't disagree with.

[Homebound]

leonia42 wrote...

Merci357 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

They still attacked.

So did the qurians. There was a firefight, both sides defending themselves. Did you read the novel?

There would have been no casualties if the quarians had given the girl to Cerberus willingly. Who is to blame for the loss of quarian life?

Cerberus? Who else? Or do you really think if you harbor a innocent child and come to harm while protecting it, you are to blame?

Does it matter if the child is innocent or not? They knew she was being chased by Cerberus. Whether she is a child, an illegal immigrant, a drug trafficker.. doesn't matter. They know Cerberus wants her and they know by taking her in they are putting themselves at risk. It is no surprise when Cerberus does indeed come to reclaim her (whether that is right or wrong is another debate).

By your rationale, terrorists would start using children as protection because hey we're not allowed to attack the innocent.

I see no reason why the quarians would put gillian back into harms way by giving her over to cerberus.

[DialupToaster]

collector base Is lIKELY A ReLAY

SorrY KeYboarD Is BroKeN

[Pulletlamer]

leonia42 wrote...

If you read the novel, you will realise that TIM wanted the operation to be as quiet as possible. He was trying to AVOID such a conflict with the quarian people. Get the girl, get out, minimum casualties. If he wanted to directly attack the flotilla he might have brought in more than Kai Leng and actually made his intentions known as such.

Sure, the quarians see it as an attack, no question about that.. Tali makes that pretty clear. But that doesn't mean it WAS an attack or was supposed to be an attempt to undermine the Flotilla's government. The quarians got in the way, that was all. 

Again, you are using the term terrorism wrong, by the way.

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. 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.

-Wikipedia, definition of terrorism.

Which classifies the migrant fleet attack as terrorism.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:42 .

[Leonia]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Cerberus didn't even try to end it in non-violent way, since they killed the crew of a quarian ship to infiltrate the fleet to begin with. If you honestly think they had peaceful intentions, you're delusional beyond reason.

Read the novel. They infiltrated, they didn't come in guns blazing. The quarians were mounting a defense before Cerberus arrived, they weren't exactly trying to hand the kid over. 

Could it have been resolved peacefully? That is debateable, both sides seemed unwilling to do so. Would have been nice if it had happened? Definitely, and I think if TIM had tried harder it could have been done (but this would have meant trusting the quarians to do the same and given they are an unknown variable, how could he know how they would react to such a thing?).

Still, TIM never was cackling and going "Mwahahaha I am attacking the fleet! I am undermining their government!" Heck, if you read the mission completion notes after Tali's loyalty mission, you'll even notice that he knows very little about the Flotilla and it's government and wishes to understand it better.

He was not going into that operation with Gillian with the intention of undermining a government he didn't know anything about. He was simply retrieving a project that, as you say, had gone wrong.

That was all it was. Not terrorism, not upsetting the balance of the Fleet. Just retrieving a girl.

Modifié par leonia42, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:43 .

[Merci357]

leonia42 wrote...

Does it matter if the child is innocent or not? They knew she was being chased by Cerberus. Whether she is a child, an illegal immigrant, a drug trafficker.. doesn't matter. They know Cerberus wants her and they know by taking her in they are putting themselves at risk. It is no surprise when Cerberus does indeed come to reclaim her (whether that is right or wrong is another debate).

By your rationale, terrorists would start using children as protection because hey we're not allowed to attack the innocent.

Of course does it matter. Of course they knew it was a huge risk, I don't deny that. But they did the right thing, that is all that matters. Who is to blame here - the aggressor or the protector? We are talking about a child here, no stolen property.

And terrorists use children, you know that. And we don't attack the innocents in these cases, we attack the terrorists in these situations, while trying to minimise collateral damage.

*Edit*

Just for the record - I don't think the flotilla "incident" is an act of terrorism. But, might I ask why the events in "retibution" are not allowed as evidence that Cerberus is a terrorist cell? Just because of the timeline? If we are taling about the collector base, then fine. If we are taling about Cerberus in general, then the events in Retribution happened as well.

Modifié par Merci357, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:47 .

[Dave of Canada]

Pulletlamer wrote...

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. 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.

-Wikipedia, definition of terrorism.

Which classifies the migrant fleet attack as terrorism.

are perpetrated for a religious, political orideological goal,

Nope.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Pulletlamer wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

If you read the novel, you will realise that TIM wanted the operation to be as quiet as possible. He was trying to AVOID such a conflict with the quarian people. Get the girl, get out, minimum casualties. If he wanted to directly attack the flotilla he might have brought in more than Kai Leng and actually made his intentions known as such.

Sure, the quarians see it as an attack, no question about that.. Tali makes that pretty clear. But that doesn't mean it WAS an attack or was supposed to be an attempt to undermine the Flotilla's government. The quarians got in the way, that was all. 

Again, you are using the term terrorism wrong, by the way.

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. 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.

-Wikipedia, definition of terrorism.

Which classifies the migrant fleet attack as terrorism.

The attack on the Idenna wasn't executed with an intent to create fear. /terrorism discussion