1939 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

I'm not saying which side was in the right, clearly the quarians weren't trying to be aggressors. I'm simply stating it wasn't terorrism nor an attack against the Fleet as a whole. The operation was shady, no doubt, Cerberus should never have been after Gillian like that to begin with. But that's all they were after: Gillian. Some quarians got in their way and they attacked them. Was that right? No, of course not. Was it a terrorist attack against the flotilla? Definitely not.

[Pulletlamer]

leonia42 wrote...

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.

Putting in danger innocent people for retrieving a girl is terrorism, since from the definition of wikipedia, cerberus in a non-governement organization doing a mission with an ideological purpose: retrieve Gillian in this case.

Doesn't matter how you want to paint it. The ends don't justify the means, and attacking the migrant fleet and endangering the security of innocent people is terrorism.

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

[Homebound]

do u think if we kept the collector base, shepdawg mightve gotten some sort of atomic waffle iron for the normandy mess hall?

[Kaiser Shepard]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

I suppose it could be argued that recapturing Gillian is a key effort in achieving their ideological goal of human dominance (or just Cerberus?), but that still leaves us without the terror in terrorism.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:49 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Why do people defend Cerberus' actions?

I honestly don't get it.

[Someone With Mass]

leonia42 wrote...

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.

Gee, I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that Cerberus arrived in a stolen quarian ship and gave everyone aboard the impression that they had hostile intentions, since they killed the crew of that ship, and disabled the Idenna's communications.

Any ship crew in history would mount a defense against unauthorized boarding parties that did something like that before entering.

Cerberus clearly showed that they weren't there for the cookies and decontamination cycles.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:52 .

[Dave of Canada]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

I suppose it could be argued that recapturing Gillian is a key effort in achieving their ideological goal of human dominance (or just Cerberus?), but that still leaves us without the terror in terrorism.

True, though the intent of the attack wasn't really about it though. I assume it was more simply to recapture an asset rather than ideological.

[Pulletlamer]

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

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

I suppose it could be argued that
recapturing Gillian is a key effort in achieving their ideological goal
of human dominance (or just Cerberus?), but that still leaves us without
the terror in terrorism.

Still, if you act against a government, even if you did it not to cause fear, it's terrorism.

if you plant a bomb in a train station because "I wanted to cause a distraction" or  whatever, doesn't matter, it's still terrorism.

The definition means that's causing fears it's usually one of the objectives.

We could classify the operation as non terrorist if it was the Alliance or whatever (it would have been a spy mission or whatever, of course with bad consequences, but it couldn't be called terrorism), but Cerberus is a private organization acting against a government --> Quarians, therefore, terrorism in my book.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:53 .

[Someone With Mass]

Dave of Canada wrote...
True, though the intent of the attack wasn't really about it though. I assume it was more simply to recapture an asset rather than ideological.

Kidnapping is still illegal.

[Leonia]

Merci357 wrote...

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.

FWIW, I was "attacking" the quarians (they have a habit of playing the victim card a lot) not Gillian or the humans protecting her. But I see your point.

As for Cerberus, some acts may be considered terorrism, definitely. Even Jacob says that Cerberus' reputation doesn't do it any favours when it comes to being labelled as a terrorist group. I'm not sure where I stand on that, they certainly have a checkered past and have done some nasty stuff but I don't think that alone makes them terrorists. But in most cases the crimes are just criminal acts. Whether they are a terrorism group or not might not matter, it will only matter in how they handle the Reaper threat.

We don't know enough about ME3 to speculate about that, though there is rampant guesswork hinting that Cerberus is working with the Reapers. Honestly, if TIM had been indoctrinated all along, why would his ultimate goal in ME2 be to capture the base? That base was already owned by the Reapers, they already had it. And yet TIM went through all sorts of trouble to get his hands on it. But that's probably a debate better left for another thread.

Certainly Cerberus isn't a trustworthy group and they do some questionable stuff on a regular basis. We don't know their ultimate goals other than supposedly supporting humanity. Any more than that is guessing based on what we have seen so far in 2 games and some novels/comics.

Modifié par leonia42, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:56 .

[Leonia]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
True, though the intent of the attack wasn't really about it though. I assume it was more simply to recapture an asset rather than ideological.

Kidnapping is still illegal.

The kidnapping had nothing to do with the quarians. They should not have involved themselves at all. It's illegal, sure, but it is not an attack on the quarian government.

[Dave of Canada]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
True, though the intent of the attack wasn't really about it though. I assume it was more simply to recapture an asset rather than ideological.

Kidnapping is still illegal.

nobody is arguing that it was legal.

[l DryIce l]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

l DryIce l wrote...

 Destroying it does do "that". Honestly, we still don't know how big of an impact the Collector base is going to have in ME3. Saying, "well, look, Cerberus is indoctrinated anyway", is a very extreme way of looking at things. You don't know how more or less powerful Cerberus may be in ME3 depending on the status of the base. 

I didn't give TIM the base because I didn't trust him with using it. Does this mean that this will stop Cerberus from being powerful, or even using Reaper tech. No, but it does keep them from using the Reaper tech from the base. Again, we don't know how important the base is. We just have to wait. 

But now your choice isn't stopping him from misusing Reaper tech. You choice was never 'do I allow him or don't I': whichever you do, he gets The Tech (as shown in multiple official materials).

Never said it would. It will, however, keep him from using tech from the base. Tech from the base could turn out to be very powerful, or not very powerful. We. Don't. Know. Yet. 

[Kaiser Shepard]

Pulletlamer wrote...

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

Still, if you act against a government, even if you did it not to cause fear, it's terrorism.

No, that would be treason. And besides, the Enclave/Admiralty isn't their government.

Edit: Also, the attack only happened against one ship...

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 15 juillet 2011 - 01:01 .

[Leonia]

Someone With Mass wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

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.

Gee, I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that Cerberus arrived in a stolen quarian ship and gave everyone aboard the impression that they had hostile intentions, since they killed the crew of that ship, and disabled the Idenna's communications.

Any ship crew in history would mount a defense against unauthorized boarding parties that did something like that before entering.

Cerberus clearly showed that they weren't there for the cookies and decontamination cycles.

The point is neither side tried to come to a peaceful resolution. The quarians didn't offer the kid and the Cerberus team didn't ask for her. They were both in the wrong. Neither side did the right thing. You can't put all the blame on Cerberus but if you are going to try to analyse the situation at least acknowledge it wasn't a terrorist attack made by Cerberus. They wanted the girl. Quarians had girl. Quarians weren't giving the girl up. Cerberus expected a fight. Fight happened as was expected. Things went to hell, it got messy. Quarians died in the process. They knew what they were in for, they knew Cerberus wanted the kid but they died fighting to protect the kid. That was noble of them, they thought they were doing the right thing but it wasn't good enough, people still died that didn't need to die in that situation.

Never have I said Cerberus was justified in tracking down and reclaiming Gillian from the quarians. I've only stated that the quarians didn't do themselves any favours by taking her in with full knowledge of the potential consequences. That has nothing to do with terrorism or a coordinated attack against the Fleet or even the single ship involved. The quarians were prepared for a fight instead of a peaceful exchange, as was Cerberus. Neither party tried to do right thing there.

[Someone With Mass]

leonia42 wrote...

The kidnapping had nothing to do with the quarians. They should not have involved themselves at all. It's illegal, sure, but it is not an attack on the quarian government.

One could argue it is, since Cerberus sabotaged one of their ships.

It'd be like me, strapping a bomb to the antenna of a naval destroyer and then claim it wasn't an attack against them or their fleet.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 15 juillet 2011 - 01:02 .

[Leonia]

I'm not sure how the quarian government was attacked, they weren't any conclave or admirals involved and even if they were.. that wouldn't have been a terrorist attack.

One ship containing quarians was infiltrated, nothing more. A ship that KNEW Cerberus was coming for them and was prepared to fight them.

Modifié par leonia42, 15 juillet 2011 - 01:06 .

[Homebound]

another reason why you shouldnt give cerberus the collector base.

[Homebound]

leonia42 wrote...

I'm not sure how the quarian government was attacked, they weren't any conclave or admirals involved and even if they were.. that wouldn't have been a terorrist attack.

One ship containing quarians was infiltrated, nothing more. A ship that KNEW Cerberus was coming for them and was prepared to fight them.

cerberus attacked the quarians. plain and simple. they got caught doing something they shouldnt have.

[AlexRmF]

I played the game as both renegade and paragon and I gave the base to TIM as a Paragon also. I'm really not so worried about this last action in ME2, what I'm really curious about is how will BW keep the game balanced without favoring either Renegade or Paragon choices (they clearly said they don't want to punish player, no matter what stupid choices they did in the previous 2 games)

[Leonia]

If the quarians hadn't taken the kid in, they never would have been attacked. It's that simple. They knew what they were getting themselves into.

[Homebound]

leonia42 wrote...

If the quarians hadn't taken the kid in, they never would have been attacked. It's that simple. They knew what they were getting themselves into.

why is it so wrong to you for the quarians to protect a little girl? is that a bad thing?

[Leonia]

I never said it was a bad thing? It's just not terrorism or an attack on the fleet for Cerberus to try and get the girl back. That's all I have ever been saying.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Hellbound555 wrote...

another reason why you shouldnt give cerberus the collector base.

"I fail to see what relevance-"

[Mystranna Kelteel]

leonia42 wrote...
The point is neither side tried to come to a peaceful resolution. The quarians didn't offer the kid and the Cerberus team didn't ask for her. They were both in the wrong. Neither side did the right thing.

Wait, what?

The quarians are "in the wrong" for not handing a kidnap/torture victim back to her kidnappers? 

Because, you know, even if they had done that it wouldn't be a peaceful resolution.  It would be a resolution that directly facilitates kidnapping, torture, and experimentation on children.

What's the point of this argument anyways?  "Cerberus wasn't technically commiting a terrorist act against the quarians as per the Oxford dictionary definition; they were just going to kill a bunch of them that stood in the way of their illegal and immoral activities"?