3618 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...
 my friend.

I'm not your freind buddy.

I'm not your buddy, pal!

lol, couldn't resist!

I'm not your pal,guy(well gal..)

[Sisterofshane]

SandTrout wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

@Lotion. There will come a time when you realize how pathetic 'facts' are in the face of real life. Objective Truth is nice ideal but it has no place in reality.

Reality is subjective my friend.

I hope I didn't break your fragile little mind.

This was sarcasm, right? Right?

Do we need to break out the dictionary again?

[Shimmer_Gloom]

didymos1120 wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

There isn't a clear cut definition for terrorism, leagally.  But a good definition would be 'Non-state or subnational entities commiting acts of violence against a state.'  Which is pretty broad, but I'm okay with broad terms.

Don't you think the actual use of terror as a means of attaining one's political/ideological goals is something that ought to part of the definition of terrorism?  Your definition can be stretched to cover practically any criminal activity.

Hmm.  That would be a better definition... if we can measure one's intent.  And that is not allways very easy to do.  Actions are easier.  And people USUALLY indend to be scary when they are killing people anyway. But, that is not allways the case.

So.  No.  I like my definition slightly better.

Though, my definition does not cover ALL criminal activity.  Just the VIOLENT ones.  Further, organized violence.

I think its a workable definition.  Broad yes.  But most terms can be stretched into uselessness if we let ourselves get carried away.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...


  But a good definition would be 'Non-state or subnational entities commiting acts of violence against a state.'  Which is pretty broad, but I'm okay with broad terms.

That's not a good definition at all. It's a self-serving one so it's no surprise you like it. It allows you to very easily label anyone opposed to a state as being a terrorist.

Well.  Yeah.  It does.  As long as they are not acting for another government.  Whats wrong with that definition?

Modifié par Shimmer_Gloom, 03 août 2011 - 02:01 .

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...


  But a good definition would be 'Non-state or subnational entities commiting acts of violence against a state.'  Which is pretty broad, but I'm okay with broad terms.

That's not a good definition at all. It's a self-serving one so it's no surprise you like it. It allows you to very easily label anyone opposed to a state as being a terrorist.

I actually agree on this.

And the very idea of terrorism is subjective to begin with.  One person's terrorist can easily be another's Freedom Fighter.  It depends upon perspective.

EDIT: spelling

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 03 août 2011 - 02:03 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...


  But a good definition would be 'Non-state or subnational entities commiting acts of violence against a state.'  Which is pretty broad, but I'm okay with broad terms.

That's not a good definition at all. It's a self-serving one so it's no surprise you like it. It allows you to very easily label anyone opposed to a state as being a terrorist.

I actually agree on this.

And the very idea of terrorism is subjective to begin with.  One person's terrorist can easily be another's Freedom Fighter.  It depends upon perspective.

EDIT: spelling

My defintion lumps them both into the same catagory if they aren't working on the behalf of another state... though if they are trying to CREATE a state through violence it gets murky...

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Revolutionary,terrorist,freedom fighter...ugh

[Sisterofshane]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...


  But a good definition would be 'Non-state or subnational entities commiting acts of violence against a state.'  Which is pretty broad, but I'm okay with broad terms.

That's not a good definition at all. It's a self-serving one so it's no surprise you like it. It allows you to very easily label anyone opposed to a state as being a terrorist.

I actually agree on this.

And the very idea of terrorism is subjective to begin with.  One person's terrorist can easily be another's Freedom Fighter.  It depends upon perspective.

EDIT: spelling

My defintion lumps them both into the same catagory if they aren't working on the behalf of another state... though if they are trying to CREATE a state through violence it gets murky...

Not really.  You said something earlier about intent not being easy to judge, but it truly is a key component in defining "terrorism".

If I blow up a factory to stop production of tanks my enemy uses against me in battle it is NOT terrorism.
If I blow up a factory full of children building those tanks to bully my enemy into giving into my demands, that is terrorism.

See how it doesn't matter or not if I am a government agent?  Either can be done by independent group or military.
The difference is the intent.  You can't just ignore it because "you don't like it".

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...


  But a good definition would be 'Non-state or subnational entities commiting acts of violence against a state.'  Which is pretty broad, but I'm okay with broad terms.

That's not a good definition at all. It's a self-serving one so it's no surprise you like it. It allows you to very easily label anyone opposed to a state as being a terrorist.

I actually agree on this.

And the very idea of terrorism is subjective to begin with.  One person's terrorist can easily be another's Freedom Fighter.  It depends upon perspective.

EDIT: spelling

My defintion lumps them both into the same catagory if they aren't working on the behalf of another state... though if they are trying to CREATE a state through violence it gets murky...

Not really.  You said something earlier about intent not being easy to judge, but it truly is a key component in defining "terrorism".

If I blow up a factory to stop production of tanks my enemy uses against me in battle it is NOT terrorism.
If I blow up a factory full of children building those tanks to bully my enemy into giving into my demands, that is terrorism.

See how it doesn't matter or not if I am a government agent?  Either can be done by independent group or military.
The difference is the intent.  You can't just ignore it because "you don't like it".

This isn't the issue for me at all.  Its an issue of aplication.

The old definition of terrorism was literaly acts made to inspire terror in the enemy.  But that is dificult becuase who is the enemy and what do people see as 'inspiring terror.'

So, lets use your 'bombing a tank factory' example.  That is a good example.  It's something both terrorists and armies both would like to do.

The difference between the two is that when an army does it, it is war.  Not terrorism.  It's one state, harming another.  If a non-state aligned entity bombs a target (here the tank factory) it is terrorism.

It isn't the intent, (remeber this is difficult to judge) but the nature of the organisation that is key here.  One is a military.  The other is para-military.

See?

Modifié par Shimmer_Gloom, 03 août 2011 - 02:17 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Oh joy, it's the daily terrorism discussion again. You'd think we'd have a forum-wide concensus on the definition of terrorism by now, but alas...

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Oh joy, it's the daily terrorism discussion again. You'd think we'd have a forum-wide concensus on the definition of terrorism by now, but alas...

Even if there was a concensus someone would come up with "Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right."

[Shimmer_Gloom]

@Saphra: I agree that placing the emphasis on 'tactics' and 'intent' are very important factors in 'terrorism' you certainly aren't wrong in emphasizing them.

But what then about the IRA (an obvious analogue to Cerberus) or Hezbollah or any other group that strives to be 'legitimate' but commits extraleagal and violent actions and happen to be non-state entities.

Many people do not consider the IRA to be terrorists. Or Hezbollah either. Or agree on what Terrorism means.

I'm lumping rebels and insurgents into the same group as terrorists because it makes it easier to talk about such things. And because the lines between them are so ill-defined.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Look. This is what the Mass Effect wiki says about Cerberus: "Cerberus is a human-survivalist paramilitary group. Their core belief is that humans deserve a greater role in the galactic community. Any methods of advancing humanity's ascension are justified, including illegal or dangerous experimentation, terrorist activities, sabotage and assassination."

Here is the codex for Cerberus from ME2:



@Saphra:What about any of this is problematic for you? Give me your sticking point so we can address it directly.

Giving agents funding to kill aliens or people sympathetic to aliens in order to change popular opinion seems like 'terrorists activity' to me. Am I wrong?

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

But what then about the IRA (an obvious analogue to Cerberus) or Hezbollah or any other group that strives to be 'legitimate' but commits extraleagal and violent actions and happen to be non-state entities.

They aren't terrorists unless they're targetting civilians in an effort to try and scare them into pressuring their governments to give in to their (IRA, Hezbollah's) demands.

Colonists aren't citizens?  Politicians aren't citizens?  Cerberus has specifically targeted BOTH.

Did you read the wiki?  I get you not reading the actual codex.  But what about that small snipet I just posted?

[Kaiser Shepard]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Look. This is what the Mass Effect wiki says about Cerberus: "Cerberus is a human-survivalist paramilitary group. Their core belief is that humans deserve a greater role in the galactic community. Any methods of advancing humanity's ascension are justified, including illegal or dangerous experimentation, terrorist activities, sabotage and assassination."

Here is the codex for Cerberus from ME2:



@Saphra:What about any of this is problematic for you? Give me your sticking point so we can address it directly.

Giving agents funding to kill aliens or people sympathetic to aliens in order to change popular opinion seems like 'terrorists activity' to me. Am I wrong?

The Codex is written from an in-universe point of view and should thusly not be used as a source of absolute truth.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Look. This is what the Mass Effect wiki says about Cerberus: "Cerberus is a human-survivalist paramilitary group. Their core belief is that humans deserve a greater role in the galactic community. Any methods of advancing humanity's ascension are justified, including illegal or dangerous experimentation, terrorist activities, sabotage and assassination."

Here is the codex for Cerberus from ME2:



@Saphra:What about any of this is problematic for you? Give me your sticking point so we can address it directly.

Giving agents funding to kill aliens or people sympathetic to aliens in order to change popular opinion seems like 'terrorists activity' to me. Am I wrong?

The Codex is written from an in-universe point of view and should thusly not be used as a source of absolute truth.

lol we were talking about absolute truth on the last page.  Keep up, OP!

Nah.  I got that.  But its a good base line of what one can assume are baseline facts.  Like the fact that somebody got assassinated or this or that colony got blowed up.  Sure, we could say that the codex was lying about it but that wouldn't be participating in a very construcctive way now would it?

fyi I was the one aruging for the absence of absolute truths anyway.  But we kinda got sidetracked by the definition of terrorism.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Colonists aren't citizens?  Politicians aren't citizens?  Cerberus has specifically targeted BOTH.

Did you read the wiki?  I get you not reading the actual codex.  But what about that small snipet I just posted?

Instead of making me open your link and interrupt what I'm doing why don't you just summarize it for me here?

lol okay.

"Cerberus is a human-survivalist paramilitary group. Their core belief
is that humans deserve a greater role in the galactic community. Any
methods of advancing humanity's ascension are justified, including
illegal or dangerous experimentation, terrorist activities, sabotage and
assassination"

Further they are rumored to pay people to shoot people and do nasty things like set loose Thresher Maws on Aliance squads.  That good?

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

hey hey whoa whoa hey,that may be too generalized,especially if thats a direct quote from the codex.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 03 août 2011 - 02:52 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

lol we were talking about absolute truth on the last page.  Keep up, OP!

I'm trying, but I sadly haven't had that much time for BSN these last few days.

But we kinda got sidetracked by the definition of terrorism.

We always do, dear, we always do...

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 03 août 2011 - 02:58 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Further they are rumored to pay people to shoot people and do nasty things like set loose Thresher Maws on Aliance squads.  That good?

I need specifics. What acts did they commit that you think are terrorist acts?

Murder is not inherently a terrorist act.

Ug.  So you skipped the part about the Thresher Maw huh?  Lets return to the wiki's summation of Cerberus.  Further:  "Any
methods of advancing humanity's ascension are justified, including
illegal or dangerous experimentation, terrorist activities, sabotage and
assassination."

Is it just the 'terrorist activities' part that you think is bogus?  The sabatoge, assassination and extraleagal activities you agree they do but not the terrorism?  Is this your only sticking point?