1381 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

Spectres are more like vigilantes...endorsed by the government. Yeah there isn't a perfect analogy here.

They do it because the government knows there's a threat.

Cerberus does it because there might be a threat. While being independent and controlled by ONE man, who's visions can very well be colliding with what the government wants done.

[rikusoraleon]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

rikusoraleon wrote...

Quole wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

Quole wrote...

You can have a military and still be strong without comitting acts of terrorism.

I never said we needed to commit acts of terrorism.

Pro-tip: Cerberus does not commit terrorism.

Stop using that term so liberally. You demean it when you do that.

Yes, technically its not terrorism, but its close enough. Asassinating people, blowing up ships with thousands of people, kidnapping children for deathcamps all for..... supposed protection? Which we apparently dont have already? Other than killing the collectors... what good is Cerberus? Oh wait, it makes people mistrust humans. Yeah, that really helps us in the end.

Assassination is terrorism.  See Lord Louis Mountbatten.
Blowing up ships with thousands of people is terrorism i.e. 9/11
Kidnapping children for deathcamps=Radical Muslims kidnapping children to use in suicide attacks.

Cerberus has always been a TERRORIST organization.

If we're going to bring up real-life examples, are British SAS teams terrorists, because they went around assassinating escaping German officers after WWII?

You may want to clarify your second example. Blowing up a ship full of civilians is terrorism. Blowing up a military vessel full of military personnel is called war. If a few civilians happen to be on board at the time, well, that's called collateral damage.

Okay, so assassination is a gray area.  As a whole I would say assassination is an act of terrorism, but committing a few assassinations should not deem a group/organization as terrorists.  I think continuous acts of terrorism define a group/organization as terrorists.

And yes, I meant ship full of civilians.  I would have thought that was implied given that I had 9/11 as the example.

[Someone With Mass]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Why is the majority more important than the minority in this case? Cerberus still acts on their behalf.

Democracy, as always? 

If the Alliance doesn't want war with...say the turians, but Cerberus does and attacks, why should humanity as a whole be punished for it?

Same with Shepard's attempts at creating an alliance between the krogans and the turians to gain help he can later use against the Reapers, a common foe (by the orders of the Alliance, mind you) and Cerberus opposes this and attacks. Are they still acting for what they believe is the benefits of mankind or just for their own selfish needs?

[General User]

Someone With Mass wrote...
If the Alliance doesn't want war with...say the turians, but Cerberus does and attacks, why should humanity as a whole be punished for it?

Change this scenario only slightly and you'll understand the need for an unaffiliated black-ops group like Cerberus:  the Alliance doesn't want war with the turians, but does want something they have (etc.), so Cerberus gets it.  Then humanity as a whole can't be punished for it.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

They do it because the government knows there's a threat.

Really? I thought the Council's stance on Spectre actions was that it didn't want to know...

They don't want to know what actions were taken to achieve a goal, but they are still the one setting the goals.

[111987]

General User wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
If the Alliance doesn't want war with...say the turians, but Cerberus does and attacks, why should humanity as a whole be punished for it?

Change this scenario only slightly and you'll understand the need for an unaffiliated black-ops group like Cerberus:  the Alliance doesn't want war with the turians, but does want something they have (etc.), so Cerberus gets it.  Then humanity as a whole can't be punished for it.

Yes they can. Just look at what happened between Serbia and Austria-Hungary in 1914.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

They don't want to know what actions were taken to achieve a goal, but they are still the one setting the goals.

No that's not true. Spectres are free to act on their own and in that regard they are given a lot of leeway.

"Protect the galaxy". That is pretty broad. It's as broad as Cerberus saying "Advance humanity".

They are still given missions though. They don't just make someone a Spectre and then aimleslly unleash them on the galaxy.

[General User]

111987 wrote...

General User wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...
If the Alliance doesn't want war with...say the turians, but Cerberus does and attacks, why should humanity as a whole be punished for it?

Change this scenario only slightly and you'll understand the need for an unaffiliated black-ops group like Cerberus:  the Alliance doesn't want war with the turians, but does want something they have (etc.), so Cerberus gets it.  Then humanity as a whole can't be punished for it.

Yes they can. Just look at what happened between Serbia and Austria-Hungary in 1914.

You're right things can go out of control.  It's a high-stakes game, but we still need to field a team.

[capn233]

It's not clear that the Alliance supports Cerberus by the time of ME2 (and probably not by ME) outside of moral support for Shepard's anti-collector mission.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

They are still given missions though.

Yeah and so is Cerberus if ME2 is any indication. Oh, it's not formal, but Alliance support is there none the less.

No. Cerberus backers trust TIM to do the right thing; Miranda says this herself. Cerberus is entirely self-governed.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

No. Cerberus backers trust TIM to do the right thing; Miranda says this herself. Cerberus is entirely self-governed.

I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about the Alliance quietly accepting Cerberus aid in defeating the Collectors. Hackett confirms this after Arrival if you do it pre-Suicide Mission. It is also vaguely implied by his dossier in LOTSB.

That's different from being assigned missions though, like the Council with the Spectres, or the Salarians with the STG. The Alliance sometimes quietly supports Cerberus, but not all the time. It is a relationship of convenience.

[Someone With Mass]

More than likely because the Alliance couldn't do so much in Terminus space.

[rikusoraleon]

It seems to me that a lot of the reasons that have been given in this thread in defense of Cerberus carry more weight pre-ME3. In ME2 yes, Cerberus was "good" in that they were the only ones actively fighting the Collectors and protecting humans. The Alliance couldn't do anything and the Council refused to do anything. Now comes ME3 and Cerberus is suddenly working with the Reapers. The same beings who threaten every single organic/geth in the galaxy. There's no justification, no defense for Cerberus. Well, I guess it's not clear if ALL of Cerberus is working with the Reapers of if it's just a splinter group, but as it stands if they're allied with the Reapers they're evil.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

That's different from being assigned missions though,

No, not really. The Council will direct Spectres when it wants to just as the Alliance will cooperate with Cerberus when it needs to. Otherwise both just act on their own.

The Alliance is just more secretive about it. Both have plausible deniablity.

You said it yourself though; the Council will direct Spectres. The Alliance will occassionally cooperate with Cerberus, and even then, indirectly.

It is because of this that Cerberus does not have the liegitimacy of the Spectres, or STG. Nobody directs them, they just do as they see fit. Sometimes this aligns with the Alliance wants, sometimes it does not.

[Someone With Mass]

It was more of a "help me with this, and I won't unscrew your head and sh*t down your neck" than a cooperation, really.

[GodWood]

rikusoraleon wrote...
Assassination is terrorism.  See Lord Louis Mountbatten.
Blowing up ships with thousands of people is terrorism i.e. 9/11
Kidnapping children for deathcamps=Radical Muslims kidnapping children to use in suicide attacks.

Cerberus has always been a TERRORIST organization.

This post is just lol.

[111987]

Saphra Deden wrote...

111987 wrote...

It is because of this that Cerberus does not have the liegitimacy of the Spectres, or STG. Nobody directs them, they just do as they see fit. Sometimes this aligns with the Alliance wants, sometimes it does not.

But does it really need the legitimacy? Why is the lack of legitimacy bad? I ask this because everybody demonizes Cerberus but then brushes aside the very same transgessions made by the "legitimate" actors.

I think it is necesarry. If everyone just decided to stop obeying the law, civilization would suffer. Sure, sometimes the law needs to be bent, so that's when the government comes in. They can bend the laws when necesarry, but they still maintain oversight and are subject to the demands of their people (a government can only last so long without the support of the public). Cerberus is subject to nobody's demands. If everyone adopted this policy, all hell would break loose.

[General User]

Cerberus is subject to it's backers demands.