1381 réponses à ce sujet

[chaosomegas]

Cerberus is like cia without government oversight. they have no red tape and no laws if they stay in shadows. any action done by Cerberus is viewed as act of terrorism because they work without government oversight.

[rikusoraleon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

rikusoraleon wrote...

No, it is you who insists they're right and outright says I'm wrong without debating me.  Terrorism is terrorism?  That doesn't mean anything, it's just a meaningless tautology.  That's like saying "I am who I am."  It doesn't mean anything, you've not provided a definition of terrorism and you've done nothing but assert that you are right and I am wrong without warrants.  If I knew better, I would say you're probably trolling me.

But terrorism is terrorism, the hint being the terror part of the word. It isn't just what any one person wants it to mean.

Once again, that's a meaningless repetition of words.

[Kaiser Shepard]

rikusoraleon wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

rikusoraleon wrote...

No, it is you who insists they're right and outright says I'm wrong without debating me.  Terrorism is terrorism?  That doesn't mean anything, it's just a meaningless tautology.  That's like saying "I am who I am."  It doesn't mean anything, you've not provided a definition of terrorism and you've done nothing but assert that you are right and I am wrong without warrants.  If I knew better, I would say you're probably trolling me.

But terrorism is terrorism, the hint being the terror part of the word. It isn't just what any one person wants it to mean.

Once again, that's a meaningless repetition of words.

I already gave you a hint there; its not that difficult a word to comprehend if you see what it consists of.

[rikusoraleon]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

rikusoraleon wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

rikusoraleon wrote...

No, it is you who insists they're right and outright says I'm wrong without debating me.  Terrorism is terrorism?  That doesn't mean anything, it's just a meaningless tautology.  That's like saying "I am who I am."  It doesn't mean anything, you've not provided a definition of terrorism and you've done nothing but assert that you are right and I am wrong without warrants.  If I knew better, I would say you're probably trolling me.

But terrorism is terrorism, the hint being the terror part of the word. It isn't just what any one person wants it to mean.

Once again, that's a meaningless repetition of words.

I already gave you a hint there; its not that difficult a word to comprehend if you see what it consists of.

Okay, yeah, you're trolling me.  I'm not going to sit here and play games with you.  When you want to have a real debate PM me.

[Kaiser Shepard]

rikusoraleon wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

rikusoraleon wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

rikusoraleon wrote...

No, it is you who insists they're right and outright says I'm wrong without debating me.  Terrorism is terrorism?  That doesn't mean anything, it's just a meaningless tautology.  That's like saying "I am who I am."  It doesn't mean anything, you've not provided a definition of terrorism and you've done nothing but assert that you are right and I am wrong without warrants.  If I knew better, I would say you're probably trolling me.

But terrorism is terrorism, the hint being the terror part of the word. It isn't just what any one person wants it to mean.

Once again, that's a meaningless repetition of words.

I already gave you a hint there; its not that difficult a word to comprehend if you see what it consists of.

Okay, yeah, you're trolling me.  I'm not going to sit here and play games with you.  When you want to have a real debate PM me.

Wait, let me get this straight: you don't understand what a word means, and I'm the troll?

[capn233]

My definition of blue is red.

There isn't a single official definition of terrorism, that is true. However, nearly everyone agrees that it involves using terror to coerce a response that is in line with your political or ideological goals. Cerberus falls slightly outside that realm. In the examples above they are not trying to sow terror throughout a populace. The assassinations are carried out with completely covert methods, explainable as accidents or natural causes. Not the modus operandi of a terrorist group in the least.

[rikusoraleon]

capn233 wrote...

My definition of blue is red.

There isn't a single official definition of terrorism, that is true. However, nearly everyone agrees that it involves using terror to coerce a response that is in line with your political or ideological goals. Cerberus falls slightly outside that realm. In the examples above they are not trying to sow terror throughout a populace. The assassinations are carried out with completely covert methods, explainable as accidents or natural causes. Not the modus operandi of a terrorist group in the least.

Assassinating a person running for office in order to put in a candidate that believes in your goal is not terrorism?  Blowing up a merchant ship full of innocent people is not terrorism?  Both inspire terror in individuals.  One was an example of indiscriminate violence against noncombatants, a clear instance of terrorism.  I've used real-world analogies to compare the actions taken by Cerberus.  The Systems Alliance and the Council consider Cerberus to be a terrorist organization, clearly there are some overt actions they have taken that do fall under the definition of terrorism.

[chaosomegas]

terrorism is the use of violent action in order to achieve political aim or to force a government to act.

[111987]

General User wrote...

111987 wrote...
Cerberus is only subject to their general desires, namely the advancement of humanity. Beyond that, their role in Cerberus is non-existent.

It is very rare to find a large organization where those who put up the money are the same as those who run things.

111987 wrote...
The Illusive Man is not a legitimate authority.

What would he have to do to become legitimate?

Be sanctioned/approved by the Alliance. And all that entails, i.e. supervision, direction, etc...

[111987]

DPSSOC wrote...

111987 wrote...
The Illusive Man is not a legitimate authority. Because no legitimate group or government directly oversees Cerberus, and because Cerberus acts outside the law, they are a problem waiting to happen.

So this differs from the Spectres how exactly.  The Spectres have zero oversight, zero supervision, the Council does not, and does not want to, keep track of Spectre activities.  If they did Saren never would have been able to find Sovereign, contact the Geth, and build his own military/research base without anybody noticing.

So Spectres act outside the law with no legitimate group or government directly overseeing their activities, but a legitimate authority said they could do that so it's ok?  If that's the case anything done by Cerberus' military division would be golden then wouldn't it?  The Alliance (a legitimate authority) told them they could act without oversight or regard for law so what they do is ok.

The Spectres do have oversight; do you not recall reporting to the Council after every mission in ME1? And if they cross the line, they are taken out, ala Saren.

A legitimate authority, the upkeepers of the law, allow Spectres to bend the law. But there are still standards to be upheld. This is not the case with Cerberus.

And no, the Alliance has not sanctioned Cerberus. They are officially enemies. IDK where this came from.

[capn233]

rikusoraleon wrote...

Assassinating a person running for office in order to put in a candidate that believes in your goal is not terrorism?

No.

Blowing up a merchant ship full of innocent people is not terrorism?

Not if it looks like an accident.

Both inspire terror in individuals.

Not particularly.  Especially if it looks like an accident or a simple criminal act.

One was an example of indiscriminate violence against noncombatants, a clear instance of terrorism.

It wasn't indiscriminate in the least.  Please read.  It was an assassination of a Turian Hawk.  Any civilians were collateral damage.

I've used real-world analogies to compare the actions taken by Cerberus.

Most of which have been imprecise.

The Systems Alliance and the Council consider Cerberus to be a terrorist organization, clearly there are some overt actions they have taken that do fall under the definition of terrorism.

What are the overt actions?  Are there any?   What are they?  Is this a writing error based on a misunderstanding of terrorism by the writers or was it really a political label by the council and Alliance:

"terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically
negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and
opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise
prefer to ignore." -Bruce Hoffman

[rikusoraleon]

chaosomegas wrote...

terrorism is the use of violent action in order to achieve political aim or to force a government to act.

So you agree that Cerberus assassinating a person running for the head office of the Terra Firma party is terrorism?  Or that assassinating a Systems Alliance parliamentarian in order to manipulate the election so that a Cerberus candidate will assume his office is terrorism?

[rikusoraleon]

[quote]capn233 wrote...

[quote]rikusoraleon wrote...

Assassinating a person running for office in order to put in a candidate that believes in your goal is not terrorism? [/QUOTE]
No.[/quote]

Why Not?
[quote]Blowing up a merchant ship full of innocent people is not terrorism? [/quote]
[quote]Not if it looks like an accident.[/quote]

Doesn't matter if it looks like an accident.  If someone is murdered, and the scene is made to look like an accident does that mean that person was not murdered?
[quote]Both inspire terror in individuals.[/quote]
[quote]Not particularly.  Especially if it looks like an accident or a simple criminal act.[/quote]

You're focusing on the examples only.  Why does the Systems Alliance consider them to be terrorists?  Why does the Council consider them terrorists?  Are you saying they're wrong as well?
[quote]One was an example of indiscriminate violence against noncombatants, a clear instance of terrorism.[/quote][quote]It wasn't indiscriminate in the least.  Please read.  It was an assassination of a Turian Hawk.  Any civilians were collateral damage.[/quote]

It was indiscriminate.  Collateral damage is damage to people or property that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome.  Making a ship explode killing everyone aboard is not an unintended outcome.
[quote]I've used real-world analogies to compare the actions taken by Cerberus.[/quote]
[quote]Most of which have been imprecise.[/quote]

How?
[quote]The Systems Alliance and the Council consider Cerberus to be a terrorist organization, clearly there are some overt actions they have taken that do fall under the definition of terrorism.[/quote][quote]What are the overt actions?  Are there any?   What are they?  Is this a writing error based on a misunderstanding of terrorism by the writers or was it really a political label by the council and Alliance:

"terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically
negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and
opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise
prefer to ignore." -Bruce Hoffman[/quote]

Don't know of any overt actions, the game never specifies this.  The game also never specifies if it's just a political label or not.  Doesn't mean you can just deem it irrelevant because you feel like it.  The writers chose to call Cerberus terrorists for a reason, perhaps because they are.

And I can quote wikipedia as well.

"Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental
apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts
and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable
of reaching a consensus.
In the first edition of his magisterial survey, “Political terrorism: A
Research Guide,” Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to
examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a
effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive
explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd
was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence
of the revised volume that the “search for an adequate definition is
still on” Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both
editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is
neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.

Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism
from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity"

[rikusoraleon]

[quote]rikusoraleon wrote...

[quote]capn233 wrote...

[quote]rikusoraleon wrote...

Assassinating a person running for office in order to put in a candidate that believes in your goal is not terrorism? [/QUOTE]
No.[/quote]

Why Not?
[quote]Blowing up a merchant ship full of innocent people is not terrorism? [/quote]
[quote]Not if it looks like an accident.[/quote]

Doesn't matter if it looks like an accident.  If someone is murdered, and the scene is made to look like an accident does that mean that person was not murdered?
[quote]Both inspire terror in individuals.[/quote]
[quote]Not particularly.  Especially if it looks like an accident or a simple criminal act.[/quote]

You're focusing on the examples only.  Why does the Systems Alliance consider them to be terrorists?  Why does the Council consider them terrorists?  Are you saying they're wrong as well?
[quote]One was an example of indiscriminate violence against noncombatants, a clear instance of terrorism.[/quote][quote]It wasn't indiscriminate in the least.  Please read.  It was an assassination of a Turian Hawk.  Any civilians were collateral damage.[/quote]

It was indiscriminate.  Collateral damage is damage to people or property that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome.  Making a ship explode killing everyone aboard is not an unintended outcome.
[quote]I've used real-world analogies to compare the actions taken by Cerberus.[/quote]
[quote]Most of which have been imprecise.[/quote]

How?
[quote]The Systems Alliance and the Council consider Cerberus to be a terrorist organization, clearly there are some overt actions they have taken that do fall under the definition of terrorism.[/quote][quote]What are the overt actions?  Are there any?   What are they?  Is this a writing error based on a misunderstanding of terrorism by the writers or was it really a political label by the council and Alliance:

"terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically
negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and
opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise
prefer to ignore." -Bruce Hoffman[/quote]

Don't know of any overt actions, the game never specifies this.  The game also never specifies if it's just a political label or not.  Doesn't mean you can just deem it irrelevant because you feel like it.  The writers chose to call Cerberus terrorists for a reason, perhaps because they are.

And I can quote wikipedia as well.

"Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental
apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts
and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable
of reaching a consensus.
In the first edition of his magisterial survey, “Political terrorism: A
Research Guide,” Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to
examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a
effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive
explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd
was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence
of the revised volume that the “search for an adequate definition is
still on” Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both
editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is
neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.

Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism
from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity"

[/quote]

[InvincibleHero]

rikusoraleon wrote...

Assassinating a person running for office in order to put in a candidate that believes in your goal is not terrorism?  Blowing up a merchant ship full of innocent people is not terrorism?  Both inspire terror in individuals.  One was an example of indiscriminate violence against noncombatants, a clear instance of terrorism.  I've used real-world analogies to compare the actions taken by Cerberus.  The Systems Alliance and the Council consider Cerberus to be a terrorist organization, clearly there are some overt actions they have taken that do fall under the definition of terrorism.

Covert operations are not by defintion terrorism. The general public has no idea Cerberus did those activities. I doubt anyone knows of their assassinations of the individuals like the pope and politicians. A terrorist organization would claim responsibility and publicly proclaim demands and sow fear and anarchy.

While those actions are evil in nature they are not terroristic.

I think Cerberus is put in there for an excercise in moral relativism. How far would you go if you thought your goal was noble? Make no mistake about it saving humanity is a noble goal. Now it might be Illusive Man has some not so noble aspirations but he sells the average person and even superior scientists and soldiers (Jacob) that works for Cerberus as being for the salvation of humanity.

I think Cerberus is more along the lines of Greek tragedy in some cases victims of circumstance and required to do things that they know will be reviled but must be done in their view. I am sure if IM thought he could get his goal without blowing up a civilian ship then he would have done so. A terrorist would not care and blow it up regardless for the destruction, fear, and noteriety it would generate.

I AM NOT an IM or Cerberus backer. I just think the argument should be balanced as too many people slant it to their view.

[capn233]

[quote]rikusoraleon wrote...

Why Not?
[/QUOTE]
I can't really tell if you are incapable of understanding or are just trying to be hard headed.  Murder is not always a terrorist act.  Are you claiming that everyone that has been convicted of murder is a terrorist?  That is how broad you are making your "personal" definition of terrorism.  Look at the examples of the Cerberus acts you posted.  Note that in not a single example the public is aware of the actual circumstances.  The pope died of old age.  The parliamentarian died of cancer.  The turian's ship had an accident.  The Terra Firma candidate's ship disappeared and was never found, nor was his body.

[quote]Doesn't matter if it looks like an accident.  If someone is murdered, and the scene is made to look like an accident does that mean that person was not murdered?[/quote]
Wow, so you are claiming that all murderers are terrorists.

[quote]You're focusing on the examples only.  Why does the Systems Alliance consider them to be terrorists?  Why does the Council consider them terrorists?  Are you saying they're wrong as well?[/quote]
Of course.  Cerberus is paramilitary.  They are a cabal.  They haven't actually been terrorists despite the dialogue of characters in game.

[quote]It was indiscriminate.  Collateral damage is damage to people or property that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome.  Making a ship explode killing everyone aboard is not an unintended outcome.[/quote]
They are assassinating the turian on board.  I'm sure they realized the crew would be killed.  However the goal was not to kill the crew, nor was it to do so in a manner that would coerce the populace into taking a certain political or idealogical view via fear, intimidation, or psychological manipulation.

[quote]How?[/quote]
It mainly stems from your "definition" of terrorism that is so broad that any act of violence is somehow a terrorist act.

[quote]Assassination is terrorism.  See Lord Louis Mountbatten.[/quote]The IRA put a bomb in his boat.  It was clear that he did not die of "natural causes" but by rather spectacular causes.  In addition, the IRA issued a statement taking responsibility.  Both are key elements of terrorism.

[quote]Blowing up ships with thousands of people is terrorism i.e. 9/11[/quote]
Where are your numbers on the crew of that ship?  Not that it matters because again the target was a turian hawk.  In addition Cerberus made it look like an accident and did not publicly assume responsibility.  9/11 wasn't even remotely the same thing.  The targets were the people in the buildings and the goal was to show the populace that they could be attacked.  They also took responsibility for the act.

[quote]Kidnapping children for deathcamps=Radical Muslims kidnapping children to use in suicide attacks.[/quote]This one is just way out there.  Are you talking about Teltin?  It was a lab, not a death camp.  Yeah they killed a lot of kids that they experimented on.  The covert nature again is contrary to terrorism.  Blowing up kids in public isn't remotely the same thing.

[quote]Don't know of any overt actions, the game never specifies this.  The game also never specifies if it's just a political label or not.  Doesn't mean you can just deem it irrelevant because you feel like it.  The writers chose to call Cerberus terrorists for a reason, perhaps because they are.[/quote]
Yes the game never specifies.  Part of why people that actually think a little bit wonder where the evidence of them being terrorists actually is... because there isn't any.  And it doesn't mean you can just imagine there is evidence if you don't actually have it.  It is either poor writing, or they intended the label to be a political characterization.

[quote]And I can quote wikipedia as well.[/quote]
Try reading it too.

[QUOTE]...
By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism
from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity"

[/quote]None of your Cerberus examples were designed to have psychological repercussions.  That is the "terror" part of terrorism.  Interestingly enough, they also don't fit the "no uniform or identifying insignia" bit either (not that I necessarily agree with him on that characteristic, but it is there to separate them from uniformed services and freedom fighters).

Modifié par capn233, 30 novembre 2011 - 06:06 .

[111987]

I think the Thresher Maw attacks could be classified as a terrorist act, as it did have serious psychological impacts on the survivors (and they did want some survivors). But generally speaking they don't adhere to the strict definition of terrorism.

That doesn't mean what they're doing is right or even good, it's just not terrorism.

[capn233]

111987 wrote...

I think the Thresher Maw attacks could be classified as a terrorist act, as it did have serious psychological impacts on the survivors (and they did want some survivors). But generally speaking they don't adhere to the strict definition of terrorism.

Eh the Thresher maw is a bit of a stretch since at the most Toombs and Shep survived it and I doubt their goal was to instill terror in them, but rather to learn about the maws, most likely as weapons.

That doesn't mean what they're doing is right or even good, it's just not terrorism.

Exactly.  They have done many horrific deeds.  They are certainly outlaws.  They just aren't really terrorists.

Modifié par capn233, 30 novembre 2011 - 06:12 .

[111987]

capn233 wrote...

111987 wrote...

I think the Thresher Maw attacks could be classified as a terrorist act, as it did have serious psychological impacts on the survivors (and they did want some survivors). But generally speaking they don't adhere to the strict definition of terrorism.

Eh the Thresher maw is a bit of a stretch since at the most Toombs and Shep survived it and I doubt their goal was to instill terror in them, but rather to learn about the maws, most likely as weapons.

That doesn't mean what they're doing is right or even good, it's just not terrorism.

Exactly.  They have done many horrific deeds.  They are certainly outlaws.  They just aren't really terrorists.

Yeah it's definitely a stretch. You'd think they could find a better way to study the effects of Thresher Maw venom or their lethality than on human soldiers, but it isn't really terrorism.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

No, TIM KNOWS there's a threat (the reapers).

Government, schovermment. "Legality" has nothning to do with anything.
The Legal governments of the Alliance and Council did nothing to protect the people. They did nothing to prepare for the reapers.

A "legal" government can do more harm to the populace than the illegal "terrorist" organization.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 30 novembre 2011 - 07:29 .

[chaosomegas]

most governments try not tell people that their doom it cause roits. they getting ready but the war look bad right now so they been politicians right now.

[Cheesy Blue]

chaosomegas wrote...

most governments try not tell people that their doom it cause roits. they getting ready but the war look bad right now so they been politicians right now.

Yeah, Google translate blows.

[111987]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

No, TIM KNOWS there's a threat (the reapers).

Government, schovermment. "Legality" has nothning to do with anything.
The Legal governments of the Alliance and Council did nothing to protect the people. They did nothing to prepare for the reapers.

A "legal" government can do more harm to the populace than the illegal "terrorist" organization.

The legal system is paramount to galactic stability. To suggest otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

And Cerberus has done plenty of harm to people throughout their history.

[chaosomegas]

Cheesy Blue wrote...

chaosomegas wrote...

most governments try not tell people that their doom it cause roits. they getting ready but the war look bad right now so they been politicians right now.

Yeah, Google translate blows.

dude i live canada i suck spelling lol

[Cheesy Blue]

chaosomegas wrote...

Cheesy Blue wrote...

chaosomegas wrote...

most governments try not tell people that their doom it cause roits. they getting ready but the war look bad right now so they been politicians right now.

Yeah, Google translate blows.

dude i live canada i suck spelling lol

Dude you sound like a Native American It's ****ing awesome! Allright let me have a go.

We hunt Thunder Bear over mountain. Our tribe is great hunters and swift like rabbit.