2008 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

I already addressed the issue of an 'official war declaration' back on page six, so I'm going to post it again and hope somebody actually responds to it this time.

It's ridiculous to expect Anders, or really any mage, to make an official declaration of war against the Chantry. The Chantry would never recognise it as a legitimate declaration of war, even if one was attempted. It would label the mages as 'heretics' and 'rebels', and then slaughter them outright. The fact that they label anyone outside their beliefs as 'apostate' (a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle) is telling enough.

They consider everyone Andrastian by default, and anyone outside of that is considered to be actively rejecting the religion, whether or not they were ever even part of that religion to begin with. When you think about it, referring to mages like Morrigan, Velanna and Merrill as 'apostates' is deeply offensive, particularly for the latter two because it not only imposes on them a set of cultural and religious standards that they do not and never claimed to follow, but totally disreagards their own, totally separate religious culture in the process. Dalish elves have their own faith and their own protocol regarding magic, which the Chantry just ignores. The Chantry's general attitude to anyone outside their religion is a pretty good indicator of how they'd respond to any attempt to declare 'war'.

An oppressed, disenfranchised group like the mages doesn't have the avenues required for what you're asking. It's just not possible. They aren't a country with an army and the ability to march into war. They're a subjugated, imprisoned minority who wouldn't be taken seriously to begin with, because they're subject to religious laws that paint them as villains and heretics.

As for the attack on the Chantry being 'terrorism' because it doesn't house weapons or soldiers: well the White House isn't used as an army barracks but it's hardly what one would call a 'civilian target'. The Pentagon is most assuredly a government/military structure, but the attack against it was labelled as 'terrorism'. It's even called 'terrorism' when a US battleship gets bombed.

'Terrorism' is a media and political buzzword that has lost all real meaning because it is now used indiscriminately to label any act that is done to oppose authority, regardless of whether that authority is a democracy or, as in the case of the Chantry, a fascist theocratic dictatorship. If you don't have a country, if you don't have an army, if you don't have the means or the authority to declare war, then everything you do to oppose authority is now 'terrorism'.

It's just propoganda.

I dare say if such a word existed in Thedas, Anders would indeed be labelled a 'terrorist', and his actions as 'terrorism'. But just because the Chantry has the power to make the laws and write history doesn't make them right.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 janvier 2012 - 11:42 .

[dragonflight288]

I posted on page 12...probably the last post...about how idiotic it is to declare war on the Chantry. I happen to agree with your synopsis there.

Pearl Harbor, 1941-Japan attacks Hawaii, largest attack on America (at the time) and there was no officially declaration of war...okay...there way about a couple of hours before the attack itself. But several innocents were killed in the attack.

The hospital staff was gunned down, because for every soldier they couldn't save, that was one soldier who wouldn't fight and kill Japanese soldiers. Is it honorable? Depends on your definition of honor. Is it fair? All is fair in love and war.

If you're fighting to the death for a cause, do you let your enemy get stronger and have an honorable battle? Heck no. You strike hard in an attempt to cripple them entirely, keep them out of the fight. Make them lose the will to fight. Many people seem to forget that war often uses dishonorable means. There is no real glory in battle unless you're a grunt on the front lines.

[Lazy Jer]

Naw that's silly it hasn't lost all meaning.

From Marriam-Websters:

"Terrorism (noun): The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

See...meaning.

Like for instance blowing up the Chantry and the Grand Cleric knowing full well it would cause the Knight-Commander call for the Right of Annulment, thus terrorising the mages into rebellion rather the comprimise.

[Malanu]

Vit246 wrote...

No, he is not.

He did not "punish innocent people". There's no sense for Anders to do something like that. He targeted and killed people of a powerful faction precisely because they are guilty and directly responsible for a thousand-year long reign of abuses and injustices against a group of people being born what they are.

I read this and have to disagree. The Grand Cleric was the voice of reason in a volitile situation and Anders killed the one person who could have single handedly calmed the situation. By killing her, he forced the issue into combat. YES Meredith was crazy loco, but she & the Templars still answered to the Grand Cleric.

Now if t he had only blown up the Templar barricks, then he would have done something that I could actually support.

There is no real glory in battle unless you're a grunt on the front lines.

Then you never were a grunt. Cause there was never a moment that I would have concidered glorious when I served as a Infantry Marine.

Modifié par Malanu, 24 janvier 2012 - 04:46 .

[GavrielKay]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Naw that's silly it hasn't lost all meaning.

From Marriam-Websters:

"Terrorism (noun): The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

See...meaning.

Like for instance blowing up the Chantry and the Grand Cleric knowing full well it would cause the Knight-Commander call for the Right of Annulment, thus terrorising the mages into rebellion rather the comprimise.

One bomb is not "systematic."

Terrorism is about using the people against their own government; getting the people to demand change from the government in order to get policy changes that benefit the terrorist.  Anders would be a classic terrorist if he'd blown up the Hanged Man in hopes that Lowtown would march on the Gallows and demand that Meredith offer concessions to the mages so that the attacks would stop.

Anders launched a first strike attack against the local seat of an oppressive regime.  He intended to free Meredith to do what she wanted to do anyway, there was no fear involved in that at all.  Any fear caused in the populace was entirely beside the point to Anders.

You can label him a terrorist if it makes you happy to try for that emotional response and try to influence folks to hate his actions.  In the end it's a label that only fits if you alter the traditional meaning.  IMHO it was never meant to mean any attack that kills civilians without a formal declaration of war.

If anything, Meredith is more a terrorist than Anders.  She applies systematic threats, beatings, Tranquilings and general intimidation to try to keep the mages in line.  It is Meredith using fear as a tool.

[Lazy Jer]

Plaintiff wrote...

'Terrorism' is a media and political buzzword that has lost all real meaning because it is now used indiscriminately to label any act that is done to oppose authority, regardless of whether that authority is a democracy or, as in the case of the Chantry, a fascist theocratic dictatorship. If you don't have a country, if you don't have an army, if you don't have the means or the authority to declare war, then everything you do to oppose authority is now 'terrorism'.

It's just propoganda.

I dare say if such a word existed in Thedas, Anders would indeed be labelled a 'terrorist', and his actions as 'terrorism'. But just because the Chantry has the power to make the laws and write history doesn't make them right.

It doesn't make them inherently wrong either.  Orsino didn't have much power either.  He gathered a throng in the square and publically aired his grievences to the masses.  Not Terrorism.  Anders blew up a public building.  If that's that's not terrorism it's a damn site closer.

[Lazy Jer]

GavrielKay wrote...

One bomb is not "systematic."

Terrorism is about using the people against their own government; getting the people to demand change from the government in order to get policy changes that benefit the terrorist.  Anders would be a classic terrorist if he'd blown up the Hanged Man in hopes that Lowtown would march on the Gallows and demand that Meredith offer concessions to the mages so that the attacks would stop.

Anders launched a first strike attack against the local seat of an oppressive regime.  He intended to free Meredith to do what she wanted to do anyway, there was no fear involved in that at all.  Any fear caused in the populace was entirely beside the point to Anders.

You can label him a terrorist if it makes you happy to try for that emotional response and try to influence folks to hate his actions.  In the end it's a label that only fits if you alter the traditional meaning.  IMHO it was never meant to mean any attack that kills civilians without a formal declaration of war.

If anything, Meredith is more a terrorist than Anders.  She applies systematic threats, beatings, Tranquilings and general intimidation to try to keep the mages in line.  It is Meredith using fear as a tool.

Also from Websters:

"Systematic (adjective): 1. Relating to or consisting of a system. 2. Presented as a coherent body of ideals or principles 3a. Methodical in procedure of plan 3b. marked my throughness and regularity 4. of, relating to, or concerned with classification."

So objectively there are arguments for and against one bomb being systematic.

Objectively, according to the dictionary deffinintion, since it makes no reference to the perpetrator needing to be in an official capacity then you're right that Meredeth is more of a terrorist, or has been using terrorism longer then Anders.  My labeling of Anders as a terrorist has to do with the fact that he fits the description.  I could use a lot of worse words, at least in my opinion, to describe Anders that don't fit (that I won't go into to avoid forum-board dramatic reactions, resulting in the threat of more bannings) but that would only be me engaging in propaganda of my own.

I could label Anders as a vigilante if that makes you feel better, because that term is accurate as well.  I could also term him as a Martry, which (depending on the choice-outcome and/or one's feelings) could also apply.  What I am attempting to do point out that, objectively, there's an argument for Anders being a terrorist.

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 24 janvier 2012 - 05:15 .

[GavrielKay]

Lazy Jer wrote...
I could label Anders as a vigilante if that makes you feel better, because that term is accurate as well.  I could also term him as a Martry, which (depending on the choice-outcome and/or one's feelings) could also apply.  What I am attempting to do point out that, objectively, there's an argument for Anders being a terrorist.

I'm not terribly worried about labels generally.  I just find it telling when people stretch the definition of a label in order to tar and feather someone with it.

Just admitting that Meredith has been doing whatever it is longer than Anders indicates a difference between them.  Meredith and her cronies have been using fear and intimidation (and worse) from the beginning of the game.  Anders only turns to it as a last resort.

Even though Meredith and Anders end up on opposite sides of the same conflict, they get there for different reasons and by different paths.  I think that matters.

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...

Naw that's silly it hasn't lost all meaning.

From Marriam-Websters:

"Terrorism (noun): The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

See...meaning.

Like for instance blowing up the Chantry and the Grand Cleric knowing full well it would cause the Knight-Commander call for the Right of Annulment, thus terrorising the mages into rebellion rather the comprimise.

One bomb is not "systematic."

Terrorism is about using the people against their own government; getting the people to demand change from the government in order to get policy changes that benefit the terrorist.  Anders would be a classic terrorist if he'd blown up the Hanged Man in hopes that Lowtown would march on the Gallows and demand that Meredith offer concessions to the mages so that the attacks would stop.

Anders launched a first strike attack against the local seat of an oppressive regime.  He intended to free Meredith to do what she wanted to do anyway, there was no fear involved in that at all.  Any fear caused in the populace was entirely beside the point to Anders.

You can label him a terrorist if it makes you happy to try for that emotional response and try to influence folks to hate his actions.  In the end it's a label that only fits if you alter the traditional meaning.  IMHO it was never meant to mean any attack that kills civilians without a formal declaration of war.

If anything, Meredith is more a terrorist than Anders.  She applies systematic threats, beatings, Tranquilings and general intimidation to try to keep the mages in line.  It is Meredith using fear as a tool.

Wait wait wait... What?
So just because Anders didn't "mean" for the people inside the Chantry to die, or rather that it wasn't his ultimate goal, then he isn't a terrorist?

So if you plant a bomb inside a building and kill a hundred, but your actual goal was to coerce someone else into taking the action you want them to, then it isn't terrorism? What.... The... ****?

terrorism (usually uncountable; plural terrorisms)

• The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a politicalor social agenda.
• Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
• A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

Yes, Meredith was using terror tactics against the mages (but not actual terrorism), but by god, what Anders did was an act of terrorism, wether you agree with it or not.

[dragonflight288]

Then you never were a grunt. Cause there was never a moment that I would have concidered glorious when I served as a Infantry Marine.

Fair enough. I have never been a grunt. I was merely referring to lore I've read on how medieval societies tried to recruit for grand crusades or armies. Honor in battle, redemption in heaven for slaying the heathen, and other some-such. I cannot speak of modern armies because I've never been in them. Since you served in the marines, you have my respect.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

terrorism (usually uncountable; plural terrorisms)

• The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a politicalor social agenda.
• Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
• A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the population of a state.

Yes, Meredith was using terror tactics against the mages (but not actual terrorism), but by god, what Anders did was an act of terrorism, wether you agree with it or not.

I promise this will be my last post on the subject because obviously everyone has made up their mind at this point and there is no changing it... 

Note your own post, with all those lovely definitions, each of which includes a "for the purpose of" or "deliberately creating a climate of fear" etc.  My point is simply that Anders doesn't fit the definition.  He used means that a terrorist might use, but that is not sufficient.  Armies use bombs too, and we don't cal it terrorism because it isn't enough to use the methods.

Meredith using "terror tactics" somehow doesn't qualify why?  Because Meredith didn't use a bomb?  She scared mages into submission, but that isn't terrorism?  Anders using a bomb in a military way not to cause terror IS terrorism?  I think you've got it backwards.

In the end though, I don't care.  It's a video game, and not even as good as the original.  These threads are the last dying bit of interest I have in the game at all. 

Bring on DA3 and lets hope for more fun and less bickering 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Anders' bomb qualifies because he deliberately target a civilian structure (a sanctuary no less), for the sole purpose of advancing his own political agenda.

Meredith uses fear against the mages to keep them under control. Not to further any grand political or social cause. You could say that Meredith fits under the third description, but I hesitate to define the mages of a single Circle as a "population of a state".

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Anders' bomb qualifies because he deliberately target a civilian structure (a sanctuary no less), for the sole purpose of advancing his own political agenda.

Meredith uses fear against the mages to keep them under control. Not to further any grand political or social cause. You could say that Meredith fits under the third description, but I hesitate to define the mages of a single Circle as a "population of a state".

Meredith does fit into the third definition if you apply the state to Kirkwall itself. She's deliberately trying to make the populus fear the mages and going so far as to apply her terror tactics on the civilians themselves.

Luckily they're not really fooled by all her posturing considering her methods.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 janvier 2012 - 12:25 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

That Meredith informs the populace of Kirkwall of the actual dangers of magic, hardly qualifies as terrorism... There is a difference between using fear to your own advantage and terrorism. Usually the fear created from terrorism is irrational (not during and actual terrorist act mind you, but the fear following the act). But using a fear which is already present, to your own advantage is not neccesarily terrorism. Fearmongering I believe the term is.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That Meredith informs the populace of Kirkwall of the actual dangers of magic, hardly qualifies as terrorism... There is a difference between using fear to your own advantage and terrorism. Usually the fear created from terrorism is irrational (not during and actual terrorist act mind you, but the fear following the act). But using a fear which is already present, to your own advantage is not neccesarily terrorism. Fearmongering I believe the term is.

"You fed a mage! We kill you now!"

"These civilians surrendered after we killed the mages! We kill them now! Champion support us or you die too!"

And no, no matter how  a person tries to spin it aiding a mage isn't a capital offense punishable by death. If it was, Meredith would've been killed when she was a kid. If it was, Hawke would've been killed when the Templars found Bethany, because at that point he hadn't made a fortune from what he found in the Deep Roads. They still needed to sell everything. If it was, Samson would've been killed for aiding Feynriel. If it was, the Templars would've marched on the Dalish and slaughtered them for having mages in their clan.

Considering the populus of Kirkwall feared the Templars more than the mages -- since from the nobles to the commoners they were helping the mages -- Meredith wasn't using any fear to her advantage. She was trying to create it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 janvier 2012 - 12:50 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Since every single person in Kirkwall who aided a mage WASN'T executed, I'm gonna go out on a limp here, and say that the Templars killing civilians, weren't acting on Meredith's orders, but was just fanatical lunatics.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Since every single person in Kirkwall who aided a mage WASN'T executed, I'm gonna go out on a limp here, and say that the Templars killing civilians, weren't acting on Meredith's orders, but was just fanatical lunatics.

It's made very clear that Ser Mettin is a part of Meredith's personal hit squad. It's also made clear that Ser Kerras is one of Meredith's cronies, and he was ready to execute Thrask, Hawke, and company simply for aiding mages instead of simply placing them under arrest.

[PrinceLionheart]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Anders' bomb qualifies because he deliberately target a civilian structure (a sanctuary no less), for the sole purpose of advancing his own political agenda.

Meredith uses fear against the mages to keep them under control. Not to further any grand political or social cause. You could say that Meredith fits under the third description, but I hesitate to define the mages of a single Circle as a "population of a state".

Meredith does fit into the third definition if you apply the state to Kirkwall itself. She's deliberately trying to make the populus fear the mages and going so far as to apply her terror tactics on the civilians themselves.

Luckily they're not really fooled by all her posturing considering her methods.

Doesn't that bring the original subject full circle if they're both technically terrorists.

[TEWR]

Ha! I don't really talk about whether Anders is a terrorist or not.

[dragonflight288]

Eh, they both have faults. Some people on the forums seem to support Meredith, or at least her position on mages. Others support Anders and say he's 100% right and can't be wrong about the Chantry.

Me, I say they're both extremists on either end of the board, both have valid points, and both are completely nuts regarding certain parts of their personality.

[PrinceLionheart]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Eh, they both have faults. Some people on the forums seem to support Meredith, or at least her position on mages. Others support Anders and say he's 100% right and can't be wrong about the Chantry.

Me, I say they're both extremists on either end of the board, both have valid points, and both are completely nuts regarding certain parts of their personality.

They both die in my playthrough. That's all that matters to me.

[dragonflight288]

And then the Anders fans rise from the Sacred Ashes of the Chantry..or just the sacred ashes of Andraste, and smite us for killing him.

[Plaintiff]

Malanu wrote...

Vit246 wrote...

No, he is not.

He did not "punish innocent people". There's no sense for Anders to do something like that. He targeted and killed people of a powerful faction precisely because they are guilty and directly responsible for a thousand-year long reign of abuses and injustices against a group of people being born what they are.

I read this and have to disagree. The Grand Cleric was the voice of reason in a volitile situation and Anders killed the one person who could have single handedly calmed the situation. By killing her, he forced the issue into combat. YES Meredith was crazy loco, but she & the Templars still answered to the Grand Cleric.

Now if t he had only blown up the Templar barricks, then he would have done something that I could actually support.

There is no real glory in battle unless you're a grunt on the front lines.

Then you never were a grunt. Cause there was never a moment that I would have concidered glorious when I served as a Infantry Marine.

Elthina was a lazy, ineffective, cowardly ****. She didn't "calm" anything, she just swept all the problems under a rug in order to maintain a broken status quo. She ignored Meredith's abuse of power because it was easier. She had seven years to do something about it and she didn't. 

When Leliana came to Kirkwall to find out what was going on, Elthina had the chance to tell her the truth and have something actually be done about it. Instead, she told Hawke to lie and say that everything was fine.

Elthina empowered Meredith's tyranny with her inaction. She deserves everything she got and more.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Anders' bomb qualifies because he deliberately target a civilian structure (a sanctuary no less), for the sole purpose of advancing his own political agenda.

.

What idiot wrote that definition of terrorism. If we would accept that then every single war is an act of terrorism

[DPSSOC]

dragonflight288 wrote...
If you're fighting to the death for a cause, do you let your enemy get stronger and have an honorable battle? Heck no. You strike hard in an attempt to cripple them entirely, keep them out of the fight. Make them lose the will to fight. Many people seem to forget that war often uses dishonorable means.

There is a slight difference between a surprise attack against a military base that piroritizes non-combatants as targets, and blowing up a civillian structure as a means of assassination.  It's been said many times, many people wouldn't have a problem with Anders attack if he'd targeted the Templars or didn't resort to ridiculous levels of overkill in order to kill Elthina.

A mage assault on the Templar barracks in the Gallows would have pushed Meredith over the edge just as well, hell it probably would have forced Elthina to finally side with Meredith.