2008 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

Until the end of da2 the templars were merely of symptom of the chantry's politics. The chantry is a political stucture and the innocent praying in there chose to pray in a house that controls an army. Just because the chantry also happens to be a religion, it does not excuse it of the fact that it controls tempalrs and seekers until the end of da2.
Is it sad that the innocent praying (which none are potrayed in the specific cut scene so that many weren't there.) are collerteral damage, heck yes. A life lost is always sad, but compared to nearly a thousand years of suffering and mages being injusticly imprisoned for something they might do with zealots as there guard who are chosen compared to just how faitfull they are, then the innocent mages who has suffered far out number the innocent civilians in the chantry, just as another thousand years of mage children being imprisoned for a crime they have yet to commit is worth a war to prevent.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

If you actually think all of that is true, than you are a monster.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

If you actually think all of that is true, than you are a monster.

So you're alright with another millenium of obvious injustice if the alternative is possible death for the people perpetrating said injustice?

How is that less 'monstrous'?

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen 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.

.

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

In war you are not allowed to deliberately hit a civilian target. And if you do, it is considered a war crime. So to summarize: No, it would not.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen 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.

.

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

In war you are not allowed to deliberately hit a civilian target. And if you do, it is considered a war crime. So to summarize: No, it would not.

The Chantry is not a civilian target, so the point is moot.

If the target has to be civilian, in order to qualify as "terrorism", why was the attempted attck on the Pentagon labelled as such? The Pentagon is not a civilian target by any definition.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 25 janvier 2012 - 12:41 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Uhm... Yes it is... The organization may not be qualified as a civilian target, but the structure itself is a place of worship and sanctuary, therefor a civilian target.

[Fast Jimmy]

Exactly.

The Pentagon is a civilian target, despite being the nerve center of most high-level military operations in the U.S. The 9-11 attacks that hit there were considered terrorism.

You're argument doesn't hold up. Blowing up a building without a declaration of war and killing non-military personnel (which are, by definition, civilians) is a war crime.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm... Yes it is... The organization may not be qualified as a civilian target, but the structure itself is a place of worship and sanctuary, therefor a civilian target.

Faaaaalse.

Places of worship are not automatically exempt. The Chantry serves as a base and symbol of political and military power. The fact that people happen to pray in there does not cancel that out. The White House is open for public tours, but that does not make it a civilian target.

And I ask again: why was the attack on the Pentagon labelled as terrorism even though it is unquestionably a military institution? Was the incident falsely labelled, or would you care to revise your definition of terrorism?

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Exactly.

The Pentagon is a civilian target, despite being the nerve center of most high-level military operations in the U.S. The 9-11 attacks that hit there were considered terrorism.

You're argument doesn't hold up. Blowing up a building without a declaration of war and killing non-military personnel (which are, by definition, civilians) is a war crime.

No, they were called 'terrorism'. American media slaps that word on everything, that doesn't make it true.

A "criminal" act is not necessarily wrong. Laws can be evil and unjust.

[Fast Jimmy]

Its terrorism because it ISN'T a military target. It has the majority of non-combat personnel there (since anytime you say civilian, you are quick to say "there are no civilians in the Chantry", as if saying that makes it so) and does not deploy active military out of its base.

In a time of war, this could be considered a viable military target and it would be staffed and prepared accordingly. But without a declaration of war, attacking a government building staffed with non-combat personnel is an act of terrorism, regardless of that building's involvement in the government's actions or beliefs.

Again, if you'd really like to argue the point of if bombing the Pentagon is an act of terrorism, then there are some people in Interpol who would love to have a chat with you.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The structure labelled "The Chantry" IS a civilian target, by virtue of it being a place of worship and sanctuary, that is the long and short of it.
The Pentagon (thoguh a military target I believe) was labelled a terrorist attack due to the method of the attack, not the target. If it had beena missile launched into the building, from an enemy warship, it would have beena legitimate target. However, it was a hijacked civilian airliner which was used as an improvised missile, thus it is labelled as a terrorist attack.

The Chantry has plenty of other targets than the Chantry(structure) that could easily have been targeted and wouldn't have been civilian. Templar fortresses that dot the face of Thedas for instance, would be perfectly viable Chantry military targets.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Its terrorism because it ISN'T a military target. It has the majority of non-combat personnel there (since anytime you say civilian, you are quick to say "there are no civilians in the Chantry", as if saying that makes it so) and does not deploy active military out of its base.

Being "non-combat personnel" is not the same as being a civilian. You work in a military structure? You are involved in military operations, directly or otherwise? You are not a civilian.

The only possible civilians in the Chantry would be people who happened to be in there praying. And none were shown at the time of the explosion. I will believe there were civilians in there when they are shown.

In a time of war, this could be considered a viable military target and it would be staffed and prepared accordingly. But without a declaration of war, attacking a government building staffed with non-combat personnel is an act of terrorism, regardless of that building's involvement in the government's actions or beliefs.

A declaration of war is not required in order for two powers to be at war. There was no such official declaration during the Cold War, but both sides were in conflict, they knew it, and they spread propaganda telling people so.

Again, if you'd really like to argue the point of if bombing the Pentagon is an act of terrorism, then there are some people in Interpol who would love to have a chat with you.

LOL at the ad hominem. Because anyone who disagrees with the USA's constantly shifting definition of terrorism is themselves a terrorist. That is the implication, yes?

Interpol is free to come knocking at my door anytime they like. If their definition and argument are anything like yours then I have nothing to fear. You know what? I'll go one step further and say that sometimes terrorism is the right thing to do.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 25 janvier 2012 - 01:00 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Whether it is right, wrong or indifferent, it is still terrorism and still a war crime.

If you want to say "Anders is a terrorist and I support his terroristic actions" then I'll have no argument with you. But to say he is not one is pretty much an argument in futility.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
However, it was a hijacked civilian airliner which was used as an improvised missile, thus it is labelled as a terrorist attack.

Well I can't actually dispute that. Involving holidaying individuals who have no connection to the Pentagon is definitely wrong.

But Anders didn't use this method to attack the Chantry, so I still have to argue that his actions don't qualify.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Whether it is right, wrong or indifferent, it is still terrorism and still a war crime.

If you want to say "Anders is a terrorist and I support his terroristic actions" then I'll have no argument with you. But to say he is not one is pretty much an argument in futility.

'Terrorism' is a highly subjective idea that's been abused as a media buzzword into fitting an even more absurdly broad sepctrum. When a fixed definition can be agreed upon, and when it can be unarguably stated that Anders actions fall into that, then I'll concede the point.

'Crime', although more strictly defined, is similarly arbitrary, especially in a feudal society like Thedas, and even more especially in an area like the Free Marches. Illegal is not the same thing as wrong.

Is there a law in Kirkwall against what Anders did? I bet it's not written down. Is it a religious law or secular?

I always stated from the beginning that Anders did the right thing, no matter. I was under the impression that the whole point of using terms like "crime" and "terrorism" was to enforce the idea that his actions were inherently wrong.

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

If you actually think all of that is true, than you are a monster.

Well as long as the situation change you are welcome to call me what you like if that makes you sleep at night. If you need to make me a villian I don't care, I will be the villian as long as the situation change. We won our democracy and rights through bloodshed and fear of bloodshed.
The end does justify the means if the alternertive is nothing changes.
A status quo is not worth preserving if it actively incriminates people for just being born, and there is no peacefull solution to the situation. The only reason the chantry is back pedalling right now is because they are losing two-third of the army with the mages and the templars both running away from their grip. Now the chantry has something to lose, namely the monopol on magic they have tried to enforce before so now they can be negotiated with. It was impossible before that simply because the chantry only had something to lose and nothing to gain by negotiating with the mages and giving them more rights.

[Herr Uhl]

Plaintiff wrote...

Being "non-combat personnel" is not the same as being a civilian. You work in a military structure? You are involved in military operations, directly or otherwise? You are not a civilian.

The only possible civilians in the Chantry would be people who happened to be in there praying. And none were shown at the time of the explosion. I will believe there were civilians in there when they are shown.

Instead of going with the pentagon comparison, would the house of congress be a civilian or military target?

If politicians that decide what the military does on a broad scale considered military in that case, is the populace that elects them also military?

[dragonflight288]

Whenever anyone tries to negotiate with an institution, the one with the most power and strength will always come out on top. They hold all the cards. They know, their opponents know it. The Chantry has the Templars who can negate magic, and the supposed teachings of Andraste.

I say supposed because they are actually just one splinter group of Andrastians who happened to get support of the Orlesian Emperor. Their idea of what Andraste was teaching may very well be wrong. But they won't consider that.

When the mages left, and the Templars (who have largely been recruited from fanatics rather than those of moral fiber) followed to pursue them, the Chantry ended up losing a lot of its power. If there's anytime the system can be remodeled and improved, it's now. Templar's are needed to keep blood mage criminals and abominations in check. But they must not be allowed so much power over mages that they've had for centuries.

The attack on the Chantry and this war had to happen in order to allow any improvement to take place. The Chantry as an institution, completely irregardless of individual good people, would never allow mages freedom from the Circles, or the ability to have families. Wouldn't even be open to the idea of negotiating.

I agree with esper. Does that mean I agree with Anders? Heck no. But if any improvement had to be made, Anders actions were required. All the peaceful stuff, moving within the system like Wynne and Irving tries, just haven't worked.

[Xilizhra]

There is at least one difference between them: Anders may have started something better, while Meredith did nothing but make things worse, by and large.

[esper]

I have never stated that it was a good thing. I said that it was sad that lives were lost, but there a clear difference between good and necessary and sometimes necessary is not good.

Anders actions were not good, but the difference between him and Meridith is that he knows it is not a good thing to do. Meridith believes she is doing good because the Maker is on her side.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Meredith is fully aware that her actions won't be considered good, but she also fully believe them neccesary... So how again is she different from Anders?

[esper]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Meredith is fully aware that her actions won't be considered good, but she also fully believe them neccesary... So how again is she different from Anders?

Because she does consider them good. She litterary calls Hawke evil for opossing her.

'No they are evil. How can they be so powerfull'

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Meredith is fully aware that her actions won't be considered good, but she also fully believe them neccesary... So how again is she different from Anders?

Won't be considered good by others, but the point is that she considers them good as well as necessary. Anders only believes the latter.

Also, Anders blew up one building once, while Meredith's reign of terror has continued for nearly a decade.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Her "reign of terror", as you so dramatically put it, lasted for three years. Before that she was simply a strict Knight-Commander, who had to deal with a Circle which was rotten to the core.

[dragonflight288]

Her "reign of terror", as you so dramatically put it, lasted for three years. Before that she was simply a strict Knight-Commander, who had to deal with a Circle which was rotten to the core.

Perhaps you forgot the beginning of the game. City guards detaining refugees and keeping them out of the city on Meredith's orders? How he says she's the power in Kirkwall and Viscount Dumar does not go against what she says?

She's been playing in politics from the beginning. She only isn't openly ruling until Act 3.