1482 réponses à ce sujet

[didymos1120]

JGray wrote...

Calibration Master wrote...

For the last time: Cerberus is not a terrorist organisation. They don't fit the profile of "terrorist" one bit. Cerberus is an Alliance black ops organisation, nothing more, nothing less.

Seriously, it annoys me greatly that people are eager to shout "TERRORISTS" while they don't even know what they're talking about. Even the BioWare writers themselves apperantly don't know what "terrorist" really means.

Black ops organizations are, on some level, sanctioned. Cerberus is not and is utterly independent. They are a terrorist organization on some level. Cerberus reminds me a lot of Hamas. One side does terrorist acts. Another does humanitarian missions - so long as those missions fall within a specific set of requirements.

Cerberus is more properly described as a paramilitary that operates in largely the same fashion as government-sponsored black ops groups. 

[GodWood]

Kid Buu wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...
They blow up civilian transports, kidnap free citizens, sell arms to criminals and assassinate people for political ends.   What definition of terrorist are you operating from?!

None of that is terrorism unless they explicitly state "We're Cerberus. We did that. Fear us because we did that and do what we say".

When Cerberus does those things they do it on the hush hush.

Lol. You dont have to be discrete and actually say ``fear us`` to in incur fear.

You do if you want to be a terrorist.

[dgcatanisiri]

I've yet to hear anyone offer a justification for Akuze and Corporal Toombs. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt about not knowing about the thresher maw as Toombs said, they took at least Toombs, if not more who didn't survive their experiments, and tortured him, all in the name of SCIENCE! and humanity. Tell me, what part of 'human dominance' justifies treating humans as lab rats?

[ABCoLD]

GodWood wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...
They blow up civilian transports, kidnap free citizens, sell arms to criminals and assassinate people for political ends.   What definition of terrorist are you operating from?!

None of that is terrorism unless they explicitly state "We're Cerberus. We did that. Fear us because we did that and do what we say".

When Cerberus does those things they do it on the hush hush.

Any use of violence to achieve a poltical end without the sanction of a government is by definition terrorism.

[Calibration Master]

JGray wrote...

Calibration Master wrote...

For the last time: Cerberus is not a terrorist organisation. They don't fit the profile of "terrorist" one bit. Cerberus is an Alliance black ops organisation, nothing more, nothing less.

Seriously, it annoys me greatly that people are eager to shout "TERRORISTS" while they don't even know what they're talking about. Even the BioWare writers themselves apperantly don't know what "terrorist" really means.

Black ops organizations are, on some level, sanctioned. Cerberus is not and is utterly independent. They are a terrorist organization on some level. Cerberus reminds me a lot of Hamas. One side does terrorist acts. Another does humanitarian missions - so long as those missions fall within a specific set of requirements.

Not true. Black ops organisations can be independent and act on their own. Or sometimes a black ops organisation is started by the government, but then the operation breaks ties with their government and go rogue.

Cerberus is a black ops organisation, maybe a rogue black ops organisation, but still a black ops organisation. They are not terrorists.

[Skullheart]

Kid Buu wrote...
You mean the Alliance?

What was the Alliance doing during two years when the collectors started to abduct colonists?

And we need a shadow organization. Helping humanity with not being noted.

[ABCoLD]

dgcatanisiri wrote...

I've yet to hear anyone offer a justification for Akuze and Corporal Toombs. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt about not knowing about the thresher maw as Toombs said, they took at least Toombs, if not more who didn't survive their experiments, and tortured him, all in the name of SCIENCE! and humanity. Tell me, what part of 'human dominance' justifies treating humans as lab rats?

People don't want to simply accept that Cerberus is evil.  They want to be anti-hero badasses who are doing things because they need to be done.  So they justify, quibble, obfuscate the issue.

[Kid Buu]

GodWood wrote...

Kid Buu wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...
They blow up civilian transports, kidnap free citizens, sell arms to criminals and assassinate people for political ends.   What definition of terrorist are you operating from?!

None of that is terrorism unless they explicitly state "We're Cerberus. We did that. Fear us because we did that and do what we say".

When Cerberus does those things they do it on the hush hush.

Lol. You dont have to be discrete and actually say ``fear us`` to in incur fear.

You do if you want to be a terrorist.

Being a terrorist does not mean you have to be that obvious. You may want people to fear you but that does not mean you literally have to say it.

[ABCoLD]

Calibration Master wrote...

Not true. Black ops organisations can be independent and act on their own. Or sometimes a black ops organisation is started by the government, but then the operation breaks ties with their government and go rogue.

Cerberus is a black ops organisation, maybe a rogue black ops organisation, but still a black ops organisation. They are not terrorists.

Not true.  Black ops organizations are by definition, government operations that run 'black' to avoid detection.  When an operation or operative goes 'rogue' and stops following government dictates or ideals they either become criminals or terrorists.

[Aimi]

MisterJB wrote...

You have a point. However, there is a still a difference between a criminal warlord like Aria and the humans colonists that were kidnapped. The Council should have let humans defend themselves instead of appropriating our ships to complement the Citadel Fleet.

Also, what about the Geth attacks on Alliance colonies in ME1? Even then, they refused to do anything substancial.

The Alliance did pay attention to the disappearances, and was taking at least some action. Jacob notes before the Freedom's Progress mission that Cerberus frequently had to wait until "official investigators" were done combing lost colonies before they could take a look, and there was never any sort of clue left to follow. And once the Alliance did have hard evidence, supplied by TIM, of a Collector target colony, they sent the VS to upgrade its defenses.

As for the Council, considering their fear of setting off the Terminus Systems warlords by dispatching a fleet into the Skyllian Verge in ME1, fleet ops inside the Terminus itself would almost certainly have constituted a casus belli. Both in ME1 and ME2, the Council opted for a limited response. In ME1, they sent a Spectre, the classic limited application of force (just check CDN and look at all the other Spectres that show up in the news), and they even sent in elements of a salarian STG regiment to investigate on Virmire. (Considering Kirrahe's rank, it was probably a company-sized force, which is usually over a hundred troops at full establishment.) CPT Kirrahe even seems to think that they would have dispatched a fleet to destroy Saren's cloning facility, had the distress call not been jammed. That's more than a fair bit of 'help'. In ME2, confronted with a threat that didn't really apply to them, they still at least sanctioned your efforts - not exactly useful against the Collectors, but given that Shepard was currently working alongside a terrorist organization on a problem that didn't matter to the Council, it does represent relatively good intentions.

[Kid Buu]

Skullheart wrote...

Kid Buu wrote...
You mean the Alliance?

What was the Alliance doing during two years when the collectors started to abduct colonists?

And we need a shadow organization. Helping humanity with not being noted.

That was humanity`s fault for colonizing in the Terminus systems anyway.

And supposedly helping humanity does not justify everything Cerberus does.

[ABCoLD]

mrsph wrote...

dgcatanisiri wrote...

I've yet to hear anyone offer a justification for Akuze and Corporal Toombs. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt about not knowing about the thresher maw as Toombs said, they took at least Toombs, if not more who didn't survive their experiments, and tortured him, all in the name of SCIENCE! and humanity. Tell me, what part of 'human dominance' justifies treating humans as lab rats?

To build up immunity to thresher maw venom and poison all the aliens with it later.

Thresher Maws aren't poisonous

[Calibration Master]

ABCoLD wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...
They blow up civilian transports, kidnap free citizens, sell arms to criminals and assassinate people for political ends.   What definition of terrorist are you operating from?!

None of that is terrorism unless they explicitly state "We're Cerberus. We did that. Fear us because we did that and do what we say".

When Cerberus does those things they do it on the hush hush.

Any use of violence to achieve a poltical end without the sanction of a government is by definition terrorism.

That is not true. It's only terrorism if the violence is public and/or used to inflict fear. Terrorists use fear as a means to an end. Cerberus does not use fear, nor do they try to inflict fear on the public, nor do they even want to be publicly acknowledged. Cerberus tries to stay hidden and far away from the general public. Not something a terrorist organisation would do.

[Calibration Master]

ABCoLD wrote...

mrsph wrote...

dgcatanisiri wrote...

I've yet to hear anyone offer a justification for Akuze and Corporal Toombs. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt about not knowing about the thresher maw as Toombs said, they took at least Toombs, if not more who didn't survive their experiments, and tortured him, all in the name of SCIENCE! and humanity. Tell me, what part of 'human dominance' justifies treating humans as lab rats?

To build up immunity to thresher maw venom and poison all the aliens with it later.

Thresher Maws aren't poisonous

Yes they are. Try fighting a Thresher Maw on foot in ME1 and see for yourself when the Maw's venom spit hits you.

[Kid Buu]

Calibration Master wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...
They blow up civilian transports, kidnap free citizens, sell arms to criminals and assassinate people for political ends.   What definition of terrorist are you operating from?!

None of that is terrorism unless they explicitly state "We're Cerberus. We did that. Fear us because we did that and do what we say".

When Cerberus does those things they do it on the hush hush.

Any use of violence to achieve a poltical end without the sanction of a government is by definition terrorism.

That is not true. It's only terrorism if the violence is public and/or used to inflict fear. Terrorists use fear as a means to an end. Cerberus does not use fear, nor do they try to inflict fear on the public, nor do they even want to be publicly acknowledged. Cerberus tries to stay hidden and far away from the general public. Not something a terrorist organisation would do.

Does it really matter if they are or are not technically terrorists? What you call them makes no difference in the end. Argue about something meaningful.

Modifié par Kid Buu, 23 janvier 2012 - 02:36 .

[ABCoLD]

Calibration Master wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...

GodWood wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...
They blow up civilian transports, kidnap free citizens, sell arms to criminals and assassinate people for political ends.   What definition of terrorist are you operating from?!

None of that is terrorism unless they explicitly state "We're Cerberus. We did that. Fear us because we did that and do what we say".

When Cerberus does those things they do it on the hush hush.

Any use of violence to achieve a poltical end without the sanction of a government is by definition terrorism.

That is not true. It's only terrorism if the violence is public and/or used to inflict fear. Terrorists use fear as a means to an end. Cerberus does not use fear, nor do they try to inflict fear on the public, nor do they even want to be publicly acknowledged. Cerberus tries to stay hidden and far away from the general public. Not something a terrorist organisation would do.

Well, I'll again disagree with you, and simply state I'm using the empirical definition of terrorism, not my own notions of what it 'should' mean.

[didymos1120]

ABCoLD wrote...

Thresher Maws aren't poisonous

If the acid spit is absorbable, they are. 

[ABCoLD]

Calibration Master wrote...

ABCoLD wrote...

mrsph wrote...

dgcatanisiri wrote...

I've yet to hear anyone offer a justification for Akuze and Corporal Toombs. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt about not knowing about the thresher maw as Toombs said, they took at least Toombs, if not more who didn't survive their experiments, and tortured him, all in the name of SCIENCE! and humanity. Tell me, what part of 'human dominance' justifies treating humans as lab rats?

To build up immunity to thresher maw venom and poison all the aliens with it later.

Thresher Maws aren't poisonous

Yes they are. Try fighting a Thresher Maw on foot in ME1 and see for yourself when the Maw's venom spit hits you.

That's acid, thanks for playing. 

[didymos1120]

Calibration Master wrote...

Yes they are. Try fighting a Thresher Maw on foot in ME1 and see for yourself when the Maw's venom spit hits you.

Not necessarily.  If the spit just directly destroys tissue, then it's a corrosive rather than a poison.

[Calibration Master]

ABCoLD wrote...

Calibration Master wrote...

Not true. Black ops organisations can be independent and act on their own. Or sometimes a black ops organisation is started by the government, but then the operation breaks ties with their government and go rogue.

Cerberus is a black ops organisation, maybe a rogue black ops organisation, but still a black ops organisation. They are not terrorists.

Not true.  Black ops organizations are by definition, government operations that run 'black' to avoid detection.  When an operation or operative goes 'rogue' and stops following government dictates or ideals they either become criminals or terrorists.

Nope. You're wrong.

A black ops organisation is not per definition backed by their government. A black ops organisation can also be backed by a corporation, like Cerberus, who is backed by Cord-Hislop Aerospace industries.

And when a black ops organisation goes rogue, it does not automatically mean they're terrorists. Terrorists try to inflict fear on the general public and their enemies. The main goal of a terrorist act is to inflict fear. Terrorists use fear as a means to an end. Cerberus doesn't do that.

[Skullheart]

Kid Buu wrote...

Skullheart wrote...

Kid Buu wrote...
You mean the Alliance?

What was the Alliance doing during two years when the collectors started to abduct colonists?

And we need a shadow organization. Helping humanity with not being noted.

That was humanity`s fault for colonizing in the Terminus systems anyway.

And supposedly helping humanity does not justify everything Cerberus does.

I said we need an organization to look for human interest. But Cerberus is the only that fits that role.

If there can be any other group dedicated to human progression, without the evil thing of Cerberus, then I don't have any problem.

By example not everyone in Cerberus is evil and racist. There should be a better Cerberus with Miranda, Oleg and Brynn as the leaders.

[Aimi]

MisterJB wrote...

Lies. The Council wanted humans to settle the Traverse, they wanted us to drive the batarians out (due to them being hostile to other council races despite their embassy) and strengthen the borders of Council space. But when we ran into trouble, they refused to help.

Sure, they had some ulterior motives. This is a hegemonic system, not chickies-duckies-and-bunnies land.

Looking at it from the Council's perspective, it's clear that the human-batarian conflict is supposed to be a limited war. Obviously the Council would prefer that the humans win, clear out the Traverse, solidify their control of the Verge, and reduce the security threat from that corner of the galaxy. They may even have genuine humanitarian - well, not "human"itarian, but you get the idea - concerns about batarian slaving. But at the same time, escalating the conflict could end up as a galactic confrontation: the humans bring in a turian fleet, so the batarians rally Terminus warlords around their standard, and suddenly you've got a grand melee unparalleled since the Krogan Rebellions.

At the same time, it's clear that the Council does help in some limited ways. The Alliance does have the opportunity to develop military technology in cooperation with the other Citadel races, and while it's not openly stated that, for instance, the Normandy is going to be used in the Traverse, where else are top-of-the-line human space-naval assets supposed to go? And when faced with a further threat to human colonies in the Traverse, the geth, the Council elevated Shepard to Spectre status, and sold out their most trusted operative to do it.

You may argue that the Council's limited response was inappropriately low, and that given the state of the Terminus warlords as shown in ME2, the Council's concerns about provoking a galactic war were ridiculous. But those are failures of degree, not failures of purpose. It's hard to strike the proper balance for any of these things.

[ABCoLD]

Calibration Master wrote...

Nope. You're wrong.

A black ops organisation is not per definition backed by their government. A black ops organisation can also be backed by a corporation, like Cerberus, who is backed by Cord-Hislop Aerospace industries.

And when a black ops organisation goes rogue, it does not automatically mean they're terrorists. Terrorists try to inflict fear on the general public and their enemies. The main goal of a terrorist act is to inflict fear. Terrorists use fear as a means to an end. Cerberus doesn't do that.

Cite references.