Calibration Master wrote...
Use Wikipedia. It's not that hard.
Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia....Black_operation
ThanksWikipedia wrote...
Black military operations, or paramilitary operations, can be used by various secret services to achieve or attempt to achieve an unusually sensitive goal.
And we all saw how well that turned out. At least, according to Hackett, they decided to finally use warships after Horizon.daqs wrote...
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.
Not is is not. The only reason humanity is on the Verge is because that's where the Council wanted us to colonize in an attempt to drive the batarians out and civilize that part of space. Well fine, no one expected this would be easy but, by the time ME1 happens, that was officially Council Space, humans are supposed to be alies. Now, when a rogue species attacks us, I believe we could at least ask assistance from our "allies". Otherwise, what was the point of signing a treaty that limitates the rights for humans to defend themselves?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'.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. They gave Shepard a title that, officially, meant that he has to answer to them but didn't mean a thing in the Terminus Systems. They didn't do anything.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.
In that case they're ebil. There is no gray area, they do evil things. They might try to justify why they do them, but they don't even attempt to work within the bounds of laws, morality or ethics. They are evil.JGray wrote...
I suppose the technicality doesn't matter. Terrorist. Black ops. Paramilitary. Well funded militia. Corporation.
Their deeds are what the thread was established to judge.
didymos1120 wrote...
jreezy wrote...
Yeah the stuff in my post was from the definition of TerrorismKid Buu wrote...
IDK. Looking at the definition of Terrorism, it seems like they fall under that category.
That's not "the definition". There really is no one definition of terrorism, which is a big part of why we continually have these arguments about Cerberus. Those are some characteristics that one researcher set forth as common to terrorist organizations.
Modifié par Calibration Master, 23 janvier 2012 - 03:01 .
A group that dosnt look out for people at the cost of others? I suppose thats fine, although I really dont think its needed. The problem is that cerberus is nothing like that.Skullheart wrote...
Kid Buu wrote...
No, they only willingly work for and support an organization that fits that descrption. Thats much better.
They joined Cerberus by its ideals. Together they can create a better organization than cerberus and still look for human interests.Supporting and looking out for humanity still does not justify everything they do. And its clear that the vast majority of things they do are in this category.
I want shadow organization with pro-human goals, just that not as incometent or ruthless as Cerberus. Or you are against of any pro-human group willingly to make thing possible?
ABCoLD wrote...
Calibration Master wrote...
Use Wikipedia. It's not that hard.
Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia....Black_operationThanksWikipedia wrote...
Black military operations, or paramilitary operations, can be used by various secret services to achieve or attempt to achieve an unusually sensitive goal.
black operation - a covert operation not attributable to the organization carrying it out
covert operation - an intelligence operation so planned as to permit plausible denial by the sponsor
Modifié par Calibration Master, 23 janvier 2012 - 03:07 .
Not in the definition I read. So you really cant technically confirm it. Besides didnt Bioware say they were terrorists? Either it was a dev or it was said in game. The fact is there is no concrete definition of terrorism.Calibration Master wrote...
didymos1120 wrote...
jreezy wrote...
Yeah the stuff in my post was from the definition of TerrorismKid Buu wrote...
IDK. Looking at the definition of Terrorism, it seems like they fall under that category.
That's not "the definition". There really is no one definition of terrorism, which is a big part of why we continually have these arguments about Cerberus. Those are some characteristics that one researcher set forth as common to terrorist organizations.
This is true. But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.
Cerberus' main tactic is not to inflict fear, thus they aren't terrorists.
Modifié par Kid Buu, 23 janvier 2012 - 03:07 .
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
False.Calibration Master wrote...
But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.
Kid Buu wrote...
A group that dosnt look out for people at the cost of others? I suppose thats fine, although I really dont think its needed. The problem is that cerberus is nothing like that.
Calibration Master wrote...
This is true. But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.
Cerberus' main tactic is not to inflict fear, thus they aren't terrorists.
Modifié par didymos1120, 23 janvier 2012 - 03:08 .
jreezy wrote...
False.Calibration Master wrote...
But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.
just because they do not make threats as conspicuous as those made by Osama that does not mean that Fear is not one of their tacticsCalibration Master wrote...
This is true. But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.didymos1120 wrote...
That's not "the definition". There really is no one definition of terrorism, which is a big part of why we continually have these arguments about Cerberus. Those are some characteristics that one researcher set forth as common to terrorist organizations.jreezy wrote...
Yeah the stuff in my post was from the definition of TerrorismKid Buu wrote...
IDK. Looking at the definition of Terrorism, it seems like they fall under that category.
Cerberus' main tactic is not to inflict fear, thus they aren't terrorists.
at least someone who understands my point...Welsh Inferno wrote...
Kid Buu wrote...
A group that dosnt look out for people at the cost of others? I suppose thats fine, although I really dont think its needed. The problem is that cerberus is nothing like that.
Cerberus could be re-modelled to be more like the STG after TIM is killed/kicked out of power. I kinda like the idea.
didymos1120 wrote...
Calibration Master wrote...
This is true. But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.
Cerberus' main tactic is not to inflict fear, thus they aren't terrorists.
Personally, I agree. Another big part of why these arguments happen, I think, is because when people see someone saying "Cerberus aren't terrorists" they view it as equivalent to saying "Cerberus are good guys". There's some truth to that for some posters, but most people disputing the label just don't like it because it's not a very accurate description of Cerberus' behavior. I mean, for myself, I think Cerberus is pretty @#$%ed-up and I'm not particularly fond of them, but I also think "terrorists" is a misnomer.
Your definition of terrorism is flawed.Kid Buu wrote...
IDK. Looking at the definition of Terrorism, it seems like they fall under that category.Kaiser Shepard wrote...
The goals of their actions aren't to induce fear, hence they aren't a terroristic organisation. Simple as that.Kid Buu wrote...
Lol? Comprehention is your friend. I never said that, what I did say was that a terrorist organisation does not literally need to say ``fear us.`` You can be subtle.Kaiser Shepard wrote...
So according to your flawed logic, most countries and a fair share of corporations and organisations are terroristic?Kid Buu wrote...
Lol. You dont have to be discrete and actually say ``fear us`` to in incur fear.GodWood wrote...
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".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?!
When Cerberus does those things they do it on the hush hush.
You should probably call the organization something else too. People may get the wrong idea.Skullheart wrote...
at least someone who understands my point...Welsh Inferno wrote...
Kid Buu wrote...
A group that dosnt look out for people at the cost of others? I suppose thats fine, although I really dont think its needed. The problem is that cerberus is nothing like that.
Cerberus could be re-modelled to be more like the STG after TIM is killed/kicked out of power. I kinda like the idea.
crimzontearz wrote...
just because they do not make threats as conspicuous as those made by Osama that does not mean that Fear is not one of their tacticsCalibration Master wrote...
This is true. But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.didymos1120 wrote...
That's not "the definition". There really is no one definition of terrorism, which is a big part of why we continually have these arguments about Cerberus. Those are some characteristics that one researcher set forth as common to terrorist organizations.jreezy wrote...
Yeah the stuff in my post was from the definition of TerrorismKid Buu wrote...
IDK. Looking at the definition of Terrorism, it seems like they fall under that category.
Cerberus' main tactic is not to inflict fear, thus they aren't terrorists.
wait, so it needs to be on the general public now?Calibration Master wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
just because they do not make threats as conspicuous as those made by Osama that does not mean that Fear is not one of their tacticsCalibration Master wrote...
This is true. But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.didymos1120 wrote...
That's not "the definition". There really is no one definition of terrorism, which is a big part of why we continually have these arguments about Cerberus. Those are some characteristics that one researcher set forth as common to terrorist organizations.jreezy wrote...
Yeah the stuff in my post was from the definition of TerrorismKid Buu wrote...
IDK. Looking at the definition of Terrorism, it seems like they fall under that category.
Cerberus' main tactic is not to inflict fear, thus they aren't terrorists.
Give me one example where Cerberus triest to inflict fear on the general public in order to achieve their goals.
But, if you really think about it, what exactly is the difference between the STG now and Cerberus besides, lack of acountability?Skullheart wrote...
at least someone who understands my point...Welsh Inferno wrote...
Kid Buu wrote...
A group that dosnt look out for people at the cost of others? I suppose thats fine, although I really dont think its needed. The problem is that cerberus is nothing like that.
Cerberus could be re-modelled to be more like the STG after TIM is killed/kicked out of power. I kinda like the idea.
Modifié par MisterJB, 23 janvier 2012 - 03:11 .
As is yours.Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Your definition of terrorism is flawed.Kid Buu wrote...
IDK. Looking at the definition of Terrorism, it seems like they fall under that category.Kaiser Shepard wrote...
The goals of their actions aren't to induce fear, hence they aren't a terroristic organisation. Simple as that.Kid Buu wrote...
Lol? Comprehention is your friend. I never said that, what I did say was that a terrorist organisation does not literally need to say ``fear us.`` You can be subtle.Kaiser Shepard wrote...
So according to your flawed logic, most countries and a fair share of corporations and organisations are terroristic?Kid Buu wrote...
Lol. You dont have to be discrete and actually say ``fear us`` to in incur fear.GodWood wrote...
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".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?!
When Cerberus does those things they do it on the hush hush.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
He keeps flipping his definition to bolster his argumentKid Buu wrote...
wait, so it needs to be on the general public now?Calibration Master wrote...
crimzontearz wrote...
just because they do not make threats as conspicuous as those made by Osama that does not mean that Fear is not one of their tacticsCalibration Master wrote...
This is true. But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.didymos1120 wrote...
That's not "the definition". There really is no one definition of terrorism, which is a big part of why we continually have these arguments about Cerberus. Those are some characteristics that one researcher set forth as common to terrorist organizations.jreezy wrote...
Yeah the stuff in my post was from the definition of TerrorismKid Buu wrote...
IDK. Looking at the definition of Terrorism, it seems like they fall under that category.
Cerberus' main tactic is not to inflict fear, thus they aren't terrorists.
Give me one example where Cerberus triest to inflict fear on the general public in order to achieve their goals.
Are you serious?MisterJB wrote...
But, if you really think about it, what exactly is the difference between the STG now and Cerberus besides, lack of acountability?Skullheart wrote...
at least someone who understands my point...Welsh Inferno wrote...
Kid Buu wrote...
A group that dosnt look out for people at the cost of others? I suppose thats fine, although I really dont think its needed. The problem is that cerberus is nothing like that.
Cerberus could be re-modelled to be more like the STG after TIM is killed/kicked out of power. I kinda like the idea.
Kid Buu wrote...
Not in the definition I read. So you really cant technically confirm it. Besides didnt Bioware say they were terrorists? Either it was a dev or it was said in game. The fact is there is no concrete definition of terrorism.Calibration Master wrote...
This is true. But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.
Cerberus' main tactic is not to inflict fear, thus they aren't terrorists.
jreezy wrote...
False.Calibration Master wrote...
But what ALL terrorist organisations have in common, is that their main tactic is to inflict fear.
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.
"Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."
Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
