1331 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorji Costava]

Selling him to Cerberus makes it go much smoother

 

This is a little bit like saying that ME3 goes a lot smoother if you romance Liara, save the Council and the Rachni in ME1, and don't get too attached to the ME2 characters. If you don't want to make those decisions for role-playing reasons, you're basically SOL.

 

No extermination has to be 100% to be classified as genocide. They intended to kill every organic in Quarian space and they succeeded. Those they didn't kill were those who left Quarian space.

You can fight this all you want, but the fact remains that the lead writer for ME1 specifically described what the Geth did to the Quarians in the Morning War as a genocide (see post at bottom of last page).

 

Normally I can't stand this debate, but I do want to say something more general about the relationship between ME and its expanded universe material (though keep in mind this is all coming from someone with minimal EU exposure). Generally, I don't think that expanded universe material should be considered 'required reading' of any sort, and that you're free to form your own understanding of what's going on in the game based solely on what happens within that game. Sometimes, when I note some of the odd plot points in JJ Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie (like, "Why was Nero just sitting around for 25 years waiting for Spock to show up?"), people respond by saying, "All of that was cleared up in the comics, man!" But as someone with no interest in the comics, I don't see any particular obligation on my part to think, "Oh, ok. Problem solved!" That stuff should have been in the film, and if it isn't part of the film, then, well, it isn't part of the film, obviously.

 

There's also the issue that the term "genocide" is one of the most problematic and contested of words. A very large portion of the Native Americans who died during the European conquest of the Americas died as a result of diseases like small pox; a number of notable historians regard this as a genocide. Whether or not this is accurate is a matter of some controversy. So with that in mind, I'm not so sure we should count on Karpyshyn (not known as a great prose stylist) to be very precise with his use of that word.

 

And with that, I'm outta here.

[Ryriena]

Geneva conventions are for war.

Israel is not at war with Palestina. Palestina doesn't exist. That's the problem.

That happened when they were at war just saying during operation Caste Lead. The UN just declared you wrong since the UN says its a non member [url="state"http://www.haaretz.c...status-1.481531[\url] So it does exist according to the UN which concede with the Geneva Convention.

[78stonewobble]

For some reason, my quoting has failed ugh

If that the case then, why is Iseral blamed for this when they attack the Palastine schools and hospitals? In other words you have no argument for that case. That is a number one reason they get hammered in the press. You can read up on this type of thing here in this guardian article. [url="""]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama'[/url]> http://www.theguardi...za-israel-obama

 

Apparently your reading abilities has failed you as well. 

 

I said that even the geneva convention recognises that if you put ie. rocketbatteries on top of your fine hospital or school, which then shoots at the enemy, then the hospital/school is no longer a civilian target, but a military one and thus a completely valid target for the enemy. 

 

Noone has a problem with that in the article. What they have a problem with, is that there were no obvious rocket batteries on the roof of the hospital and from that perspective it is then, in violation of the geneva convention (whom others have pointed out are not exactly valid here since it's not war, but were taking it as a morale guideline here). 

 

If on the other hand that the israeli, has secret correct information, that shows that the hospitals/schools were the base of active offensive weaponry, they would be in their right to target them, no matter what everyone else says or whines about in the press. 

 

I don't know which is correct. I wasn't there...

[Jorji Costava]

So how about we not discuss Israel/Palestine on this thread?

[DeinonSlayer]

So how about we not discuss Israel/Palestine on this thread?

This. Seriously. It's inflammatory and completely incomparable to the topic at hand.

[Ryriena]

So how about we not discuss Israel/Palestine on this thread?

Sorry I went off topic to bring up the logical convolutions of some people I apologizes.

[Ryriena]

Anywho so back to Qurians vs Geth war. I"ll try to not bring up similar wars in real life again to prove my point I blame my dad for being a military buff.

[78stonewobble]

You are really reaching here. They did intend to kill the entire race, and would have if they'd stayed on Rannoch. And intent really doesn't matter either. I could prove intent in a court of law with the sheer numbers. I'd bounce you off a jury if I was prosecuting. Look up genocide for f***s sake. What the hell are they teaching in school these days?

 

Ok, let me ask again. 

 

A: If you by accident run over the last surviving member of some amazon tribe with your car and kills him. Are you then committing genocide? 

B: Was the US government's treatment of native americans a genocide? 

 

According to your definition both would be. 

 

Because A contains a 100 percent casualty rate for the grouping, and thats enough in court of law apparently. 

Because B contains ignores percentages and intent, but contains enough big numbers for us to exclaim: Wow, thats bad. which should also be enough in a court of law apparently. 

 

I did look up genocide. Apparently I can read and comprehend.

 

Intent matters, also in courts of law. It's actually the dividing line between involuntary manslaugher, justified killing in selfdefence and homicide. 

 

PS: But sure we can't trust that everyone are truthfull about their intents, but in that case why the hell quote the game if were not gonna believe anything of it. 

 

PPS: Yes, intent doesn't matter, but proving it does. Yeah, that makes sense. 

[78stonewobble]

1. No extermination has to be 100% to be classified as genocide. They intended to kill every organic in Quarian space and they succeeded. Those they didn't kill were those who left Quarian space.

2. You can fight this all you want, but the fact remains that the lead writer for ME1 specifically described what the Geth did to the Quarians in the Morning War as a genocide (see post at bottom of last page).

3. With Legion it could be called self defense, but the VI clearly states its intent to kill them all.

4. I won't argue that their armament invalidates them as civilians, but I think they made the right decision in arming that way. The Geth have targeted any ship entering their territory, armed or not, for centuries - so if their ships are going to be targeted, they might as well be capable of fighting. The Reapers, of course, won't care whether their targets are armed either. Not to mention the Codex has said since ME1 that most Quarian ships are armed to discourage piracy, given that they're forced to spend much of their time wandering the Terminus.

Of course, it was an entirely different situation in the Morning War. People on the ground who don't want to get blown up can at least try to get away from the fighting. It isn't an option when you live in a tiny metal cubicle in the cargo hold of a ship in space which is home to several hundred/thousand people beyond the capacity it was designed for (there isn't enough escape pods for everyone, even if there were a planet for those pods to go to). And no, they can't run from the fleet because that means having no destination, no military protection, and no food in a galaxy crawling with Reapers - besides, if you abandon Admiral Koris, a good number of civilian captains panic and attempt to flee to the relay only to be killed by the Geth blockading them in the system.

6. If you choose the Geth over the Quarians, Shepard chooses not to inform them that 1) the upload is taking place, and 2) the Geth are willing to honor a ceasefire for the first time in their entire history (if and only if Legion is present - the VI openly states its intent to kill them all). For all the Quarians know in this situation, another Reaper backup came online, in which case ceasing fire wouldn't spare them anyway.

 

1. I've never claimed, that the definition of genocide included a percentage number. You brought numbers into the debate as though it would be evidence. It's is not, but I dare you to find a universally accepted definition of genocide that includes: "To qualify as genocide all you need to do is kill ie. 500 of some arbitrarily selected grouping or x percent of them." To prove me wrong. 

 

Again... Wanting to kill all of the quarians, that are in the now geth territory, and could thus be construed as invaders or atleast a threat is not the same as the intention to kill all quarians everywhere. Thus and again genocide. 

 

Lets spool back the clock to the independence war. If an american wanted to kill all the british on his part of the ocean. It wouldn't be genocidal intent. After all he doesn't want to kill all the british everywhere. He's just got a broad interpretation of enemy. 

 

2. Writers don't define the meaning of words.

 

3. It's self defence in either case, no matter how mournfull legion or how hatefull the geth vi might be. If someone in a tank shoots at you, you are well within your right to blow up that tank. Even if the tank driver, for whatever moronic reasons brought his family with him and everyone else in his country did the same thing. In this scenario the important thing is that he's in a tank, shooting at you, that makes it a valid target. 

 

4. If Shepard picks the geth, it was most definately a wrong choice of the quarians go to war and to arm every ship and bring it into battle with them. A choice that brings about the extinction of your entire race... that's a bad one.

 

But I blame this mostly on writing and partially the limitations of how many previous choices they could recognize. Legion was the outstretched hand in me2, the chance for talking... Then comes me3: "Oh thats not action oriented enough... Let's just forget that and get a good action scene going." 

 

5. As I see it the morning war contains the following: Attempted genocide from the quarian side. Selfdefense and mass murder (which isn't the same as genocide) from the geth side. A nasty business indeed. 

 

But I fail to see the point of your lively description of the 2nd war, other than it's dumb to go to war against a superior force with superior technology. A similar description of chaos and brutality of war might have been used to describe the decimation of iraqi troops convoys in the valley of death during the first gulf war. Certainly that was no genocide and it was, as far as I know, within the rules of conduct of war, though offcourse the imagery were horrendous enough to provote emotional responses. 

 

6. And from the geth perspective there is no unarmed, non-combatant quarian ship in the area. Such forced writing

 

The geth do not know with any certainty, that all existing quarians in the galaxy are in the fleet attacking the geth, yet they do not announce their intention to search the entire galaxy just to make sure every quarian is dead. Which still means that their main intention is to kill attackers and prevent them from attacking in the future rather than wanting the extinction of the quarian race. 

 

Interpretation sure... But not any less sought than anything else I'm seeing in this thread where "kill them all" = genocide, without questioning whether it's hyperbole or what is really meant... 

[78stonewobble]

To sum up my oppinions.

 

In the morning war:

The quarians attempted genocide and comitted mass murder. 

The geth are defending themselves themselves and comitted mass murder.

 

In the 2nd rannoch war. 

The quarians are not necessarily attempting genocide, but are committing mass murder, if we try to apply our geneva convention to the geth, because well... most of them (programmes) are unarmed noncombatants. Whether it's applicable? Who knows. 

The geth are defending themselves and is not, as far as we can see, committing mass murder. 

 

Atrocities from both sides (and the writers) sure... but not all of it fits the definition of genocide. To claim it is, is factually incorrect. 

 

It shouldn't even matter anyway, war and killing is bad and a terrible waste, no matter what we call it and we should have damn good reasons to engage in it. From that perspective both races are... hatefull idiots... For not finding another solution. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

So how about we not discuss Israel/Palestine on this thread?

 

Yeah, we wouldn't want to see this thread get locked or anything.

 

... on second thought, please do.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

To sum up my oppinions.

 

In the morning war:

The quarians attempted genocide and comitted mass murder. 

The geth are defending themselves themselves and comitted mass murder.

 

In the 2nd rannoch war. 

The quarians are not necessarily attempting genocide, but are committing mass murder, if we try to apply our geneva convention to the geth, because well... most of them (programmes) are unarmed noncombatants. Whether it's applicable? Who knows. 

The geth are defending themselves and is not, as far as we can see, committing mass murder. 

 

Atrocities from both sides (and the writers) sure... but not all of it fits the definition of genocide. To claim it is, is factually incorrect. 

 

It shouldn't even matter anyway, war and killing is bad and a terrible waste, no matter what we call it and we should have damn good reasons to engage in it. From that perspective both races are... hatefull idiots... For not finding another solution. 

 

I agree with most of this, but I wouldn't call the geth hateful idiots so much in ME3 as I would call the quarians that way. The geth are still doing what they did in the last 300 years: just minding their business in their part of the galaxy. It's the quarian Migrant Fleet that took the fight to them in geth home space.

 

Now, I do make sure to minimalize the casualties at both sides and make peace for both the geth' and quarians' sake. But that doesn't mean I don't have a clear preference. The attack against the geth in order to retake Rannoch was not only a mistake onthe quarians' behalf, but a crime as well. A stupid, short-sighted and completely useless crime.

[Ryriena]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to see this thread get locked or anything.

... on second thought, please do.

Ok I kind of giggled a bit at this one. I was just pointing the civilians hospital aren't viable targets even if a rocket was launched from within the area of that hospital according to the article and according to the UN. As such, I was just pointing out his logical fallacy in his statement about the Geneva convection my apologizes again. It just went down hill from that lol.

[78stonewobble]

I agree with most of this, but I wouldn't call the geth hateful idiots so much in ME3 as I would call the quarians that way. The geth are still doing what they did in the last 300 years: just minding their business in their part of the galaxy. It's the quarian Migrant Fleet that took the fight to them in geth home space.

 

Now, I do make sure to minimalize the casualties at both sides and make peace for both the geth' and quarians' sake. But that doesn't mean I don't have a clear preference. The attack against the geth in order to retake Rannoch was not only a mistake onthe quarians' behalf, but a crime as well. A stupid, short-sighted and completely useless crime.

 

Maybe harsh words and I agree on your interpretation most of the way. 

 

But I assign responsibility to the Geth for not taking more steps to prevent a war.

 

There were endless possibilities for opening up peacefull talks with the rest of the galaxy over the last 300 years and around the time with Legion, it seemed the obvious time for it. 

 

If the Quarians and the Geth had been just somewhat rational (something we usually ascribe to AI's in spades and even organics like humans sometimes), they would have found a way to make peace. 

 

I guess the writers just didn't want it though. 

 

PS: I actually think these missions are among the best in ME3, exceedingly well executed, but the plot of them doesn't really hold up to scrutiny, it tries so hard to teach us some kind of moral lesson that it goes beyond plausible intelligent being behaviour. 

 

EDIT: To expand a little on that last part. I know we all have our favorite places, places that we might want to fight to keep, but would any of us really risk the extinction of our family, city, nation or even entire species over some square footage, that isn't even strictly necessary for our survival? 

 

If you know you're gonna be in the war of your life, does it makes sense to start another war that depletes ressources and lives, which could have been better applied in the first one? 

 

No military man, would start a 2 front war, if they could help it or incite 2 enemies to unite against themselves. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ok, let me ask again. 

 

A: If you by accident run over the last surviving member of some amazon tribe with your car and kills him. Are you then committing genocide? 

B: Was the US government's treatment of native americans a genocide? 

 

According to your definition both would be. 

 

Because A contains a 100 percent casualty rate for the grouping, and thats enough in court of law apparently. 

Because B contains ignores percentages and intent, but contains enough big numbers for us to exclaim: Wow, thats bad. which should also be enough in a court of law apparently. 

 

I did look up genocide. Apparently I can read and comprehend.

 

Intent matters, also in courts of law. It's actually the dividing line between involuntary manslaugher, justified killing in selfdefence and homicide. 

 

PS: But sure we can't trust that everyone are truthfull about their intents, but in that case why the hell quote the game if were not gonna believe anything of it. 

 

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. This exchange is over.

[78stonewobble]

Ok I kind of giggled a bit at this one. I was just pointing the civilians hospital aren't viable targets even if a rocket was launched from within the area of that hospital according to the article and according to the UN. As such, I was just pointing out his logical fallacy in his statement about the Geneva convection my apologizes again. It just went down hill from that lol.

 

Ok, to quote from the 1949 Geneva convention:

 

"ARTICLE 19 

The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy."

 

 

The protection of a civilian hospital is conditional. 

 

The 1977 convention contains this:

 

 

"Article 13 -- Discontinuance of protection of civilian medical units

1. The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

2. The following shall not be considered as acts harmful to the enemy:

(a) that the personnel of the unit are equipped with light individual weapons for their own defence or for that of the wounded and sick in their charge;

( that the unit is guarded by a picket or by sentries or by an escort;

© that small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick, and not yet handed to the proper service, are found in the units;

(d) that members of the armed forces or other combatants are in the unit for medical reasons."

 

 

And this:

 

"Article 65  -- Cessation of protection

1. The protection to which civilian civil defence organizations, their personnel, buildings, shelters and ' matériel ' are entitled shall not cease unless they commit or are used to commit, outside their proper tasks, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

2. The following shall not lie considered as acts harmful to the enemy:

(a) that civil defence tasks are carried out under the direction or control of military authorities;

( that civilian civil defence personnel co-operate with military personnel in the performance of civil defence tasks, or that some military personnel are attached to civilian civil defence organizations;

© that the performance of civil defence tasks may incidentally benefit military victims, particularly those who are ' hors de combat '.

3. It shall also not be considered as an act harmful to the enemy that civilian civil defence personnel bear light individual weapons for the purpose of maintaining order of for self-defence. However, in areas where land fighting is taking place or is likely to take place, the Parties to the conflict shall undertake the appropriate measures to limit these weapons to handguns, such as pistols or revolvers, in order to assist in distinguishing between civil defence personnel and combatants. Although civil defence personnel bear other light individual weapons in such areas, they shall nevertheless be respected and protected as soon as they have been recognized as such.

4. The formation of civilian civil defence organizations along military lines, and compulsory service in them, shall also not deprive them of the protection conferred by this Chapter."

 

 

The protection afforded by conventions is dependent on actually being a civilian target, that does not engage the enemy offensively. 

 

It's relevant because, this is a morale guideline that most of us, more or less, can agree is reasonably fair. 

 

It tells us that, by arming their ships and if these ships are used to attack, the Quarians forfeit any protection afforded to civilians, since there are no "civilians" anymore. 

 

It also makes sense, to make this conditional, otherwise every madman could use hospitals as military bases and be "safe", presumably promoting the idea of using human shields. 

[DeinonSlayer]

Lets spool back the clock to the independence war. If an american wanted to kill all the british on his part of the ocean. It wouldn't be genocidal intent. After all he doesn't want to kill all the british everywhere. He's just got a broad interpretation of enemy.

Good God, you're as bad as Auld Wulf.

Notwithstanding the Americans then were technically British subjects in rebellion, hell yes it would be genocide! "Oh, I'm going to kill every [insert group here] in my country, but I'm not going to go to [neighboring country] and get in a war with [neighboring country] in the process to sweep up the [insert group here] who got away." Genocide does not require the killing of (or intent to kill) every single member of a specific group. I doubt Slobodan Milosevic thought he could kill all muslims everywhere.

I hate to Godwin my own thread after chastizing Shodiswe about it, but that's like saying that just because efforts were made to deport the "undesirables" (to Palestine and elsewhere) prior to the extermination, the holocaust itself can't be considered a genocide. To de-Godwinify it, it would be like saying that if America decided to exterminate every Mexican in its borders, it wouldn't be genocide if they tried deporting them first and then didn't launch a war of extermination into Mexico after killing everyone here.

I think I'm done talking to you.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Due tell about the Geneva Convention and a misinterpretation of it that is inspiring!

[DeinonSlayer]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to see this thread get locked or anything.
 
... on second thought, please do.

It's getting there, believe me.

[Obadiah]

This is not really a difficult question to answer. Article 2 of the Genocide Convention is:
 

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Intent matters.

[wolfhowwl]

You reach different conclusions from this input than I do. No more, no less. So I say again, believe what you want. We can go back and forth insisting the other is wrong, but it's clear we're not going to change each others' minds, and I'd rather this not turn into a hundred pages of silverexile versus remydat all over again.

 

You don't miss Silverexile's special contribution to debate here?

[Mrs_Stick]

I thought this was about Rannoch. Why are real wars being brought up? Use the material of the game to make the argument not rl problems.

[DeinonSlayer]

I thought this was about Rannoch. Why are real wars being brought up? Use the material of the game to make the argument not rl problems.

According to wobbly, the material from the game universe is wrong.

But you're right, I probably shouldn't be invoking real-life examples to counter his argument either.

@Obadiah
The Quarians suffered A, B, and C, though C in particular is more a consequence of the ongoing occupation of the planet they depend on to survive - can't say it's the Geth's intention to see the Quarians go extinct as a consequence of that, but they displayed no intention to give it back.

The Geth suffered A and B.

[Farangbaa]

You don't miss Silverexile's special contribution to debate here?

 

That must've been a wonder person