476 réponses à ce sujet

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Two years? We had over thirty of it.
And the 'few bad apples' can exactly be subscribed to militant islam.


Anyway, as I said cerberus are a terrorist organisation - whether you agree with their ideals is neither here nor there, doesn't change what they are.

 

But you're not correct. They aren't definitionally a terrorist organization. It's not a matter of agreement or not, they do not constitute a terrorist organization through their actions and motivations. Your opinion doesn't change what they aren't.

 

Said problems were not funded by the United States government, and that was my argument for militant Islam as well. You make it seem as if we're directly funding terrorism against our closest ally.

[von uber]

You make it seem as if we're directly funding terrorism against our closest ally.

 

Apologies; the US government was not, just the ordinary citizens.

Re: Cerberus  - the engage in terror attacks (as noted by Psycoverve above), as well assasinations. As you agree with their motives and actions, you will not perceive them as terrorists. Their victims will.

[Fixers0]

But you're not correct. They aren't definitionally a terrorist organization. It's not a matter of agreement or not, they do not constitute a terrorist organization through their actions and motivations. Your opinion doesn't change what they aren't.

 

That's the most delusional statement I've seen on the Bioware forums in quite some time.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

That's the most delusional statement I've seen on the Bioware forums in quite some time.

 

Explain then, how it's so delusional?

 

I've seen you get ripped apart for being delusional as well. Repeatedly in fact. But let's see if you can make an argument.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Apologies; the US government was not, just the ordinary citizens.

Re: Cerberus  - the engage in terror attacks (as noted by Psycoverve above), as well assasinations. As you agree with their motives and actions, you will not perceive them as terrorists. Their victims will.

 

Their victims are wrong then via definition. I explained how they were not terrorists on other pages. Yes they commit assassinations. So does the alliance. And the Council. Everyone really. It's a political maneuver, and not one that's going to go away.

[Fixers0]

Explain then, how it's so delusional?

 

Because Cerberus is a terrorist organization.

 

I've seen you get ripped apart for being delusional as well. Repeatedly in fact. But let's see if you can make an argument.

 

I'm afraid I can't recall any such situation, nor that it is relevant, though I have to say I find unbased accusations like that to be an uncomfortable foreboding.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Because Cerberus is a terrorist organization.

 

 

I'm afraid I can't recall any such situation, nor that it is relevant, though I have to say I find unbased accusations like that to be an uncomfortable foreboding.

 

No, they aren't. Read my previous posts over the last few pages as I explain how they aren't.

 

I can recall plenty. Want me to pull them up for you? Regardless, you've proven in the past that you aren't very 'unbiased' whenever I make a post.

[Chashan]

Apologies; the US government was not, just the ordinary citizens.

Re: Cerberus  - the engage in terror attacks (as noted by Psycoverve above), as well assasinations. As you agree with their motives and actions, you will not perceive them as terrorists. Their victims will.

 

 

 

But you're not correct. They aren't definitionally a terrorist organization. It's not a matter of agreement or not, they do not constitute a terrorist organization through their actions and motivations. Your opinion doesn't change what they aren't.

 

Said problems were not funded by the United States government, and that was my argument for militant Islam as well. You make it seem as if we're directly funding terrorism against our closest ally.

 

How about we drop the comparisons to RL-nations and faiths of any description altogether? They'll likely lead nowhere good and are inappropriate besides.

 

 

To be clear, TheDoctor: I myself am very much disappointed with the way the watchdogs of hell turned out in ME3, the problems with whom the OP succinctly summarized: they went from nebulous Shadow-Ops in ME1 to all-powerful, galaxy-wide Cobra in ME3, in a span of merely three years. Ridiculous power-creep by any definition of the word.

 

Rather than make them mooks for "enemy variety's" sake as was suggested by another user I would have preferred mixing up the Reapers' forces instead: rather than monotonous zombie apocalypse have them throw indoctrinated individuals at the player.

 

I actually somewhat liked Cerberus's ambivalent nature in ME2, although I do acknowledge the flaws that come up even then as outlined by the OP, Throwing that ambivalence into the bin in favour of turning TIM and company into ME3's Sith Empire-equivalent was simply a complete waste.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

How about we drop the comparisons to RL-nations and faiths of any description altogether? They'll likely lead nowhere good and are inappropriate besides.

 

 

To be clear, TheDoctor: I myself am very much disappointed with the way the watchdogs of hell turned out in ME3, the problems with whom the OP succinctly summarized: they went from nebulous Shadow-Ops in ME1 to all-powerful, galaxy-wide Cobra in ME3, in a span of merely three years. Ridiculous power-creep by any definition of the word.

 

Rather than make them mooks for "enemy variety's" sake as was suggested by another user I would have preferred mixing up the Reapers' forces instead: rather than monotonous zombie apocalypse have them throw indoctrinated individuals at the player.

 

I actually somewhat liked Cerberus's ambivalent nature in ME2, although I do acknowledge the flaws that come up even then as outlined by the OP, Throwing that ambivalence into the bin in favour of turning TIM and company into ME3's Sith Empire-equivalent was simply a complete waste.

 

 

Hey, I'm not disputing your view of them. I've criticized their growth in prominence and ability over the course of the trilogy myself. It's not consistent story-telling.

 

I agree completely that they rather decided that ME3 would be unambiguously evil, although even in ME3, they do still have an air of complexity to their actions, and I find them to ultimately be tragic and sympathetic heroes.

 

I'd argue that we do need to drop the RL issues as well. It's rather distracting and it will only engender bitterness.

[Fixers0]

No, they aren't. Read my previous posts over the last few pages as I explain how they aren't.

 

I'm quite confident the following senteces are more the sufficient to prove the opposite.

 

Let's first look at the Definition of Terrorism:

 

"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

 

TIM himself claims that his organisation stands for "the defence and preservation of humanity". More generally, they strive to advance humanity. This I would describe as a political goal.

 

Furthermore. On repeated occasions Cerberus resorted to violence againsts the authorities and the civilian populations of multiple races. Examples include the attack on Mars Archives resulting in the death of numerous civilian researchers and Alliance military personel, the attack on the Citadel in which civlians are indiscriminately shot by Cerberus agents and the Attacks on Eden Prime and Ontarom.

 

In addtion Cerberus Also commits Crimes agains humanity (teltin project, Sanctuary) as well as War Crimes (execution of Alliance personel on Mars).

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

I'm quite confident the following senteces are more the sufficient to prove the opposite.

 

Let's first look at the Definition of Terrorism:

 

"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

 

TIM himself claims that his organisation stands for "the defence and preservation of humanity". More generally, they strive to advance humanity. This I would describe as a political goal.

 

Furthermore. On repeated occasions Cerberus resorted to violence againsts the authorities and the civilian populations of multiple races. Examples include the attack on Mars Archives resulting in the death of numerous civilian researchers and Alliance military personel, the attack on the Citadel in which civlians are indiscriminately shot by Cerberus agents and the Attacks on Eden Prime and Ontarom.

 

In addtion Cerberus Also commits Crimes agains humanity (teltin project, Sanctuary) as well as War Crimes (execution of Alliance personel on Mars).

 

Did you read my response to that very definition not applying to Cerberus? Why don't you respond to that instead of citing the same argument I countered.

 

As far as ME3 goes, it's open war. Terrorism no longer cuts it as a term, and they're indoctrinated.

 

As for their 'crimes against humanity' and 'war crimes', that's hardly an argument, considering that scientific benefits were achieved from both operations. Said benefits far exceeded what any of the other people would likely achieve against the Reapers on their own. Teltin successfully created a very powerful human biotic, and Sanctuary showed the viability of controlling Reaper forces and that with sufficient study and power, you could possibly apply this to the Reapers themselves. That's hardly a crime. And in a time of open war, there is no 'war crime'. That's a direct military action. Otherwise, any death in combat would be considered a 'war crime'.

[Fixers0]

As for their 'crimes against humanity' and 'war crimes', that's hardly an argument, considering that scientific benefits were achieved from both operations. Said benefits far exceeded what any of the other people would likely achieve against the Reapers on their own. Teltin successfully created a very powerful human biotic, and Sanctuary showed the viability of controlling Reaper forces and that with sufficient study and power, you could possibly apply this to the Reapers themselves. That's hardly a crime. And in a time of open war, there is no 'war crime'. That's a direct military action. Otherwise, any death in combat would be considered a 'war crime'.

 

Potentional benefits do not justify crimes under any circumstance, no such legal argument would be taken seriously by any contempory court that adheres to the Universeal declartion of Human rights.

 

Moreover, your statement that war crimes don't apply in wartime is absurd and incorrect. War crimes are defined by actions that violate the rules of war such as excuting PoW's.

 

Furthermore Cerberus operatives are to be considerd illegal combatants for they do not represeant any recognized authority in addtion to  their disregard for the rules of war, including the execution of unarmed Alliance personel and the indiscriminate murdering of civilians.

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Potentional benefits do not justify crimes under any circumstance, no such legal argument would be taken seriously by any contempory court that adheres to the Universeal declartion of Human rights.

 

Moreover, your statement that war crimes don't apply in wartime is absurd and incorrect. War crimes are defined by actions that violate the rules of war such as excuting PoW's.

 

Furthermore Cerberus operatives are to be considerd illegal combatants for they do not represeant any recognized authority in addtion to  their disregard for the rules of war, including the execution of unarmed Alliance personel and the indiscriminate murdering of civilians.

 

Which is a failing on their part. A 'crime' is only a crime when the negative benefit outweighs the greater benefit. And you'd find a great deal many court cases where crimes are taken down. No U.S. Soldier or servicemen can ever be tried by an international court for any 'wrongdoing' that you might think he did. And we usually won't prosecute if he acted out of military necessity and it can be shown that his actions were beneficial to the cause. So your arguments binding here don't always apply except for when you want them too.

 

Executing POW's is a very iffy rule that you can skirt around, and the U.S. definitely (and rightly) doesn't adhere to it in the same manner as European powers.

 

And to top this off, when have these rules ever been followed by anyone when it's convenient not too? I know plenty of cases where we break said laws at will when we're in a tactically and strategically beneficial position. Such rules are useless. Said personnel were a legitimate combat threat (seeing as Cerberus is viewed as a legitimate combatant), and rules don't always apply to powers that don't agree to be bound by them. If the U.S. decided not to follow the laws on it, then we'd be perfectly justified in reacting in our way towards problems. Legal definitions are not constraining in war. It's a silly notion that needs to be dropped. People die. It's collateral damage.

 

There are no 'rules' of war. It's chaos wrapped in politics, and the only goal is to win. Whatever you have to do.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Hey, do you know what another undesirable part of Cerberus was?

 

The introduction of Kai Leng.

[dreamgazer]

Hey, do you know what another undesirable part of Cerberus was?

 

The introduction of Kai Leng.

 

And just like Cerberus' increase in size in Ascension, Kai Leng was actually a product of Drew Karpyshyn in his post-ME2 Cerberus-focused novel, Retribution. 

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

And just like Cerberus' increase in size in Ascension, Kai Leng was actually a product of Drew Karpyshyn in his post-ME2 Cerberus-focused novel Retribution. 

 

Kai Leng wasn't really bad until the whole pissing in the cereal bit. And ME3. Until then, he was respectable.

[themikefest]

I haven't read the comics, but I heard he was a better character in them then in ME3.

[dreamgazer]

Kai Leng wasn't really bad until the whole pissing in the cereal bit. And ME3. Until then, he was respectable.

 

Eh. He was very little more than a one-dimensional "badass" in Retribution.

[KaiserShep]

I will never understand the thought process that began this whole cereal business. So badass lol

[CroGamer002]

Kai Leng is dreadful in comics. However, he wasn't in comics until after ME3 came out.

 

He was great in books, until Deception.

[Arcian]

Eh. He was very little more than a one-dimensional "badass" in Retribution.

Yeah but at least back then he wasn't the Kai Lame we all know and hate today.

[dreamgazer]

Yeah but at least back then he wasn't the Kai Lame we all know and hate today.

 

True, but it didn't take much modification to get him here from that story. 

 

At least he wasn't Deception-level bad (from what I've gleaned from details fed to me). 

[DeathScepter]

As for Kai Leng, I don't mind his look or him being a space Cyber ninja, he is a symptom of a rushed game that is ME3. ME3 has good elements to it but it is not up to par with ME2 or ME1. 

 

 

 

 

 

Side note: I do like the Cerberus Phantoms armors you can get within Citadel DLC, The N7 Slayer and N7 Shadow MP characters.

[KaiserShep]

Hey, do you know what another undesirable part of Cerberus was?

 

The introduction of Kai Leng.

 

[meanwhile, at Cerberus HQ, North Wing, Sector 3, watercooler 73B]

 

Cerberus intern: Hey, what's the deal with that guy wearing the delumcore overlay. He kinda creeps me out, and I think he's been eating my Oaty bars.

 

Cerberus secretary: Shut up! Do you have a death wish?

 

Cerberus intern: What are y..GURK! [blade through chest]

[Hello!I'mTheDoctor]

Eh. He was very little more than a one-dimensional "badass" in Retribution.

 

I disagree. He was given a bit more characterization and background that was pretty much undone completely by Deception, and non-existent in ME3. ME3 didn't have him doing much of anything at all beyond plot armor and whining.