Cerberus doesn't kill everyone who doesn't agree with them, as evidenced by all of their actions up to ME3. Islamic Terrorists do.
Everyone or just a few, it makes no difference.
Do I really need to quote again how they assassinated the president of what the USA has become in the MEU?
No, and you can't say why they assassinated the President of the US plus the 51st and 52nd states of Canada and Mexico. There's a lot more to a political assassination than 'he's against us, let's kill him'. They're acting on an agenda, and the assassination is an investment on that agenda. Maybe his replacement is more malleable. Maybe it'll stir up the political climate to put another funded politician somewhere influential. There's a lot more complication to political assassination than you're giving credit for.
Results. They (Cerberus) got them. They're justified.
No. Because Cerberus accomplished what they set out to do, and I agree with their ideology and cause. Thus they're perfectly justified.
Wait, what!?
So, if some maniac with hat decides, that he absolutely necessary needs to kill every person with green eyes, so he can make his awesome green-eyes-ice,
--which you or your neighbour just happen to like-- and succeeds, he is justified?
"Listen to yourself, You're Indoctrinated!"
Edit:
Also, take a step back, look at what you just wrote.
Overthink again what constitutes terrorism and where 'totally ok'-political assassination lead.
Edit Edit:
I'm really slow today, ain't I?
Good troll, you did good
*munch, munch, munch*
No, and you can't say why they assassinated the President of the US plus the 51st and 52nd states of Canada and Mexico. There's a lot more to a political assassination than 'he's against us, let's kill him'. They're acting on an agenda, and the assassination is an investment on that agenda. Maybe his replacement is more malleable. Maybe it'll stir up the political climate to put another funded politician somewhere influential. There's a lot more complication to political assassination than you're giving credit for.
Wait, what!?
So, if some maniac with hat decides, that he absolutely necessary needs to kill every person with green eyes, so he can make his awesome green-eyes-ice,
--which you or your neighbour just happen to like-- and succeeds, he is justified?
"Listen to yourself, You're Indoctrinated!"
Edit:
Also, take a step back, look at what you just wrote.
Overthink again what constitutes terrorism and where 'totally ok'-political assassination lead.
Edit Edit:
I'm really slow today, ain't I?
Good troll, you did good
That's not an argument. In fact, I don't know what it is, since it's very poor grammar and sentence structure. Something about someone killing people with green eyes.
I assure you however that I'm not trolling you, and that I'm being absolutely serious.
And what do you call terrorism perpetuated by states that commit such operations? Would you call the English mission to assassinate a key politician who supported the military politburo in Hong Kong terrorism? It's an assassination, a political act. It is neither moral or immoral. It is an action.
"only that Mass Effect 3 takes place 6 months after Arrival."
Not after arrival. After Shepard surrendering to the Alliance, something that can take place soon after arrival, weeks later, or even several months later. You can complete Arrival around the same time that Illium becomes available. You can still complete all the other DLCs, recruitments, scans, loyalty missions, side-quests and the suicide mission prior to surrendering the normandy to alliance officials in order to stand trial.
We do know, however, that during ME3 they stated that shepard initially warned about the reapers around 3 years before. From eden prime in ME1 until priority earth 2 in ME3 I´d say about 50 months passed at most.
Well, according to the timeline, Arrival takes place in 2186. The Reaper War also starts in 2186, and ends in 2186.
It was a busy year.
To Arcian, that is one of the reasons I can't take ME3 Seriously............Seriously.
Well, according to the timeline, Arrival takes place in 2186. The Reaper War also starts in 2186, and ends in 2186.
It was a busy year.
The timeline is broken anyway. From Lazarus Eden-Prime and Tali's evidence onward there are only very few instances when something could have happened in the timeframe it is supposed to...
That's not an argument. In fact, I don't know what it is, since it's very poor grammar and sentence structure.
It was supposed to be a question, as indicated by the question mark at the end...
Hopefully a more clear version:
If someone decides that he absolutely needs to kill every <arbitrary-group member>, for <arbitrary reason>, and succeeds; is he justified?
So if Hamas kills the Israeli president because he is severely hampering the Palestinian people, in every possible way, this would a good thing? One you can accept? Or is this only the case when someone you agree with kills someone they (and you) don't agree with?
They have a goal which they reach, they might get a replacement that's more mallable (or in any way reasonable at all to the indigenous people of the land) and they better the life of the Palestinian people.
To be completely honest, I can't believe we're seriously talking about what would be a good reason for a political assassination. Where I am from, ANY assassination is wrong. A political one is just more horrendous, no matter how good your cause.
That depends on your point of view. There's always two sides to a coin, an action, an argument. There are positives and negatives to any action to be seen by everyone according to their perspective.
Indeed they might. Or maybe the assassins might have an entirely separate agenda and actions they hope to accomplish through the assassination.
Personally, I disagree. An assassination is an action being caused for some good by some body. The matter is that an assassination is always going to have more of a story than what you believe. Would the state-sanctioned assassination of Kim Jong-un be acceptable by the United States?
It was supposed to be a question, as indicated by the question mark at the end...
Hopefully a more clear version:
That really depends on how you choose to hold how something is justified and what your sense of what is and should and could be is. I personally won't be his judge.
To Arcian, that is one of the reasons I can't take ME3 Seriously............Seriously.
Tell me about it. I'd be more vocal about my problem with it if it wasn't so insignificant compared to ME3's other shortcomings.
That depends on your point of view.
Personally, I disagree. An assassination is an action being caused for some good by some body. The matter is that an assassination is always going to have more of a story than what you believe. Would the state-sanctioned assassination of Kim Jong-un be acceptable by the United States?
As I alluded to before, Americans have a funny thing about terrorism. The delight I had growing up in a country (one with a supppsed special relationship too) where people were at threat of being blown up by terrorists sponsored by Americans was highly amusing.
One man's freedom fighter etc.
I spent a cumulative 7 years of my life growing up abroad, with two years of my teenage years in England and I never really had to worry about state terrorism. Sure, we have some bad apples up in New England and Boston who believe it's their prerogative to support the IRA against the British, but it was never the U.S. as a whole who believed in this.
So why was Cerberus not a terrorist organization?
Would the state-sanctioned assassination of Barack Obama by North Korea be acceptable?
There is no difference.
Go back and read my statements already. I've already stated this.
Hence was my point.
They do questionable things, but they have concrete goals behind every action. A terrorist may have an ultimate goal, but their actions don't directly serve it. You'll never see Cerberus blow up a nightclub 'because reasons' like a Hamas or the like would. That's the distinction between the two.
By ME3, whether or not Cerberus could really be defined as a terrorist organization is pretty much moot. They are now the new Collectors. They're indoctrinated thralls doing crazy things because the reapers warped TIM's mind as a result of his reckless stupidity.
Cerberus ceased to exist for Me3. The new organization is called Derperus.
Cerberus ceased to exist for Me3. The new organization is called Derperus.
My little joke theory that all of this was planned out. The original cerberus in Greek mythology is a three headed dog, since there are three Mass Effect titles the incarnation of Cerberus in each game is a different head of the same creature.
I feel bad for Jacob. If I had to go to war IRL, Jacob would be up there. He is dependable, well trained soldier. But he is pretty boring to talk to.
also wtf with the politics!
I actually don't mind the Cerberus mooks, but I wish that the Illusive Man didn't become indoctrinated himself. It would've been interesting if it was a rogue faction or something. I dunno. I guess my problem is that a villain ceases to be a proper villain when his faculties are impaired by some external force. Imagine if Loghain was somehow being influenced by the archdemon.
I find it lame when games do that. One of my bigger disappointments in DA:2 is when it is revealed that
Retour en haut