Terrorists and perpetrators of (indirect) genocide. That does not mean taht the Scoia'Tael are not terrorists. The terrorism of one does not absolve the terrorism of others.sfinxCZ said:
Otherwise, I could just as easily say that the elves are a race of genocidal terrorists who wiped out the vrans and took the land from gnomes and dwarves, and their inter-dimensional cousins wiped out and enslaved humanity and unicorns, which means that everything the humans did to them does not make them terrorists.
Words have meaning and are tangible. The Scoia'Tael are terrorists. That is not an ethical judgement, that is simply the academic term for the kind of warfare they are fighting.
True, as Inquisition killed whole families, not only women, in name of God or French people in their Revolution... Madamme Guillotine never knew about gendre, age or innocence... They called The Reign of Terror, La Terreur, but strangely nobody clasified them as terrorists. Humanity always surprise me.
I lie, I always knew that winner writes the History.... />/>
Yep, it is correct. Terrorism is a term with very specific meaning. When a military organization kills unarmed civilians in order to incite fear in the population, they are terrorists.KnightofPhoenix said:
I am not saying that the all elves are homicidal maniacs, who are sick in their heads. No, but a lot of them have prejudices, are racist, consider humans a blight, and lower race. In essence, they are no better than human racists. The only difference that in this world humans are WINNING, while in the other worlds elves are winning.
Still, a lot of dwarves found a way to co-exist peacefully. Saskia is trying to find a way for all races to live side by side peacefully. I would sooner support them, and it was what Iorveth's path was about - to make Iorveth a better man at least in his actions, and not to support the elven brand of genocide. But the game does not make it clear in any way. After Iorveth tells pointing at peasants - killing them is like pulling weeds, I lost any desire to play Iorveth path, and the only thing I was interested concerning Iorveth - can I kill him in game.
So Iorveth path is not really about supporting elven terrorists, you'll simply have to tolerate Iorveth personally.
I do not defend the actions of the elves nor defend the actions of humans. In a world where so much one as the other use terror to subjugate others, where both kill entire families I see no need to call terrorist to some and not others.
I'm surprised to read phrases like "I'm not going to support Scoi'taels because terrorists? Did Henselt, Emhyr, Foltest, Radovid and other previous kings have not exercised terror on entire populations of non-human? Just because they were kings and could issue an order to their armies So what is the difference? perhaps their orders were not to cause terror in nonhumans and humans who would house them? sounds to me the politically correct hypocrisy of our society.
I read referred to a persecuted race to the brink of extinction as people who may have choice, after being slaughtered, used, robbed, betrayed ... In those days there existed neither the Geneva convention or the UN who claim to defend their rights or defend UNESCO cultural heritage, no schools to teach that everyone is entitled to dignity and conviviality. Terrorism, as some tend to name here, it was a normal act in that time, welcomed by some and criticized by a few others, according to the side on which they were.
Spawoski used in the books the word terrorist to put in the mouth of some part of the population, to place eachother at the time, but at no time in his books He treats terrorist elves.
@vivaxardas, Yep, it is correct. Terrorism is a term with very specific meaning. When a military organization kills unarmed civilians in order to incite fear in the population, they are terrorists. So you mean Humans Kings of Geralt's world were terrorists?
BTW, dwarves were very usefull by their mines, their tall made them great miners, and their ironworks art like gnomes.
I'm surprised to read phrases like "I'm not going to support Scoi'taels because terrorists? Did Henselt, Emhyr, Foltest, Radovid and other previous kings have not exercised terror on entire populations of non-human? Just because they were kings and could issue an order to their armies So what is the difference? perhaps their orders were not to cause terror in nonhumans and humans who would house them? sounds to me the politically correct hypocrisy of our society.
I read referred to a persecuted race to the brink of extinction as people who may have choice, after being slaughtered, used, robbed, betrayed ... In those days there existed neither the Geneva convention or the UN who claim to defend their rights or defend UNESCO cultural heritage, no schools to teach that everyone is entitled to dignity and conviviality. Terrorism, as some tend to name here, it was a normal act in that time, welcomed by some and criticized by a few others, according to the side on which they were.
Spawoski used in the books the word terrorist to put in the mouth of some part of the population, to place eachother at the time, but at no time in his books He treats terrorist elves.
@vivaxardas, Yep, it is correct. Terrorism is a term with very specific meaning. When a military organization kills unarmed civilians in order to incite fear in the population, they are terrorists. So you mean Humans Kings of Geralt's world were terrorists?
BTW, dwarves were very usefull by their mines, their tall made them great miners, and their ironworks art like gnomes.
The rulers use terror tactics for their political gains, sure. Why does it matter? Are you claiming it is OK to support some terrorists because there are a lot of other terrorists?Wichat said:
Dvarwes are useful in the mines because they decided to work in the mines, and not hide in forests killing berry-pickers. Or you think elves are useless anywhere, and simply can't find a decent occupation?
Please tell me where the diefference. I only claim that both side use terror for their own interest. Why a Human King can and why Francesca cannot order a pogrom against humans? Why? (Oh! yes, it'd be inhuman!!!) I'm claiming that ALL of TWO sides are TERRORISTS or NO ONE is!vivaxardas said:
Oh! Yes, their Kings (humans kings) could offer them the opportunity to have the same rights that human peassant to start... just a little detail without importance.They must forget their HIstory, their culture, their language.... why to keep them living in a Human world?vivaxardas said:
Dammed! How didn't I see this so simply solution?"Hey, you the different ones, live like us in a lower level or die?"
It was more reasonable to say "I don't side Scoia'taels because I prefer to serve to a King like Roche and not be independent without a King or a land" I could understand that position.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't care what you think.M4xw0lf said:
Oh btw, my comment was mostly sarcasm, hence why in the next paragraph I said "seriously", but let me indulge you. The Scoia'tael no matter what their reasons are, are bad people. Their reasons might be valid, but the moment they start killing civilians is the moment they became simply terrorist. Cedric the elf said it best, those Scoia'tael are nothing more than delusional just like most terrorist are. Their actions will simply bring more hatred to the good elves, an in game example is when Geralt first arrives in the village in chapter 1 or look at the current scenario in America with respect to the muslim. Fear leads to hatred...and also to the dark side of the force.
added: All the Scoia'tael manage to do is piss of the people. If you want to change people you have to appeal to them NOT bring a reason to fear you.
So please get off your high horse you are not as morally superior as you THINK you are.
Well, they obviously can, as Iorveth amply demonstrates by filling the Flotsam forest with human corpses. It is not about what they can or can't do.Wichat said:
Why must they forget anything? The dwarves have forges in Novigrad, control the mines in Mahacam, become rich merchants, and dwarven banks can influence politics. As far as I see, dwarves are doing quite all right for themselves, and not just in the mines, where their height matters. If they stay this course, they can potentially become a significant social and political force in the world.
While a lot of elves simply moans about their past glory, probably did not have a single day of an honest work, and have generations of bandits for whom any honest work is out of the question. It would be a miracle if one day they even be able to run their own state, and not just reject it as "gift from damned humans" and continue with banditry.
I saw elves corps hanging form trees in the swamp... or it was my imagination too?vivaxardas said:
Can you remember that humans ALLOWS dwarves to keep their lands because their can work in those mines easier than taller humans? And they have the secret of the best blackmith which really interest humans armies? And humana women were not attracted by males dwarves? so the blood purety were not in danger here. The opposite with elves?
And elves were expolied, and robbered. They give them a kind of Elven Reservation reigned by a pseudo-Queen?
Again, what's your point? That bandit, Dimitri, with his gang, hunted and killed the elves for Loredo. How does it exonerate Iorveth for hunting and killing unarmed women and children? Or is it OK to support one kind of bandits when there are a lot of them? I don't think so, and it is our rock-bottom disagreement.Wichat said:
As I said before, Iorveth path is not about supporting squirrels. It is about Saskia's uprising and a creation of a non-human state. Even Saskia is against Iorveth's terrorism, and uses him only because she needs him. So Iorveth path is not that bad as it may seem in Flotsam.
I no support assasins, I try to undersatnd wht CDPR give us: Spawoski's world. And games, sadly, lack a lot about pogroms and elves existence. At least, Geralt died fighting a Human pogrom against non-human.vivaxardas said:
don't like how both sides kill innocences for sake of their own civilization. But I'll never see one better or worse than other. That's my point. IAnd only Under this perspective I can play both paths and enjoy them.And because, I can judge the acts of the other people, I play, I don't judge them, how could I dare?
Robespierre was the instituter of state terrorism par excellence. No one denies it, heck not even him, it was him who coined the term "la terreur."Wichat said:True, as Inquisition killed whole families, not only women, in name of God or French people in their Revolution... Madamme Guillotine never knew about gendre, age or innocence... They called The Reign of Terror, La Terreur, but strangely nobody clasified them as terrorists. Humanity always surprise me.I lie, I always knew that winner writes the History.... />/>/>/>
Sure history is written by the victors, but that's really irrelevant to us individuals who are capable of critical thinking and as objective an analysis as possible.
And objectively speaking, the Scoia'Tael are terrorists and no amount of apologism could change that.
Can easely say you'r right, and King who imposes terror are terrorist too, legal but terrotist too. Do we like it or not. If they weren't Humanity never had had the concept of Humans Rights later.KnightofPhoenix said:
At this point, torture is considered a kind of terrorims, now and then.So, chose Roche's path because Scoia'taels are terrorist it sounds me a sort of hypocresy. If I had to chose any path by morality of one or other I'll never play TW!
The difference between the current human persecution of nonhumans, and the Scoia'Tael, is that while both are terrorists, humans tend to leave nonhumans alone when they obey the law (that oppresses them). They are not interested in mass genocide (at least a direct one), otherwise all nonhumans would be dead by now. Pogroms are generally spontaneous reactions from the mob that while is horrible, would not classify as an act of terrorism as part of a strategy (unless supported or enabled by higher authorities, like Loredo).Wichat said:
The Scoia'Tael on the other hand have no notion of an innocent human and the war they are fighting is purely racial. Whatever human they keep alive, they do so because they are useful (like Margot), the rest they eradicate.
Of course seeing how it is an asymmetrical conflict, one can believe that the Scoia'Tael's ruthlessness is but an outlet for their desperation, if you'd allow me to paraphrase Cedric.
But these two brands of terrorism are different.
Human rights are entirely irrelevant to whether someone is a terrorist or not.Wichat said:
And yes, state terrorism is terrorism too.
I'm more concerned with what people did or didn't do in the Witcher series, and why. Not really interested in people's petty debates on what they do or do not consider terrorists. That seems like something worthy enough for it's own thread.
Yes, that point of view is very good if you are a human. And Cedric, well, as Geralt say, he really was tormented by his vision where Elves desappear in the future, he really knows the future, not really by the Scoiat'taels path. He drunks avoiding his visions and what can do a drunk man, elf or human?
how?Wichat said:
I never said Cedric was tormented by the Scoia'Tael path, I was merely paraphrasing him.
"Hatred is but an outlet for helplessness."