So far i agree with the Resistance because it seems like they are not receiving a fair share of resources such as food. Yet, I don't know the whole story because it is still sort of unclear. What I have seen is that the rich are being protected by the Security against the Resistance who just want food. Again the complete story is not clear. Some people are for the Resistance because they look like they are against government and against rules so they want to be cool and go with the rebels but I don't think its like that at all. Before the Ark lost contact with the rest of the world the people who are now the Resistance didn't seem to have a problem with government. They are just trying to survive because they have little money so they steal. The Ark is filled with scientist yet none of them thought about counting to check the population. People were sneaking into the place without permission hm were have I seen this before. They should of managed their resources better and not let the people who only wanted a better life for themselves pay for the Ark's mistakes. This is my opinion and I respect everyone else's. Although violence should never be the answer its just easier.

Tru dat.

I`m on the Resistance side.
They are the people that keep the Ark operational and floating and yet they live with rougly 3 people in a single container and have to survive on rationed water.
While the Ark founders and the Security live in there giant towers doing who knows what and enjoying there fresh water.

There's not enough room on the Ark for everybody...I think there was about 10x the number of people on it that it was supposed to support. Someone's gonna starve, and people are gonna have to cram together.

It seens to me that the security dont really have a side, anyone can be security since its just a job, the resistance has problems with the rich people who are supposedly hoarding supplies the security forces are jkust in the way of them getting to the founders.

But since the rich need the Security they have to give the soldiers enough food and water that they won't join the Resistance, which would make the Security team on par with the founders in the Resistance's eyes.

That`s why i believe the Resistance is trying to take over the Ark, To use the supplies to find land and more resources while the Security is trying to protect the Ark and leave it the way it is while trying to survive as long as they can.

The Resistance thinks the founders haven't searched for land that isn't flooded out yet. What if they already have, and the Ark is the last bit of dry land? The war would've done nothing but lower the population count, which can be considered a good thing.

People seem to be making a big deal about refugee rations, but the founders are also rationed (although the conflict implies that the founders are given more than the refugees). Proof of this is in a quote from the game's official web page. "Most Security personnel have volunteered because they're convinced that for the Ark to survive it must have peaceful order and conserve its remaining resources. And the extra water ration comes in useful too."

Also, its impossible for there to be no dry land. As an argument against Noah's Ark being literal, someone did the math and found that even if all of the ice and slow in the world was melted, and all of the water in the atmosphere was condensed into liquid, it wouldn't even be close to a worldwide flood. Shores would be screwed, but they could flee inland. The real problem would be on islands, which i imagine is why there are a lot of islanders seen within the resistance, Jamaicans and such.

So finding land would be a reasonable thing to do, but it brings up a question, is the Ark actually able to propel itself?

I've always been a fan of the rebellion in any story. I find it fun to be the guy who's trying to change things rather than keep them the same.

MERCS

People are born with a right to revolt. Are you going to let some one else tell you, you dont have a right to live? hell no. I believe the Resistance to be Refugees and not necisaryily terrorist. I see a huge difference, and they are only seeking to live, just as any man would. But Im still playin both.

"not necessarily terrorist"

lulz at that phrase.

The term "Terrorist" is something that is over used by modern news. Being a rebel or staging a coup can be good or bad, depending on the reason. Coups are sometimes started by those who want to be in charge of the new regime, such as a druglord who doesn't take kindly to being resisted by government, or a military leader who thinks he isn't compensated enough or could do a better job than the current government. I just say this because "Rebellion" isn't always a good thing. Its not always the "the weak vs the oppressors" situation that people envision.

"Terrorist" on the other hand, is someone who's goal is to cause "Terror" ...go figure. Terror can be used by a single bomber who is on a power trip, used as a way of controlling people, a psychological part of warfare, or often a way of attacking a power that is too strong to attack any other way.

The War on Terror is a sham...that is to say, "Terrorism" is an idea, not a group of people. You can wage war on groups, such as a country, but not terrorism. How do you think the British viewed George Washington as in the Revolutionary War? They'd see him as a terrorist, organizing rebellions against their power. Just sayin.

Security but that's because my OCD attracts me to the clean look, if I can make a clean looking resistance guy both.

They saw him as a "rebel". Like I was just saying, Washington had no goals of causing terror, and did nothing to create any, so he wasnt a "terrorist". He only wished to be free from oppression.

Washington's goal was to inflict enough fear and damage on the British that they felt their colonization of the Northern America colonies was too costful and difficult. And even if "Washington had no goals of causing terror," he definitely caused it in the ranks of the British Army. Imagine the siege of Yorktown, the last battle of the Revolutionary War. I'm betting Cornwallis was scared out of his ******* mind. It's a rule of history that the hero of one faction is the bane of another group. What one army sees as a Guardian Angel sent from God to bring them victory, another army sees as a harbinger of destruction. Ex. Joan of Arc, who the French saw as divine, while the English burnt her for being a witch.

True, George Washington only wanted to be free from oppression. But the means of doing so involved inflicted terror upon his enemy, and in the eyes of King George, Washington and the founders of America as a nation were terrorists.

Okay guys, both of you are right in your own ways on this topic, but this thread is about your Faction of choice and your reason in choosing it, not terrorism. If you want, make a thread somewhere else about what terrorism is. But can you do it somewhere else?

Well, it applies to the whole question of whether the Resistance is comprised of terrorists or freedom fighters, so I'm arguing that it's relevant.

And that comes down to your opinion, so now lets get back on topic please.

So they feature GEORGE WASHINGTON in Brink? I don't think so. You two are completely off topic. I would have NO problem if you guys were talking about whether the Resistance in Brink were terrorists or not, (which I don't think they are even though I'm Security-oriented) but please, if you're going to talk general "terrorists" go to a different place.

The Resistance leader is a rebel akin to that of George Washington. We're just using examples and comparisons here. Chill a bit, man. It's all good.

Debates often lead to discussion of extremes or well known situations where an answer is more easily figured out, and then that is applied to the topic at hand. In this case, George Washington was in a similar situation, taxed and squeezed to the point of rebellion, and most people know his situation.

But anyway, if simply making the enemy fear for their life makes you a terrorist, than any soldier in any conflict anywhere can reasonably be called a terrorist. The term implies that you are intentionally trying to cause civilians to be scared for their safety.

George Washington had no such intentions, his problem was with the English parliament, rather than everyone in England.

Judging by my limited knowledge of the games storyline, I think this is similar to the resistance. They are simply fed up with the policy that the leaders of the founders have set up, with the refugees getting less rations. The security are in the way, and must be fought, but i don't expect you to have any missions where you are shooting civilians for the sake of terrorizing other civilians.

Terrorism is: a person who terrorizes or frightens others (taken from dictionary.com). It doesn't matter whether or not it is a civilian or an enemy combatant. Therefore, one could make the claim that a combat personnel is considered a terrorist by their enemy. The Resistance hopes to bring about change by causing the founders to fear for their lives, which would earn the Resistance equal food and water.

On the other side of the coin, Security employs terrorism right back at the Resistance. They hope to make the Resistance fear for the lives of themselves or their families. If the Resistance is terrorized enough, they will lay down arms and accept their second class citizenship.

I'm not arguing one side over another; again, someone's hero is another's villian. I'm just arguing the philosophy of terrorism itself.

I've had fun debating with you, good sir.