 Criminals or Terrorists, What are Shadowrunners to Society |
  |
 Aug 13 2005, 12:01 PM
Post
#26
|
|||||
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441  |
Wrong. Terrorists are anyone -- including sanctioned government troops -- that use fear as a primary means to enforce their political will upon a government or populace. "uniformless irregulars" are simply illegal combatants or spies, depending on what you want to call them. Don't confuse illegal combatants with terrorists just because the stereotypical terrorist is also an illegal combatant. Hitler and Stalin were terrorists, for example, and their troops were *very* legal combatants.
Would you care to explain exactly how the colonies used fear to enforce their political will upon a government or populace? I can't really think of anything in the war that I would call "terrorism." (The closest thing I know of being the Boston Tea Party) If you've got something, I'm seriously interested, but based upon the above, I think you may just be confused and mixing the term "illegal combatant" with "terrorist" again. And strictly speaking, IIRC, there were no established rules of war at the time, so the only thing illegal about that war was the fact that it was treasonous ;) (I just love listening to people in the US go bat-sh*t crazy about the treasonous right or left when the country was born of treason) Shadowrunners are typically criminals, but depending on the run, their Johnson can *make* them terrorists. As a general rule, they are *also* illegal combatants as they are without uniform. |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Aug 13 2005, 02:08 PM
Post
#27
|
|||||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
If memory serves, anyone who was caught as a revolutionary was arrested, no? (Although Vaevictus' response is more accurate, I think.) What I was referring to specifically though in terms of GUERRILLA warfare is stuff that's illegal according to the rules of war. Had Al-Qaeda decided to bomb Fort Meade, it would have been illegal according to civil laws, but legal according to the rules of war. However, it would not have then been terrorism. Terrorism is always illegal according to the rules of war (with the possible exception of things like dropping propaganda, telling cities that they're going to be bombed, etc.) THe trade towers had no value from a military standpoint, they were completely civilian and therefore not a legal target. THe US has, however, supported terrorists.
Again, this makes you a CRIMINAL. Just because I'm not breaking the laws of France by driving on the left side of the road doesn't mean I won't go to jail doing it in the US.
You were right before in the 'if people will be as stupid as they are now...' bit that they'll be labeled terrorists. THe DC sniper was called a terrorist because he caused fear and panic, although it was not his goal. His goal was to make it look like he was to make his motive unclear to detectives. The fact that he DID cause fear and panic got him convicted as a terrorist, however. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 13 2005, 02:31 PM
Post
#28
|
|||||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Now it is my turn to blow tea out of my nose. That's like saying that a munitions factory has no value from a military standpoint. The World Trade center was an intregral part of the economic infrastructure of the US. Any nation's ability to make war is dependant on its economic and social infrastructre. Infrasturcture targets are legitimate military targets. They have been for a while now. For example, one of the Allied tactics in WWII was to firebomb civilian homes because factories were too easily rebuildt. If the workers had nowhere to live, however, the factories couldn't function. The fact that there were civilians sleeping in their homes in the middle of the night is a coincidence that the Allied forces can't be held responsible for. It was just collatoral damage.
Only if you get caught.
Not according to the official definition used by the US since the first Bush Administration. According to that definition, a terrorist is anyone who uses force to achieve a political goal without the sanction of a recognized government. This includes fredom fighters and, incidently, Nelson Mandela. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Aug 13 2005, 04:09 PM
Post
#29
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,532 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Calgary, Canada Member No.: 769 |
Actually that is against international law and the allies could technically be held responsable for it had they lost. It's like the trial of the Japanese admeral Yamamoto where they were going to execute him for attacks on merchant shipping and his American counterpart (who's name I forget) actually testified for the defence that if they were going to execute Yamamoto based on that they better execute him as well. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 13 2005, 04:13 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
Really? What about the planes, then? They were military assets too? If this was a legitimate military action, what about all the non-US nationals indiscriminately killed? Anything big enough is going to have an economic impact - that doesn't change the fact that actions meant primarily to slaughter and intimidate civilians wihtout any actual military goals (insane fantasies like fighting American imperialism, spreading Islam worldwide, or fighting the spread of "the Jew" don't count - it doesn't matter whether you believe in your imaginary cause) are terrorism... Similar actions taken in support of an actual military campaign could still be war crimes, but they're not terrorism. Not if we're talking about something more than semantics. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 13 2005, 04:15 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
Was this a trial in absentia? The admiral Yamamoto died when a plane carrying him was shot down by US fighter planes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 13 2005, 04:28 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
For what it's worth, some of the major tenants of Building 7 of the WTC (one of those caught fire and that collapsed into its own footprint without having been hit by an airplane; and which also had some of the most effective bombproof/bulletproof structures on the market -- for all intents and purposes the place was a bunker) were:
Oh, that building also happened to house an office of the Internal Revenue Service Securities as well as the Exchange Commission (that's the people who were dealing with Enron): and the majority of the evidence in that case was permanently lost when the building collapsed. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 13 2005, 04:39 PM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I would argue that it was a target of military significance, not that this particular instance was a legitimate military action. (But yes, as part of a national transportation network, the planes had military significance as well. As you say, anything big enough has an impact.) ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 13 2005, 05:06 PM
Post
#34
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Planes weren't targets at all. They weere weapons in this case. People have to make due with what they have access to. If they had cruise missiles I'm sure they would have used them. Wether or not the dead were US nationals doesn't matter. They were all civilians. However, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. It wasn't a legitimate military action, however, at least not at the time. It has, however, been treated as such by various authorities. No military action is legitimate at the time. Its legitimacy is determined by those who write the history books. The so called War on Terror has the effect of validating the attacks. After all, you can't have a war without a legitimate military to fight. But, that is beside the point. It does, however, illustrate the rather sticky issue of trying to classify Shadowrunners by actions or motives. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 13 2005, 05:15 PM
Post
#35
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
Yeah, ok... I think this is the point I exit this discussion, because from where I'm standing (assuming you're not just playing devil's advocate) you're insane. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 13 2005, 05:20 PM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
Yeah, I know. I used to work at the WTC (a few years before the attacks, fortunately), so I'm very well aware of what was in the area. None of it matters particularly... The buildings were chosen for one main reason - they were a very visible symbol - and everything else was gravy. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 13 2005, 05:50 PM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Wait, the claim that terrorists would use cruise missiles if they possessed them indicates that I am insane but the Drop Bear conspiricy flow chart and the belief that JFK and Elvis both faked their own deaths do not?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 13 2005, 06:13 PM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 |
What do you mean "if they possessed them"? Have you never heard about the Terrorist/Freedom fighter cruise missile? Highly advanced system: + Semi-Autonomous mission planing after given a target + Semi-Intelligent control unit capabel of changing mission plans during the operation and selecting alternate targets + Multiple navigation modes and route planing systems including GPS + Capabel of in-operation route changes, mission replaning and even abort and return + Totally ECM proof + Highly stealthy in it's standard operational environment + Capabel of extremly low Nap Of Earth flying + Basically immune agains Anti Aircraft systems + Multi-day Loitering-capabilities + Payload of more than two tons The system: http://www.answers.com/topic/ford-transit |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 13 2005, 06:16 PM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Extremely limited targeting capacity due to insanely low flight ceiling, though.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 13 2005, 06:59 PM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Yet this also suggests that the nature of the actual target is irrelevant in determining whether or not something is to be considered terrorism (vs. several other possible categories). (In the interests of keeping this thread relatively focused, I won't divert into my own thoughts/experiences/history.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 13 2005, 10:05 PM
Post
#41
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
one peoples fredomfighter are another peoples terrorist/criminal/whatever.
its all basicly a game of words and ways of looking at a incident. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 13 2005, 10:08 PM
Post
#42
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Only if you define your terms loosely and require them to be mutually exclusive.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 13 2005, 10:15 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
Found on Google: (with my tidbits in blue)
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. --FBI Definition *note the FBI says "unlawful". This differs from the definition below, which could (in political circles) be considered "policy". Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change. -Brian Jenkins *Politically recognized nations have the legal right to use or threaten the use of force in pursuit of political goals. Individuals do not have this right. This isn't a very good definition IMO. 2. UN Resolution language (1999): "1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism) If one went only by the above, a person could certainly be a criminal but not a terrorist, but not the other way around. Shadowrunners have such a wide set of objectives that they may be called upon to accomplish, that it would be unjustified to try and pigeonhole them into any one catagory. The definition is determined by the act. For the average shadowrunner (if there is such a thing), getting paid by some party is the common denominator. I consider shadowrunners as basically mercenaries, who's "label" is determined by whatever job they happen to be doing at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 13 2005, 10:53 PM
Post
#44
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
They also firebombed civilian homes because the Japanese government moved the factories into the homes. The Japanese had a nasty habit of doing stuff like this -- putting civilian targets, POW camps, etc in or right next to legitimate military targets to muddle the issue. Furthermore, the military decided that there were no civilians in Japan. And they were basically right. My grandmother would have been something like 10 years old at the time, and she was required to attend camps in which they trained the kids in the naginata and bamboo spear, and prepared them as militia in the event of invasion.
If that is the case, American government is wrong, and is redefining the term to meet its own political needs. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 13 2005, 11:49 PM
Post
#45
|
|||||
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
I'm not sure what you're actually saying here. Clarify? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 14 2005, 12:06 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,012 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Well, the whole "recognized government" part is insane.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2005, 01:14 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
Shadowrunners are not terrorists - they don't cause destruction for its own sake to inspire fear and panic. They are almost the opposite; the ideal run involves getting in and out with none the wiser.
Of course, some of the less "professional" shadowrunners do cause random destruction and indiscriminately attack civilians (as opposed to their corporate targets), but they are still not terrorists, just psychopathic criminals. But generally, such people are considered wannabes and cheap, expendable muscle; not real 'runners. And even they are not terrorists, since they don't have a cause - terrorists are groups like Alamos 3,000. There are a few of the more idealistic shadowrunners who could be terrorists - they do have a cause - but most of them have scruples, as well, so they don't do the indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets that define a terrorist. I suppose a few of these could qualify as terrorists, though. Eco-warriors who will wipe out an entire mining town to get rid of a corporation, or sanctimonious neo-anarchists who will pump an entire complex full of nerve gas because "They're all mindless wageslave drones anyways". They are more the exception than the rule, though. Real shadowrunners are technically criminals, but I put "Other", because it is more complicated than that. They are like illegal immigrants in certain agricultural areas - they may technically be illegal, but they are an integral part of the system regardless. Shadowrunners are routinely employed by the corporations against each other, and the corporations are for the most part satisfied with the status quo. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2005, 01:22 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
I suppose that depends on the job of course. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 14 2005, 01:47 AM
Post
#49
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
If you look at any of the classical definitions of terrorism, none of them require that the actor be acting without the sanction of a recognized government. As I said earlier, there are many "recognized" governments in history that have engaged in terrorism, from the government(s) in charge during the French Revolution (in fact, this is when and where terrorism was first identified from a political science point of view), to the governments of Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, and Mao Zedong's China. The United States government has been involved in activities that have met these classical definitions of terrorism, and it is my opinion that redefining "terrorism" to include only those activities that are unsanctioned by a "recognized government" is a disingenuous attempt to avoid the label when we are involved in such activities. Futher, I think it is a way to ... label perjoratively certain resistance groups that otherwise behave in a reasonable fasion. Keep in mind that under that definition, the colonies in the Revolutionaries would be considered terrorists, the Confederates in the Civil War would be considered terrorists, and it's clear that these groups (and others) were *not* terrorists even if they fit the definition as used by the USA today. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 14 2005, 02:02 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
so basicly, any attack on the civilian population with the aim of creating chaos and political change can be seen as a act of terrorism by the side being attacked? the other side may well define it as anything but terrorism :P
man i love politics, if the definition of a word or label works against you, rewrite the definition or invent a new word or label. like say labeling people held after afghanistan and iraq as something else then prisoners of war, even tho mr president keeps saying that a war on terror is going on :P in the end, a terrorist is one that uses non-political ways to change politics :silly: |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th July 2025 - 04:02 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.