I'm not sure you're using the same definition of "insignificant" as everyone else in the history of the language. If 9/11 was so "insignificant," we wouldn't be having this conversation about it right now, would we? A few thousand people would've died, a couple buildings would've been messed up, and we wouldn't have even talked about it past two or three days after the fact, right?

Sometimes numbers, alone, aren't significant -- just like a pebble isn't. But when those numbers take on a larger meaning (due to the intent behind the body count, the nature of the deaths, the location, the cause) they can make some waves -- just like that pebble can disrupt the surface of a body of water.

The body count, alone, of 9/11 might not have been enough to impress someone as too-cool and cynical as you, Hyzmarca. But calling the event itself insignificant is absolutely ridiculous.

I don't think hyzmarca is cynical. I think he is just a bit more rational than many people. I share his point of view. And most people who are not US Americans do.

For the record: I don't share his POV on arms.

I could go into a long rant and get heavily involved in this argument. I won't. I don't have the time or the energy to post a massive discussion over this. I do, however, have the time to post this.

The one ideal I've always noticed among the Founding Fathers of the U.S. is that they strongly believed that, should the need arise, the populace should have the capacity to overthrow the U.S. government. The people should have the capacity to march on the White House and kill the President on national television for tyranny if they decided to. They wanted a system where the government feared and was controlled by the people. If they saw the U.S. as it has turned into, they'd surrender to England in a heartbeat to stop it.

The most important quote I remember is "Any man willing to give up a little freedom for security is deserving of neither freedom nor security." Translation: If you think you have to sacrifice rights of the American people to make sure the nation is safe, you should be shot for treason. Period. That is the attitude that the Founding Fathers tried to make sure would survive to this day, and they would probably consider it our patriotic duty to hunt down and kill everyone in the U.S. who is willing to sacrifice the freedom of the American people, starting with the people who are closest.

That is no longer the U.S. that exists. The U.S. as it exists today is a nation that, frankly, I find to be on its last legs as an attempt at democracy. Historyically, nations like the U.S. have never maintained any form of democracy without falling apart, and most of them slowly fade from it. Given time, the U.S. will stop being a republic and start being something else. The only way to change that is to destroy the United States. People like Ben Franklin would probably argue that it is our patriotic duty as Americans to rise up, kill our government, destroy our entire political system, and start over from scratch. But then, people like Ben Franklin wouldn't even recognize the modern U.S. as being anything close to their ideal. Instead, they would be trembling in internal fear and disgust that this is what they created.

That is why I do not call myself a patriotic American. I am not willing to kill my fellow citizens in the name of preserving our nation. I am not willing to overthrow the government to preserve our nation. I am perfectly willing to sit by and watch the United States rot from the inside out as part of empirical testing to prove that democracies and republics cannot work with humans. Thus, by the very ideal of the Founding Fathers, I am probably one of the greater traitors who has posted on this thread. But, to them, everyone who has posted in support of what the American government is doing to prevent terrorism in the U.S. would be guilty of an even greater act of treason than I am. And I agree with them wholeheartedly.

Sometimes, life isn't pretty, isn't nice, and isn't how you want it to be. I want you to reflect on that as you think about what I have said.

As a soldier you are taught to protect civilians and as a terrorist you are taught to kill them. On that level the difference could not be more clear. I'm basing my claims on what I read in the newspapers though. And from what I get reported to me, it does seem like civilian suffering and death is not lessened by the attacker being a nation. If you look at Israel and Palestine, Palestine civilian casualties are concistantly the highest as far as I know.

I would never dream of calling soldiers terrorists, that was not my intention.

I'm nurturing a suspicion that the people in power, even in our western nations, does in fact want the population to suffer and be afraid in the countries they are attacking, and see that as an important goal. Perhaps this is the terrorist's own fault for hiding behind civilians, and being so damn hard to flush out that starving and bombing a country back to the stone age is the only way to defeat them.

If the results of war is in fact horribly terrorizing to civilians, and this is the predicted outcome—I think I can get away with calling the one responsible for starting a war a terrorist, at least.

@Lilith:I think you're taking the founding fathers a bit too literally. For example, a pretty basic form of freedom and security is to have an army to protect you from invasion. That of course costs money, which means that taxes have to be collected. And taxes mean that people don't have the freedom to spend their money as they wish. They don't have the freedom to not pay taxes - if you don't pay taxes, either you take away their property (violating private ownership rights) or we throw you in prison (pretty much as far from free as you can be while still breathing).

I think the founding fathers agreed with the above, even though it goes against a very literal interpretation of their words. Like many political statements it requires the application of some common sense afterwards.

I'm I the only one who thinks that the words "Terrorism" or "Terrorists" are mentionned far too often everywhere? It's very hard those day to listen, watch or read something without those words in it.

Don't you think It's like a big trend...

I will bow out now, and I would just like to add that I will take what has been said here under concideration. Simply because it is rare that I have this conversation with anybody who has a view much different than my own at heart, and therefor it has been interesting.

The problem of civilian deaths in war is becoming increasingly difficult to solve. Prior to World War II wars were fought primarily away from population centers, fronts moved slowly and aerial bombardment was very limited. In World War II aerial bombardment became common and thousands of dumb bombs were dropped on industrial centers (and anything that looked like one) in Europe and Japan bringing war to cities and civilian population in a way not seen since medevial sieges. As technology improved it became possible to use one or two precision bombs to destroy a target that would have required a wing of B-17s fully loaded to ensure you hit in 1944, which has reduced significantly civilian deaths in bombing campaigns. However as aerial bombardment became more effective it started another arms race between bombers and anti-air defense systems, currently bombers are in the lead. Some lower budget groups have found a third option to combat airpower, public opinion. People have less sympathy for civilians who are injured because they refused to leave the vicinity of a known ammo dump even after being warned (remember Israel went to great lengths to warn civilians to leave the area before the bombs started falling) than they do for peple killed when a school or hospital is hit. When a force decides to use public opinion as a shield they do things like set up Surface to Surface Missiles in school yards or apartment courtyards or hospital parking lots, because it's much cheaper than building hardened launchers and an air defense network. In the case of the recent Hezbollah-Israel conflict there is some evidence that Hezbollah operatives used threats to keep civillians from leaving the area prior to the bombing. Tactics like the ones Hezbollah used were also employed by Saddam Hussein during the Iraq invasion. In short the air defense option employed by the opposition has nearly as much an effect on the number of civillian casualties as the method employed to eliminate the targets being defended.

Don't worry. I'm sure the UN will make some sort of resolution and that'll fix everything.

If you find yourself in a situation where you think taking a hostage might be a good idea you've already lost.

Except in very restricted circumstances hostage taking is not a way to salvage the run, it's a way to get yourself even more screwed.

It worked in The Negotiator!

True, but no matter how cool they think they are, real life hostage takers and shadowrun characters are not Samuel L. Jackson.

Next movie he's in: The Negotiator 2

Tagline: I'm sick of all these Muthaf@#$in' hostages on my Muthaf@#$in' plane!

I stated my piece. Disagree as you will. Like I said, I don't have the time or energy to go into a long and arduous argument over it. Besides, I'm having too much fun watching people argue on here.

Well, there's a difference between being nice and accepting that people will disagree, or pulling something like some of our members do and trolling everyone who disagrees on your way out. Like, say, when discussing encumbrance rules.

Oh, hey, someone assumed I was talking about them. Guilty conscience?

Hey, I wasn't making a big deal out of it. Couple of posts that amount to nothing and we move on. If I wanted to make a big deal, I'd make a topic, post example links, and make it a major discussion point.

Now, you're dismissed. When it's time for you to amuse me, I'll let you know.

Taking the gang boss hostage might work for a long time. Taking the wage slave of a corporation hostage might kill you in the next half hour.

The morale: when taking hostages in SR4, you better know when and how to to get away.

Only take hostages that the opposition isen't willing to kill to see you dead.


For example, taking a gang leader hostage works, only as long as the gang is loyal.


Taking a wageslave hostage never works unless the opposition is Lone Star, and the wageslave isen't.

Taking the president of a company hostage works 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time, the Spec. Ops are more loyal to their boss than their president.

Taking the President of the UCAS hostage is garunteed to work, but only as long as he or she's a hostage. Once they have them back safe and sound, your life is worth precisely null.


And as for terrorism and the modern military...


It is regretable that unconventional warfare specialists choose to place their listening posts and ammunition dumps and intelligence agencies on the top floors of hospitals and schools, and their portable SSM launchers in schoolyards.

Nevertheless, our primary obligation is to ensure the safety of our own civilians, our secondary obligation is to ensure the completion of the military goal, our tertiary obligation is to ensure the safety of our soldiers. The enemy's civilians rank 4, and the enemy's soldiers rank as an "If you think you can take 'em alive, good luck" bonus.

The lives of unconventional combatants should be forfiet by default.

Sadly, to ensure obligations 1 through 3, 4 must frequently suffer. This would not be the case had the enemy the moral fortitude to back their moral outrage at our way of life, and had the good decency to build their military targets away from population centres.

Sadly, this is not the case. Hezbollah kept crying "Full on war! Full on war!" So where were their airfields and motor pools, where were their ammunition dumps and compounds? Where were their launch sites?

If you said "Out in the middle of nowhere, where any responsible military puts them, so as to keep civilians out of harm's way", you are a loser. Bzzzzt!

If you said "Smack in the center of civilian areas, where you can't attack them with even the most precise weapons without generating civilian casualties", then you win the 10,000 prize.


That's what Isreal and the United States is facing. Against such foes, only three options practically present themselves:

1) Capitulate to their demands.
As has been proven in the past, this seldom works, and it inevitably leads to the recurrance of the situation which allowed demands to be levvied.

For example, this is nowhere near the first time Hezbollah alone, not to mention many other orgnizations, have kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians, and demanded the release of extreemist prisoners in return. For example, I don't remember the correct date or time, so I can't cite it, but I remember clearly reading that one time Isreal traded 400 prisoners for three dead soldiers and a live bisunessman.

You give a rat a cookie, and he's gonna want a glass of milk.

2) Attack them as best you can, without producing undue danger to civilians. This is the option America and Isreal have adopted. Unfortunately, it's the second most dangerous, after capitulation. And it generates more media outcry. (Vietnam, anyone?) Which is ironic, since D-Day alone generated more Allied casualties than the whole Tet offensive, and all of Vietnam was like a slow month during World War II.

3) Overwhelming force with no regard to enemy civilians. This is the easiest, safest, and sure-firest way to prevent terrorism. Forget a ground war, just unleash as many FAEs, ultra-high-yield conventional explosives, and nukes as you can on your enemy. Wipe them off the face of the earth for their insolence in daring to attack you, and the next guys may think twice. If they don't, do it again, and the third guys will almost certainly think twice. If they still don't, keep repeating it until they either beg for peace, or you've run out of bad guys to nuke.


Obviously, number three raises some really big moral issues. But it will stop the terrorism.

Number one won't stop the terrorism at all, and in fact encourages it. But when they can continue to extort you, they probably won't try to slaughter you en masse.

Number two is the most moral option, but it's also (predictablly) the hardest. You have their civilians hating you for every civilian that accidently dies, you have your civilians hating you for every soldier that dies trying to prevent undue deaths to the other guy's civilians. You're trapped in a holding pattern with your soldiers unable to leave or the terrorism starts up again, with your soldiers dieing trying to prevent it, and their civilians dieing when you do prevent it.

Aaaah.

"The ends justify the means."


No, they do not. 9/11, Madrid, and London are all tragedies, but tragedies perpetuated by criminals. This does not give the government the right to begin stripping away the lives of our citizens willy-nilly.

You don't quite seem to understand there, smokey.

Lemme lay it out for you. Yes, police are going to make mistakes, and maybe a jury will even convict an innocent person.

But in the face of terrorism, the response is not to systematically destroy those things which make our way of life unique! Osama bin Laden won 9/11. He changed America, and not for the better. While G. Dubyah beat on his war drum chanting 9/11, and the Patriot act was rushed through congress and anyone who opposed it was branded Anti-American...

Osama has won. He destroyed the freedoms that he hates in America so much.


That's NOT what we want. When we have people who want to look up information for something so innocent as a role-playing game, but afraid to do so for fear of getting on a government watch-list created to watch terrorists... Osama has won! When RPG companies are raided and everything they have siezed without warrent or Warrent... Osama has won! When innocent men are grabbed at a border and detained for five years without being charged, Osama has won!

And especially when the government begins instituting Orwellian policies that allow them to listen in and read your emails and correspondances and monitor your phone calls... Osama has won.



You don't see to understand what kind of a society these things breed. How far of a step is it from watching for people mentioning the president and explosives to grabbing them? The last I checked, this was still a free country. Saying "George Bush is the worst president ever, and I hope someone kills him" is constitutionally-protected speech. But in today's society, people are afraid that if they do that, five guys in a black van are going to grab them off the streets, haul them to an unnamed detention center, deny them access to a lawyer, and strip away their lives.

That's not right!


And further, how far is it from policing for 'terrorism' is it to adding a clause to police for other words? Like say, I dunno. "Gay pride". "<Insert name of oil company here>." "<Insert name of every senator here>." "Jew." "Nazi." and so forth and so on?

When does it end? The answer, is that if you permit it to start, even for the most urgent of goals, it never ends.

That is why we had systems of checks and balances in place. That is why the government coulden't simply beat in your door and take your stuff without a warrent.


Without these kinds of checks and balances, our society CRUMBLES! The American way of life is American in name only and no more, and Osama bin Laden has won!

Is that what you want?

I wouldn't go so far as to say Osama's "destroyed our freedoms." If things were as bad as some people like to paint them, we couldn't be having this conversation right now, safely.