I was speaking as a player who never intentionally slaughters innocents.

Yes, the FBI and Lone Star did their best to run the character into the ground and my PC had to disappear and re-invent t himself all over again. (which is a royal pain when irritated mages can tag your astral signature [SR2]).

However, the distinction between terrorist and non is thus: a terrorist would have intentionally blown up a block of Seattle intending to kill and maim innocent bystanders as the desired result.

By comparison, my PC was responsible for but in no way intended the explosion or the result that followed. Not that it in any way mitigates his responsibility in the matter, but it does (or should) remove from consideration the tags "terrorist" or "mass murderer". Mass killer, yes. Multiple counts of involuntary manslaughter, yes. But not premeditated capital murder.

Of course, to be fair, that's a distinction that would only manifest in a court of law and even then that's providing he lived long enough to make it to trial.

-Siege

Can we please stay off of specific real world events beyond theory? We dont need a flamewar.

I agree with the sentiment that freedom fighter vs. terrorist is defined by the nature of the target: military vs. civilian.

So what about militaries that target civillians? Was the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, or Hiroshima a terrorist act? I personally feel that the differences between terrorism, "freedom fighting," and maybe even some kinds of straight military action are matters of degree. A lot of people want to sleep better at night, I think, and want to make sure they're morally superior to their enemies. Their enemies are saying the same thing about them.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm willing to bet that there's a lot more gray area than a lot of you seem to think.

There are of course grey areas, but terrorism is generally an off shoot of low intensity warfare and guerilla action, and so targetting civilians isn't really justifyable. However, in a total war situation such as WW1 and WW2, normally civilian targets 'become' legitimate military targets, since the civilian population is no longer on the sidelines but actively assisting the military machine. The obvious extremes of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Blitz in London will be argued over forever, but there you go.

wait a tic. Targeting civillians isn't justifiable in low-intensity (I think the current term is "asymmetric?") warfare, where one side is unable to successfully engage the opposing military, but is acceptable in a situation where both sides are capable of military-on-military engagement? That doesn't seem to make sense.

If you ain't got nothin' in the way of military, and you're staring down the US or Britian or any other First World nation, you obviously can't aim for the soldiers - you're going to lose. What then is a viable strategy? Morality aside - and I can't talk to you about morality, you have to decide that yourself - I can envision situations where civvies are about the only possible target.

In terms of shadowrun, I would certainly describe my group as terrorists, on occasion. And I'd apply the same word to a lot of the opposition, some of the megacorps (Aztech in the Yucatan, anyone?), and a lot of the assorted fringe groups. Have any of your players done a run for Winternight without knowing it? Mine have.

Running an evil D&D game is really fricken hard. I mean, a Lawful Evil character is supposed to have no other meaning in life than to lawfully torture other people. And Neutral Evil characters are supposed to want nothing more than sucking people dry of everything, in case they have some use for any of it. Chaotic Evil characters are supposed to simply kill and maim and burn and pillage and rape and whatever. Such people are exceedingly rare IRL, and so almost impossible to "get inside of".

But this has nothing to do with a terrorism game in SR. The characters could be a terrorist cell and only kill "Evil Creatures", such as businessmen and scientists and Americans, etc. Murdering thugs they may well be, but they might have some logical (not reasonable or justifiable, just logical) reasons for what they do.

They wouldn't blow up a busy mall because "It's Evil, BWAHhahahaha", like Evil-aligned characters in D&D might. Instead they think of the people there as subhuman scum, fit only to serve as examples to all other consumers/westeners/pagans/etc that "You Don't Mess With [insert name of fucked up group of people here]".

If you have to use a D&D-simile, such terrorists would feel themselves as being more like D&D elven rangers, killing such Horrible Monsters as orcs, hobgoblins, gnolls and other humanoid races because "Uhh, they're like, you know, evil and stuff." Or paladings, working for a god and dealing swift justice to all the heretics and criminals and beggars and people who spit on the street.

Maybe you're confusing things...

"Terrorism" is a tool.

"Guerrilla warfare" is also a tool.

"Freedom Fighter" is pure PR spin.


What you have is an armed group that can use different tactics and strategies to accomplish its goals.

Terrorism does not need to be urban, Shining Path is a mostly rural group that massacres entire groups of peasants, terrorizing them into submission.

Guerrilla does not need to be rural. Palestinian militants shooting Israeli soldiers in Gaza's cities look very urban to me.

No flames, please. I know I'm being too simple.

This is all a matter of distinctions.
Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter is a political distinction;
Guerilla vs. a "standard" military confrontation is a matter of tactics;
Criminal vs. Revolutionary is a matter of motives (real, imagined or faked).

And a "prime runner" is an extraordinary example of a professional criminal. Change his motives, and you'll have a revolutionary - you can still have "classical" shadow-ops such as datasteals (a Trid-pirate's or revolutionary's way to pick dirt on the government/cort he opposes), sabotage, extractions (the corp has a comrade of you in jail, awaiting execution/experimentation; get him out) and so on. Sure, these things could hav collateral damage, but so do "normal" runs. It's just a matter of who you work for and why. Ofcourse the corps will call you a terrorist - but they'll call you that even if you work for their rival's nuyen.

Both "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" use guerrilla warfare to various degrees; the difference is a matter of perspective.

If your on the receiving end or have an outside perspective then they are considered terrorist, if one sees the violence as beneficial (whether justified for revenge, fighting for God, asserting your political views, etc.) then they are considered freedom fighters.

Shadowrunners, as I understood it, are usually mercenaries. Sometimes these mercenaries can work for one side or another of a political conflict (depending who pays more), but the label of freedom fighter or terrorist will depend on whom you ask. From a corporate perspective the eco-terrorist are just that, to other eco-pro groups they are freedom fighter.

If said Shadowrunner is fighting for a cause other than money, again for whatever reason, the label terrorist or freedom fighter will still depend on the speaker's perspective of the act and not on the Shadowrunner's personal reasons or morality.

I guess that this is such a delicate subject for many people that its difficult not to have a strong opinion which can unconsciously influences their game or their posts.

A good plot device might be to have the characters unknowingly be in a terrorist campaign where although the Johnson might be hiring them as per usual, the targets and effects of their runs might leave thema little sick to the stomach. One could use it as an object lesson on checking your Johnson's background. For example: The characters are hired to smuggle certain people into the Tir - shortly after the run a bomb goes off in a crowded mall. See how many of these incidents go by before the PCs catch on.

haha, no kidding. using the IRA to define the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is not liable to win your argument for you, no matter which side of the debate you're on.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

A terrorist is one who uses fear tactics against a civilian population to achieve a goal. They can be freedom fighters, zealots, madpersons, governments, crime syndicates and so on.

indeed. there's no neat line that divides 'freedom fighters' from 'terrorists', unless you've got a vested interest in the political spin on a given group.

Calling something a terrorist and it actually being one are two different things. Russia was never a communist country, but what did we call them? I agree the term is useless because of how it's used by every politico to accuse the enemy of, but that doesn't change what it really means.

You can argue all you want that "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are just labels, but that's pointless - imagine that, language is subjective, how surprising.

What matters is that there is a very clear practical difference between the actions of WWII resistance movements, or firing a Stinger at a Russian military helicopter in Afghanistan, and driving a car containing explosives into a military checkpoint containing 5 enemy soldiers and surrounded by 150 of your own countrymen.

Of course they do.

It's not like the authorities are particularly interested in making proper legal distinctions as much as stirring up public emotion.

-Siege

How do you distinguish targetting civilians from targetting infrastructure and/or morale? Who supports the government and/or war machine?

So terrorism, like the atomic bomb, is a weapon of whoever does not hold conventional military dominance?

Who's excluding the military? It's just a dirty trick we don't like when used against us.

I think I'll start a campaign where the characters are Subjugation Fighters, a squad-sized group using methods of conventional warfare, unconventional warfare or terrorism to raise political, economical and popular pressure in a large nation to conquer Finland.

Any information on whether the Eurowars saw intentional attacks against civilians? [Defined as any target containing civilians or property of civilians that is not considered a legitimate target in conventional warfare, check the resolution history of any decent humanitarian organization.] Since Russia was part of it, I could see that happening. I don't think any military of a 1st World Western nation has intentionally targeted civilian populations since maybe the Vietnam War, feel free to show me wrong.

i'm not sure how the idea that "the military supports the government/war machine" makes any kind of sense at all. the military does not produce its own weapons. the military does not grow its own food. the military does not make its own equipment. the military does not cast its own bullets. if we bomb the plant that makes our enemies' bullets, is that terrorism? what if we bomb the plant that purifies the metals used to make those bullets? saying that it's terrorism to target any civilians at all is incredibly naive, and wholly unworkable.

I don't think that's what the implication of targetting civilians is about, I think the implication is that "terrorism" is to deliberately target the civilian population, ie bombing peoples homes, bars, clubs and restaurants. I think most people would agree that munitions factories and metalworks are fair game in a war, but a persons home, bar, or shoe shop isn't.

Even if the house in question was that of the commander of the enemy forces? Or even if it was Hitler's loveshack? Or Saddam's Hole away from Home? Or Mr Bin Laden's cave sweet cave?

or the CEO of the munitions company. or the water supply of the town the plant is in. or the shoe shop that all the people at the plant work at, in order to undercut their resolve to back the war.

Humans have drawn a whole lot of lines there. There are several definitions out there about what's considered a legitimate target in conventional warfare, if you wish to dig them up. The CEO of a munitions company is not a legitimate target, though if the person happens to be in the factory when it's blown up I don't think anyone will raise a fuss.

I'm pretty sure that water supplies to be used by any civilians are not legitimate targets (by any definition), nor are any businesses as far removed from warfare as a shoe shop, regardless of whether ammunition manufacturers are there. The manufacturers themselves aren't legitimate targets. In the recent wars, most plants and factories are hit at night, partly in order to minimize collateral damage/civilian casualties -- probably more in order to minimize own losses, but still.

If there is reason to believe that the commander of the enemy forces (or indeed any military personnel, or other legitimate targets) happens to be in a house, such a house is usually considered a legitimate target as well. However, I'm pretty sure most human rights orgs and the UN agree that if the same building also happens to house a few hundred civilians, it's no longer a legitimate target. "It's relative."

That's why human shields actually work in some cases to prevent, or at least make more difficult, attacks by 1st World countries. 5,000 old people, women and children sitting in an oil refinery will make the leaders of any civilized army think twice about and decide against bombing it. What is usually called a terrorist organisation would be all the more exited about blowing the place up.

I'm not saying modern conventional wars don't kill masses of civilians, and I'm certainly not trying to justify warfare. But in most people's minds there's one hell of a difference between wars fought conventionally and wars fought by means of terrorism.

And in a last ditch effort to save this thread from oblivion:
What books, if any, have detailed information about the Eurowars? How much light will SoE shed on the matter, once it comes out? How conventional and clinical was it -- was it a "wargame" fought mostly on tactical screens or did it include massive collateral damage and unconventional operations?

I believe the Eurowars were pretty much wargames fought by computers - I mean, look how it ended, UK forces just blew up all the command centres in one night, pretty damn clinical to me, and non of the books I've read go into much detail about "lasting effects" in the same way they do about some more conventional disasters. Target: Wastelands would surely have been full of places if mass devastation did occur.

I'd speculate that the war involved a lot of covert ops to grab ritual samples of command centres, which is why it took a while before it ended over night, then once everything was in place, it was probably magic rather than actual bombing raids that took the places out. I'm not sure how involved the Tir was in the Eurowars, if they weren't (given how isolationist they are I wouldn't be surprised), then I'd guess the UK did have the magical edge to pull it off.

It was never provent that it was British fighter/bombers that did that.

It just happened to be an aircraft in common production used (almost exclusively) by the Brits...

It wasn't more proved that the airplanes were Nightwraith. The Swedish said they thought they were Nightwraiths. As far as military intelligence can go, it could as well having been mobile labs trucks flying accross Northern Europe. We don't know what data from the Swedish air defense were released and under which circunstances. We don't know if and who outside of the Brits had Nightwraith or similar aircraft. Still, the German and the Russian seem to go by the British track. But there's nothing that say the operation was conduced by a single country or corp.

Obviously what your going to get when you post a "what about a terrorist campaign." Is that in somefolk's head the image of WTC will pop in there first and you get the "How could you even consider it."

True Terrorist suck, damn they do. But Shadowrun is already about criminals. Taking it to Terrorism is sort of a bump up from criminals . Though a large bump up. Sheese though, I've read a lot the stories of Munched up combat monsters. Whose main adversaries may well be Mr. Bob Ihaveafamily the Security Guard. Blowing up a bus full of children probably wont be to much of a "chore" for such amorals.


Me I probably would not play a terrorist. Though I admit it would be fictional, I liked playing GTA for instance, nothing stopped me there. I would play say as a guerilla down in south america or fighting with the HUK or something. I also wanted to do a villian campaign where we try to take over a city or something, that would be fun. But no Suicide bombing.

Side note: Terrorism isn't just about killing soft targets. Don't they still get called terrorists when they assasinate a president. Or what about Hackers and Deckers. Cyberterrorism anyone?

k10, you're looking at it kinda backwards. yes, of course there wouldn't be a bomb industry without the military--but nobody sits down and says "okay, if we kill off their military, no one will buy the bombs!" nobody attacks an army in order to reduce that army's support industries, it's the other way around.

your definition is, honestly, wholly unusable in any real situation. it's fine for someone to define things in absolute terms of black and white, but if those definitions paralyze them completely, how does that help them?

i think, in terms of gaming, that we should stop trying to define the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. it was a bad idea to phrase the original question the way it's phrased--after all, the characters themselves won't think of themselves as terrorists, even if that's what the rest of the world refers to them as.

Actually, I'd be happy just to scrap the term terrorist. It's a cliche as used in the world today.

[edit]
What terms would be good to replace terrorist and freedom fighter?

[edit]
Distributed Network Army
Independent Rebel Factions

I don,t know, at this point it just boils down to semantics.

If you're playing a Winternight cell, pawns of Alamais (or Aden...), Knights of the Red Branch, or a Sixth World equivalent of the IRA... whtether you call your game a "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" campaign shoudln't change a lot about the game.

Additionally, if we exclude "suicide-bomber" type terrorirm, such a campagin could be enjoyable, as the characters aren't likely to simply make a suicidal move and their actions will usually be well-planned, commando-type operations.

If you like a campaign full of Faces & Deckers and don't need as much action, you could play members of Benevolence International. For the more direct action, you can replace the term "terrorist", in addition to those mentioned above by The Synthcat with "undercover operative of Jemaah Islamiah", "al Qaeda" or any name of the format "Jihad/Army/Armed Front/Resistance Group/Revolutionary Group/Warriors/Party/Brigade/Organization Of [Nation]/[State]/People/God/Liberation/Freedom".

A few adjectives can be added for flavor, with Secret, Holy, Righteous and National as well as Repressed and Marginalized being popular favorites.

Here's some interesting reading on the subject:

http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_g...ion_warfare.htm

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the possibility of playing a group of runners hired as mercenary squads or advisors to a terrorist organization. Personally, I think it could be executed quite well.