Legally definingall Shadowrunners as terrorists would be bad for those who hire Shadowrunners, which includes every lawmaking entity in the world.

Unless they defined it with an "Except in this case,..."

I think the best corporate and government policy regarding Shadowrunners is a simple one, they do not exist. They are an urban myth perpetuated and popularized by the mass media. They are no more real than hook-handed seriel killers who terrorize teenagers as they make out.

Now, there are criminals who sometimes do terrible things for money, but those criminals certain aren't Shadowrunners and they certainly aren't employed by ay corporation or nation.

I very much doubt any corporation would have need to chime in on the destruction of 5 floors of Seatle General, except Lone Star. Lone Star couls easily classify the runners as psycologically disturbed arsonists with no motive except for the pleasure of watching it burn. Certainly, it would things easier. If the runners were paid Lone Star would have to make some atempt to arest the Johnson who is hiding out on extrateritorial property and then some attempt to arrest whoever gave the Johnson his orders. It would be a PR snafu for all involved.

Pyromaniacs are easier to pass off to the public than terrorists. When Mr. I.M.A. Lone Pyromanic kills hundreds with hi blaze he can be executed and everyone gets closure. If it was terrorists, then there is obviously a group of them. It there is a group, then you have to spend resources to track down and destroy the rest of the orginization. This is rather difficult when the orginization doesn't exist or, worse, you are the orginization.

There is a reason why JFK and MLK were killed by lone gunmen and not terrorists. The government couldn't afford to manufacture an entire terrorist orginization. Manufacturing a lone gunman is much easier.

So are you saying the una-bomber, the DC sniper and the sneaker bomber weren't terrorists? Because, if memory serves, each of them was found guilty of terrorism and none of them were part of a greater organization.

I think they were found guilty of terroristic threats and actions, a fine point. <shrug>

I think it all boils down to intention.

In all the SR games I have run or played in, the people do what they do because someone is willing to pay them to do it, and they cannot/will not earn money from their skills any other way. This is the stereotypical SR game.

The lack of politics or ideology as the reason for commiting crimes makes them criminals in my book.

A terrorist may hire runners to blow up a post office, then make a phone call claiming it for the Peoples Whatever of Whoever. The runners are criminals, working for a terrorist. They are only a tool the terrorist uses to spread fear among the populace of his enemy.

looks more like, if its a group of people thats doing it in a coordinated fashion, then its terrorism. if its one 1-2 going it alone then they are criminaly insane. and its some kids going on a killing spree in their local area, its a tragedy and a failure of the community to help them before it got that far.

thats the fun thing about political labels, they have a bad habbit of changing what they stand for depending on the people that do it and who it affects...

err, sorry?

1. Once assigned, the connotations of the label provide all the information/baggage required. Whatever label is currently being worked with -- almost invariably from the outside -- negates all requirement to think any further about what is involved. (Especially useful when dealing with the press.)

2. To call something a "tragedy" or "criminally insane" (or, for that matter, "terrorism") also states at a very basic level whether something can be understood or should be understood: ie. whether the actions/perpetrators have any place in the rational paradigm of the law-abiding majority and (if yes) what that place is to be.

That last is where the politics come into it: and I'd suggest that the change is based not so much on the people who do it or who it affects, but on the weltanschauung of those assigning the labels. Consider your example of the kids as "tragedy". What does this perception say about the people who choose to name this so? What does this say about the possibility of (either positive or negative) change re similar situations in future? For that matter: what -- inherent to the word itself -- gives any sense of rationality about either action or situation or the kids themselves?

so basicly, by selecting the label, they put colored glasses on the publics perception of a event?

so by labeling something a act of terrorism the person(s) that performed the act should be hated and destroyed.

but by labeling the event as a tragedy the person(s) involved should be understood and shown sympathy...

ill have to remember that

no wonder the line between a true monarchy and a true dictatorship is so small

Of course the words define the events:

Consider if I created an opinion poll that asks the following question:

Do you support sending more troops to Iraq, to fight a war that kills {X} innocent Iraqis each day?

or

Do you support sending more troops to Iraq, to fight the insurgents, which kill {X} innocent Iraqis each day?

The questions are highly similar, but which one do you think will get a positive response. This is one of the reasons why it is so easy to skew survey results. Unless the survey questions are exquisitely 'neutral' there will be a bias in the answers, based solely on the wording of the question, not on the underlying situation that the question is asking about.

This is why groups tend to be so picky about the labels that get attached to them.

Part of this is also the ;victory writes the history books’ phenomena. Asking your random street goer in the West about the Blitz of London (they say it was a bad thing) ask them about the bombing of Dresden and most will say ‘huh?’ and if you explain that it was a city in Nazi Germany, their likely response will be ‘oh, that’s ok then’.

You know, I almost got this confused with the bombing of Guernica, then I decided to double check my tired little brain. Man, that's harsh. While it doesn't excuse the tactic, the Nazi's were engaging in similair tactics at that point in the Blitz.
I'm glad that the specific targeting of general civilian populations was outlawed in the years following WWII. And before someone thinks they know the US targets civilians in Iraq, remember, the US soldiers fighting there are taking and have taken great pains to avoid civilian casualities, except where inaction will have worse consequences.
Also, it is nearly impossible to determine bombers from civilians before it is too late, that makes trusting your gut important.
If a situation is "off" to you, you're probably going to be over cautious with the lives of your unit and the people that you are protecting behind you and fire on someone that is not necessarily making hostile actions but may nevertheless be a threat.

It's all going to be situational, tbh. Different teams, different MO's, different perceptions from the outside.

Team A are espionage/infiltrator types who run clinically precise extractions using careful Matrix overwatch, forged ID's and meticulous research. Casualties on their runs are limited, property damage is minor. External perception: criminals.

Team B are ex-military grunts who also run extractions, but their technique is to stage demolition works to distract the majority of the security force then move through the remainder with ruthless efficiency until they reach and extract their target. Casualties and property damage are both high. External perception: terrorists.

Both teams are highly professional in their sphere of operations (in case I wasn't clear on Team B), but perceptions of them will vary wildly. Lone Star, especially, are going to treat the two very differently, in particular when it comes to the aforementioned trade of leniency for work.

Because (I would hope!) that all our perceptions of what constitutes "terrorism", "criminality", or what in these specific cases is termed "insanity" (you'll notice that neither of those mentioned got off on a Not Guilty Due To Insanity plea) are necessarily external.

[edit: in other words, we apply these labels to others, not ourselves.]

We're the observers in these cases, not the actors -- and because external assessments have never been objective, how observations are interpreted is necessarily highly regional in nature. Someone from the District of Columbia (one of the target zones at the time) will have a very different perception of what these people were than someone watching from Washington State (let alone from Hong Kong).

[Edit: And that's quite apart from which particular media filtre a person chooses to translate current events for them.]

This get's a bit US-centric and let's face it, the US has currently a massiv dose of "Terrorist paranoia". Let's take a look at the rest of the world (Each nation please chip in, we should be an international group)

+ The Brits had a long time terrorist problem (IRA). Did they consider it terrorist or criminal when someone:

- Kills another due to racistic reasons?
- Kills a number of children
- Pulls of a major robbery against the Bank of England

+ Italy has both the "Red Brigades" and the Mafia. How do they handle

- Mafia killing of "attorneys of state"(Staatsanwalt) and Judges
* Using huge! bombs

+ Germany has it's RAF as well as it's right/left wing stupidity cases

- Rassit crime (including murder) is still handled as a crime (Lokal cops)
* This includes bombing

+ Spain (Basques)

+ Russia (Tschetchenians and the Organitska)

+ France (Action Directe) and lot's of racist problems

Let's get this back from the "US" and more to a general overview. Might help

Birdy

I'm suggesting that each societal structure will have their own definition for what constitutes each of those labels (which may or may not be agreed to by the majority btw, even in a representative government). The societal structure -- be it a particular national government (one can't say "country" here: anyone know any single country that's utterly united in its opinions?), or political party, or a small group of friends -- will assign the label, based on how they choose to see the world.

How the person committing the action sees themself is completely irrelevant to the label others place upon him or her. That's what I mean by external.

What the person committing the action actually is, is also somewhat irrelevant to the label others place upon him or her. The action prompts the label; but the actual label chosen suits the purposes of the labeller, not those of the person committing the action.

International law, like any law, is a very gray area: and somewhat grayer now that we know it is possible to "un-sign" a treaty.

So you're saying, because we don't all share precisely the same definition, that there's no reason to even try, much less reference widely held sources as a standard?

Of course, we COULD debate if Shadowrunners are terrorists based on the view of say the people in Atzlan, or in the eyes of the Immortal Elves, but really, why should we care? There are only a three groups I see as mattering in this question:

1) The Shadowrunners view of themselves. I doubt most of them see themselves as terrorists, but even if we do, this is a silly question. Ask the runner and he'll tell you.

2) The Shadowrunners compatriots and neighbors. This is the only place you're going to get a wide range of opinions. They might see them as freedom fighters or mercenaries or whatever. But they're split on their opinions and really, difficult for us to put under a category. I'm not letting myself get pulled into that debate because it's fruitless and silly.

3) The eyes of the political organization that would prosecute them (and possibly the eyes of the organization that hired them.) Since Shadowrun is based in Seattle, using the laws of a descendant of the US, I think it's fair to use the US penal system for a relatively objective view of if they're terrorists. Under the conditions I stated earlier, they will likely be labeled as terrorists (and with good reason!) I suspect most megacorps will, barring exceptions, follow similar rules for defining such things.

If you'd like to argue they're not terrorists from the point of view of a tribe of Indians deep in the Amazon, you're welcome to. Simply understand there DO exist some relevant measures of conduct (US Law, Geneva conventions and the laws of other industrialized nations) and, for the most part, there's an awful lot of agreement between them.

Except, of course, that UCAS law doesn't apply to most of the places shadowrunners normally do their business within Seattle. (Extraterritoriality.)

Other people in this thread have already mentioned that the hiring corp might have reason to spin things differently than the attacked corp, let alone a "neutral" third party. (In other words re #3: similar rules perhaps, but different purposes in applying them -- and thus, quite probably, different outcomes and consequences.) Since "terrorism" is only a label (like "privateering" for that matter -- had that one been brought up in this thread yet?), is there any relevance to finding a common standard where the consequences of imposing that standard are not personally relevant? ie. does any definition really matter except the one under which the shadowrunners are prosecuted?

If no absolute objective answer can be achieved that absolutely correlates label with "fact", do you interpret this as abandoning the question?

so, terrorists are allso criminals, but criminals dont have to be terrorists

Almost, what hobgoblin said ... so long as each term is applied from the same reference point (If it isn't, then we run straight into nezumi's three points.)

Criminals. They aren't terrorists, because they are just working to earn money. Terrorists, as the name suggests, try to cause mass terror in order to coerce people into doing something that they want.

Which, in the regions where we're fighting, has generally been the standard cure to any threat to the authority of the state. Don't just kill him, kill his whole village.

and therefor one can say that one mans terrorist is another mans freedomfighter

nothing like 1000001 shades of gray to gum up the works, no?

there is a reason why its called spin

Ah nezumi, those are US or US influenced sources.

I am NOT! a US citizen, I have the great luck and pleasure to be a german!

What I reported where the german reactions on the guys, not the US ones.


Birdy

A ganger gets rolled for his BTLs by members of a rival gang. He and his crew get revenge by driving by the homes of his attackers with their one car and their one AK-97, ahooting wildly into the homes. Several innocent bystanders are killed.
Who would call them terrorists?

The suborbital situation could easily be written off as a tragic accident. I would certainly be cheaper to do so from the perspective of both corporations and the UCAS government.

Confidence is shaken even further by knowledge that attacks can succeed against them.

~J

I would agree that confidence would be shaken by admitting attacks can be made, but lets compare them:

1) An airplane has difficulties. Despite the availability radios, back up equipment, trained personnel and excellent engineers on both sides, it collides with a major building, destroying them both.

2) An airplane is hijacked. False radio signals are given, back up equipment is never called upon, trained personnel are directly threatened and the airplane is intentionally aimed at the most vulnerable point on the building. The plane successfully collides with the building, destroying both.

Which of the two scenarios more fully frightens you as someone living in a similar building? Would you prefer to know that all of the equipment in the second one is there and had to be intentionally overridden? Or that the equipment isn't there, or doesn't work properly to avoid a crash?

I'd prefer to know the latter. I don't know if I could fly again if I knew planes had a serious problem that caused them to randomly ram into buildings. At least with people you know who's at fault and you can feel like everyone else is 'good' and 'effective'.

Reactions to similar events in the real world suggest that the latter is more alarming to people.

~J

I don't believe 'real world events' ever experienced one of the tallest structures in the world being knocked down by a plane accidentally running into it, so we really can't comment. I can't recollect the last time I've heard of a <b>major/b> building being demolished by an accident anywhere, really.

Had two planes crashed into the trade towers by accident, would that have decreased your confidence more than their being taken over by hostile forces? Which one made you question the safety of tall buildings more?

Of course, in the end, this is a question for the PR people. I would presume a group of criminals you could catch are better than a flaw in the system currently employed around the world. But that's just me.

Me? Neither did for me, but planes have crashed into inhabited areas many times without the loss of confidence exhibited by that event.

~J