Hey, I agree that the definition needs some clarification. I propose:

"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property of a civilian population, or any segment thereof to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

That is an accurate statement about any country with a strong histroy of civilian militias and resistance to occupation. Bin Laden said the same about the US and that statement carries the same accuracy when one considers the implications of the Second Amendment and the rich history of civilian resistance as exemplified by Nancy Morgan Hart

However, that policy doesn't stand up scrutiny. Certainly, it isn't someting Sun Tzu would have approved of because it makes securing peace with the conquered population exceedingly difficult.

However, I wasn't even thinking of Japan. I was thnking of Germany, Hamburg and Dresden specificly, although one could argue that Dresden lacked any real value as a military target and was just an attempt to terrorize civilians. Dresden did have rail yards, which could be considered legitimate targets as part of transportation infrastructure. Rails are painfully easy to repair, however.

This could be related to the status of Shadowrunners only if they are the most anti-corporate type of runner. Fighting against the tyrany of corporations could make one a terrorist or a freedomfighter. On the other hand, if they were mercenaries hired be Amazonia to attack Aztlan then they would be preforming legitimate military operations even if Aztlechnology decided to call them terrorists.

Nothing wrong with attacking cities. It is the there are no civilians policy that goes contrary to The Art of War as it only serves to multiply enemy forces and make defection less likely.
Much of The Art of War is written with the assumption that enemy populations would eventually be annexed in whole or in part. One of the major philosophies of Sun Tzu is to take resources, including troops, from captured enemy territory insted to siphoning them from one's own civilian population.

In the United States, you can expect a significant militia resistance if you invade us, but you cannot expect that 80%+ of the population -- including women and children -- will rise up against you and fight to the death as was the case with Japan.

To say that there were no civilians in WWII Japan is a reasonably accurate statement. They were religious/nationalistic fanatics who were conditioned to believe that death was preferable to surrender. It took an act of divine intervention (literally, from their point of view) to get them to stand down.

Totally different situations. Bin Laden had already come to the conclusion that he was going to attack our civilians, and then came up with some mealy-mouthed justification about there being no civilians in the USA. It's obvious that's the case; what's the justification Al-Qaeda gives for attacking civilians in Iraq? Their "reasons" are not justifications, they are *excuses*.

Fair enough. My knowledge of the European front is a bit weak, so I can't really speak to that, except to say that I have always been fairly uncomfortable with the devestation in Europe given that there *were* large civilian populations there.

The Japanese (as a nation) earned every bit of what they got in WWII -- including the atomic bombs. They were the aggressor in every instance, the civilian populace was expected to fight to the last to force a pyrrhic victory on any invader, and had they won, they would have had even less sympathy for us than I have for them. I can have sympathy for individual Japanese, but as a nation, they really did ask for it.

And the thread has jumped the shark.

~J

I believe Sun Tzu's biggest qualm with attacking cities was that it tended to be a laborious affair that usually cost more than it achieved. While the enmey was holed up in their city, you were free to go where you pleased, when you pleased. By attempting to invade the city, you essentially made your force static, and multiplied the enemy's strength (by virue of the advantage a force defending such a target has).

Attacking the enemy's will to fight is for certain an effective tactic. However, to take the objective in tact is the greater goal. If you intend to capture and maintain control of a region, you can hardly say that you took it in tact when the occupied population despises you (in addition to your having invaded them) for the numerous abuses and atrocities committed by your troops in the name of subjugation of will. Such acts breed contempt and rebellion rather than win hearts and minds, which is the preferrable option.

If you guys are interested in Sun Tzu, I would reccommend you guys pick up some Clausewitz if you havn't already. He delves much more into political objective and other topics which you may find interesting.

That is the difference between a CONVICTED criminal and a criminal.

Look up criminal:

So if I go to Singapore where it's illegal to spit on the ground, under orders from the President to desecrate their walkways and I spit on the ground by Singapore law, I am now a criminal! Being caught has nothing to do with it.

For all you arguing shadowrunners aren't terrorists, have you ever had a run where you had to be a mob enforcer? Where you had to destroy or steal a prototype? Where you had to kill people who might testify or otherwise convince them? Used force in ANY sort of politically related game?

Those could all be considered terrorist acts (and, given the definitions stated, probably are). It's using unlawful force against civilian targets to achieve a political ends, be it changing a company's product line, changing a person's verdict in court, or deciding who wins the election.

Have any of you been on a run that caused massive amounts of damage? Have you caused more than 10 otherwise unconnected deaths within a small geographic area? Have any of your runs gotten significant publicity as a violent criminal act?

Given our current laws in the US, you COULD be tried as a terrorist. I brought up the DC sniper who had absolutely no interested in changing political views or scaring people. His goal was to muddle his motives to detectives. However, because he did scare the general populace, he was tried as a terrorist.

It isn't always about motives alone when it comes to the law.

Shadowrunner: "Professional Shadowrunner. A shadowrunner is someone that takes your money I believe. A professional shadowrunner takes your money and does the job. You were going to pay me for my time, were you not?"

No, you wouldn't be a criminal. You would be commiting an act of war as an agent of the United States. As such, the civil laws of Singapore don't apply to you. If you are arrested you would be a POW entitled to protection under the Genvea Convention.

That is, untill the President formally disavows any knowledge of your actions. Then, you are not only a criminal, you are one with the Hung Out to Dry flaw.

Shadowrunners are usually hired to commit acts of war. However, their employers will usually deny hiring them to commit acts of war.

woops that's my fault. This is what happens when I'm in a rush and forget to check names before I post. My pacific theater knowlage is kinda shaky. It was actually Admeral Oka that I was refering to who was sentanced to life imprisonment but paroled in 1954.

It might be a diplomatic problem, but I don't think spitting on the sidewalk could possibly be construed as an act of war, nor could driving on the wrong side of the street.

Are you seriously suggesting that any action my government encourages me to do that happens to be illegal where I am is an act of war? I wasn't aware that say bribery or copying classified documents were both legal and declarations of war if someone with a gov't job tells me to do them.

I think your logic is missing an important leap.

Any willfull violation of another nation's Soverignty is an act of war.

There is also an exemption for 'citizens who take up arms to resist and invasion', they have to be treated as legal combatants as well.

[edit]
Here's that section

[/edit]

As runner's don't do any of these, they are 'unlawful combatants' and can be subjects to whatever rules the detaining power wants (at least, by the rules of warfare), usually summary execution.

Of course, only the signatories of the Geneva convention are bound by its rules. (Are any of the megacorps signatories?)

Do the deaths have to be intentional?

I mean, it's not like the mage knew the drone he tossed onto the freeway was a giant bomb that would kill 350 people...

Uh, no, actually.

Terrorism (in the modern sense) began around the 1880s with the Russian Decembrists and similar anarchists, socialists, etc.

The incident you refer to (the King David Hotel bombing) is arguably terrorism. The target was the British military HQ in the building...And, in terrorism, the target makes all the difference.

Also, a small definitional issue. Folks...Legally...

States cannot commit terrorism.

If anybody remembers basic international relations (if you ever learned about it in an academic setting), you'll recall that among the fundamental properties of sovereign states are that they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

Acts of violence committed by a state against another state are called acts of war, plain and simple.

Acts of violence committed by a non-state actor against a state are terrorism.

Acts of violence committed by a non-state actor against a non-state actor are (usually!) just plain crime.

Acts of violence committed by a state against a non-state actor are unremarked upon by traditional international law. Against one's own people...In international law, silence is the rule there. Dates back to the Peace of Westphalia. You have to go over the top, and do things like real, live, unmistakable genocide to get noticed. (Which is why you basically never hear the word genocide breathed against a state by states that value their credibility, which is any of them. Even the US declarations on Darfur were finely-tuned not to actually declare that genocide was in progress. It legally imposes obligations to intervene...Somehow, though law never says how.)

Against someone ELSE'S people (and the else can only be another state), it's called a war crime.

Sicarius is right.

The UCAS is most definitely a legal successor state of the United States of America and definitely the legal successor to the Dominion of Canada. (Which creates some really, really fun questions...Someone may want to clarify what happened to the Commonwealth. )

The CAS has a very plausible claim to be a successor state to the United States of America, as well. Given how it seemed to work out after the Treaty of Richmond, I suspect that it is. (Yes, two successors can exist to one previous. The last time, however, that anybody actually dealt with the international law on successor states was when Yugoslavia shattered. Serbia more or less took up everything from that, legally, which made everything much, much easier (secession is far more covered territory than a simple collapse, obviously).) One question never addressed in SR: How did they ever split the US public debt up between the NAN and the US, or the UCAS and CAS, or..? The Ottoman Empire's collapse is the last time we actually saw something like that.

The NAN states are a successor to nobody, and arise anew (bar the aforementioned debt). The same with Tir Tairngire. They have to sign everything.

Aztlan would take up Mexico's legal obligations.

Very, very, very interesting questions arise re California.

Hawai'i (in respect to any obligations arising from its previous status as part of the US or, previous to that, as an independent nation) makes my head hurt.

Trans-Polar Aleut, in respect to Alaska, would similarly be interesting, to say the least.

Kage...You raise some very interesting questions.

Oh, and a simpler question: What ever happened to the Hot Line?

Currently? Not necessarily. Proving lack of intent can be very difficult. That said, you'd still be caught for felony manslaughter.

Thank you for bringing up what I already said earlier, which was promptly never addressed.

At least somebody knows this.

Personally I deny that concept, as it leaves the word devoid of meaning.

~J

The keyword there being "legally." I am not overly concerned with the legal definition of terrorism not including state actors; the academic versions (which I am more concerned with) do include state actors.

It's obvious that the states who define the laws don't want to be called "terrorists" -- it's in their best interests, and the laws reflect that. Imagine a dictator changing the law so that members of his family cannot legally commit murder. Just because it's not murder according to the laws of the locale doesn't mean it's not really murder. I consider that to be basically the same thing as states defining laws that say states can't commit terrorism.

In other words: Just because states cannot be held legally responsible for terrorist acts does not mean that they cannot commit acts that are terrorist in nature.

It is well established in academia that states can engage in terrorism; in fact, the situation in which terrorism was originally identified as such was during the Great Terror under the First French Republic. (Transcript of discusson on the matter, look for Sloan's commentary)

It's actually correct. A state can

a) Support terrorism like the GDR (with the RAF) or Lybia

b) Use "deniable assets" or "good reason" like France against GreenPeace (Rainbow Warrior) or the Iran against the US embassy and the US rescue operation against Iran

+ If caught and the target is not a state => Criminals (Rainbow Warrior)
+ If caught and the target is a state =>

i) If you are lucky the other guy calls it "espionage" (USA vs. UdSSR)
ii) Or he can do nothing without loosing too much face (US vs. Iran vs. US)
iii) If none of the above, the other guy is "shooting back"[1]

c) Declare war

That sometimes an act that screams "WAR" get's overlooked has a lot to do with the fact, that between them, the two involved nations could have killed the planet 10+ times over and both prefer not too (Cuba-Crisis, U2 shootdown etc)


Birdy

[1] Using the "caught in the act" number was the (rather stupid) german plan in 1939, claiming the Poles had attacked a german radio station

I understand what you're saying Vaevictis, a spade is a spade, but States cannot be charged with terrorism.

When a state commits an act of "terrorism", it is policy. That's the way it is, they can do it. If you don't like it, run for office.

The word terrorist is used to describe individuals and organizations, not recognized governments (whether you like it or not), because recognized governments have the right to commit "terrorism" as policy.

Everybody wants their meaning to be the one on those stone tablets, so why don't you tell me?

We don't know. It certainly isn't today, but what I was trying to say is that basically, people are going to see things (and describe them) in whatever way they want to.

One person will see a guy blow up a bus full of kids and call him a terrorist, and someone else will call him a hero. But in the end, all he really is, is a guy who blew up a bus full of kids.

You can't really solve the Right/Wrong argument, because everybody's views will be different. Right and Wrong are "abstracts", so whoever is in power, as you said earlier will be the ones to define those terms, for good or ill. You may not agree with it, but so long as those people are the ones defining it, you have to live with it.

Debate is to defend the use of the term "dord" in a scientific research parer and fail miserably at it.

Sometimes, dictionaries are wrong

Nothing can be taken at face value, not even the most obvious definition. Such is the case with "terrorism".

I personally took that as the original question of the forum.

Legally speaking, are runners terrorists or criminals? If we don't have a set pov, the question is meaningless. As a government worker for the US, there are people who think I'm a terrorist. There are also people who think Bin Laden isn't a terrorist, but a freedom fighter. So realistically, we should pick with the most widely accepted view, which is generally the legal one.

In which case, political motivations aren't the only reason to label a shadowrunner a terrorist.