An interesting discussion on Shadowrunners came up on another Forum. Are Shadowrunners Criminals or Terrorists?

This dramatically affects how Law Enforcement, Security, & Intelligence Agemcies responses to them.

Arrest and Imprison

Exterminate with Extreme Prejudice

Zero Tolerance

Etc...

Actually they are both since terrorists are criminals, but semantics. I'd have to go terrorists, they (in the public's eyes, mind you) blow stuff up, go have running gun battles, and kill random people because they can. Course that's only some shadowrunners, but can't let the masses know the whole truth can you?

EDIT- To organizations who know better I'd, most likely niavely, say that they are dealt with on a more or less case by case basis. They are not going to become best buddies with those hiring them, but the non-psychopathinc will get treated better.

I'd say both, but only because you specified law enforcement.

The Johnson sees them as assets. The competition may correctly recognize them as corporate espionage agents. Neighbors may see them as rebels or freedom fighters. Fixers may see them as mercenaries. It's just a question of who are you asking the question to?

I think it probably varies from runner to runner. A group that focuses on breaking and entering is going to be labeled as criminals, a group that's blowing up factories and killing cops is probably going to get labeled as terrorist. At least this is how we play it.

To society? Well, if people are as stupid as they are today they'll be terrorists. That being said, Shadowrunners are in it for the money and are themselves a means to an end—if they take a lot of "make people afraid" jobs, they could arguably be terrorists, but their primary goal is still cred.

If you do it for money you are a criminal.

If you do it for politics you are a terrorist/rebel/resistance fighter/whatever depending mainly on how sucessfull you are and who is applying the label but to some small extent on your tactics.

I find that most shadowrunner charachters are criminals.

Shadowrunners are criminals because their motive is profit. Terrorists always have a political beef of some sort (even if it's an absurd one).

General guideline:

Is general fear and panic the primary tool used in achieving a final aim, with other tools primarily dedicated to creating and extending said fear and panic?

If the answer is no, they're not terrorists. If the objective of the September 2001 World Trade Center attacks had been to kill the people inside the World Trade Center, it would not have been a terrorist action.

~J

None of the above. They're disposable assets with tendencies to have minor disagreements with the ideals of what is and what isn't legal.

But inspiring fear is really never an end, it is a means used by pretty much everybody who uses force. They inspire fear to cause some political change just as the military will often inspire fear to achieve some military goal which is itself designed to achieve some political goal. 'Shock and Awe' comes to mind as a perfect example of this. A criminal will often inspire fear to acheive thier monetary end. Bank robbers don't usually go in hoping to shoot everyone, they want everyone to be scared and give them the money so they can get away. Police also use fear to capture and convict suspects.

*Points to the phrase "primary tool"*

I should expand on the word "general"—perhaps it would do better replaced by "widespread". Also notice the "panic" requirement—bank robbers may want fear, but tend to prefer to avoid panic. The "shock and awe" campaign is a perfect example of terrorism, however.

~J

Criminals, mercenaries, terrorists, killers, kewlers, radicals, rebels, deviants, freedom fighters, anarchists, fringe elements, shadowrunners.

Shadowrunners are criminals, not terrorists. Terrorists do it for a cause, money is not a cause, but a means. Not everyone who commits crimes for money is a mercenary either. Mercenaries are professional soldiers. Very few Shadowrunners fall under the heading of professional soldier.

I think some corps would like Shadowrunners to be labeled as terrorist but have failed. Obviously so since their is a popular TV. show about Shadowrunners. I draw a comparison between shows about the mob. People idolize the mob, they think of them as some kind of honorable criminal. Same goes for Shadowrunners. People see them as honorable warriors living outside society fighting against corps.

The truth is they are just criminals trying to survive in a harsh system.

Lets try to keep personal opinions about todays politics out of this discussion. It could be a good one, it would suck to have it fall down to a hate U.S./Love U.S. argument.

Terrorist is just a label, if you perform any action a government declares as terrorist then you are a terrorist. Scale is very important to becoming a terrorist. If my goal in life is to terrorize my ex-girlfriend then I’m a stalker not a terrorist. Also human death is usually more important than actual fear. If I place a fake bomb in an airport and scare thousands then I will probably be arrested, but I won’t be tried as a terrorist. Alternatively if a doomsday cult wants to create a virus to wipe out humanity they will be labeled as a terrorist organization despite the fact that they don’t want to scare anyone (just kill them).

I say niether. It all depends on the job and the individual. I suggest a third option which has already been brought up : Mercenary or (Independant Contractor).

Other:

+ If you do it sneaky with few/no dead bodies and steal something, you are a criminal like the British Post-Robbers or the guys who robbed the Brasilien national bank

+ If you do extractions, you are a kidnapper

+ If you do selectiv kills without a political background, you end up as a killer

+ If you do this to leave a message (Öko, Rassist, whatever) you are a terrorist

+ If you attack political targets and are a very small group (Think german RAF, British IRA) you are a terrorist

+ If you attack political targets and are a rather large group (Think Continental army, Anti-Communist fighter in commiland, Pro-Commi fighters in capitalistland) you are a revolutionary or a freedom fighter based on who is talking

+ If you start out as a terrorist and win, you become a revolutionary or a Lord Protector (Think Castro, Cromwell)
As for regular combatants:

A force that

+ Openly carries weapons
+ Has identification marks (Armband or better)
+ Shows a clear organisation
+ (A bit optional: Adhers to the rules of war)

is considered a "regular combatant". This includes standing armies, police forces, citizen militias etc. An example would be: Vietcong assaulting a "fortified village" a la "The green berrets" would be regular combatants (Open weapons, Organised, Identification) while the same group hiding in a village (Hidden weapon etc) would be criminals/terrorists.

Birdy

I think that's a pretty good breakdown, a bit clearer than mine.

Yes i think the REASON behind the action basically defines what you are. If your getting paid to do something illegal in general your a criminal. Once you go beyond stealing and getting into assassination and MASSIVE desctruction you could be called a terrorist. But unless you have motives other than then really all you are is a mass murderer or serial killer. Not a terrorist. I guess to me the difference is if you would blow yourself up for a job, if so then your a terrorist if not then your just a slimy criminal like everyone else

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:

• The U.S. Secret Service
• The CIA
• New York City's Office of Emergency Management (this would have been the nerve-centre for coordinating all emergency/rescue attempts)
• U.S. Defense Department [Defense Investigative Service] (760 civil servants, all absent on that Tuesday)

Technically, they were civilian. Technically.

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.

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?

Extremely limited targeting capacity due to insanely low flight ceiling, though.

~J

one peoples fredomfighter are another peoples terrorist/criminal/whatever.

its all basicly a game of words and ways of looking at a incident.

Only if you define your terms loosely and require them to be mutually exclusive.

~J

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.

Well, the whole "recognized government" part is insane.

~J

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.

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

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

in the end, a terrorist is one that uses non-political ways to change politics