TheQuestionMan
Aug 12 2005, 09:17 PM
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...
Angelone
Aug 12 2005, 09:24 PM
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.
hyzmarca
Aug 12 2005, 09:39 PM
QUOTE (TheQuestionMan) |
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... |
Well, the current trend is to respond to terrorists with military action rather than police action. So, today, tettorists aren't criminals. They are simply civilian combatants. As such, terrorists aren't doing anything wrong except for fighting for an orgnization that doesn't have international recognition. That isn't too bad when you consider that there was a time when the United States of America didn't have international recognition.
Shadowrunners are neither criminals nor terrorists. They are irregular assets that perform freelance or contract work for lawfully recognized governments. Te acts that they preform for these governments just happen to sometimes violate the criminal statutes of other governments..
nezumi
Aug 12 2005, 09:40 PM
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?
nezumi
Aug 12 2005, 09:42 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
So, today, tettorists aren't criminals. They are simply civilian combatants. |
That is incorrect. They DO break civil laws, and they do break laws of war. Terrorism is not 'legal' combat, that's why the US doesn't engage in it. So they are criminals twice over.
QUOTE |
Shadowrunners are neither criminals nor terrorists. They are irregular assets that perform freelance or contract work for lawfully recognized governments. Te acts that they preform for these governments just happen to sometimes violate the criminal statutes of other governments.. |
And how does this make them not criminals? If I just 'happen' to kill someone am I now not a criminal?
Canis
Aug 12 2005, 09:52 PM
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.
hyzmarca
Aug 12 2005, 09:55 PM
QUOTE (nezumi) |
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 12 2005, 04:39 PM) | So, today, tettorists aren't criminals. They are simply civilian combatants. |
That is incorrect. They DO break civil laws, and they do break laws of war. Terrorism is not 'legal' combat, that's why the US doesn't engage in it. So they are criminals twice over.
QUOTE | Shadowrunners are neither criminals nor terrorists. They are irregular assets that perform freelance or contract work for lawfully recognized governments. Te acts that they preform for these governments just happen to sometimes violate the criminal statutes of other governments.. |
And how does this make them not criminals? If I just 'happen' to kill someone am I now not a criminal?
|
The US has enguaged in terrorism in the past. I speak, of course, of a little incident commonly known as the Revolutionary War, which was an "illegal" act of terrorism.
Also, the US supports "terrorists" when it severves the US's interests.
The difference between "terrorism" and "legal combat" is simply who is doing the fighting. "Terrorists" are uniformless irregulars. "Legal combatants" are regular soldiers wearing official uniforms.
Shadowrunners aren't criminals because their actions are sanctioned by an official government. It is just usually that that government has no authority in the places where the Shadowrunners opperate.
It is no different from Israel sending agents into France to execute terrorists. These agents were following the lawful orders of a lawful government. However, they did not have the support of the French goverment so these executions could be seen as "crimes" from the perspective of French authorities.
Kagetenshi
Aug 12 2005, 09:58 PM
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.
QUOTE |
Terrorism is not 'legal' combat, that's why the US doesn't engage in it. |
This nearly made me spray tea all over my computer.
~J
Rev
Aug 12 2005, 09:59 PM
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.
hyzmarca
Aug 12 2005, 10:05 PM
QUOTE (Rev) |
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. |
If you do it for money then you are a mercencary.
The terrorist/freedom fighter/criminal/irregular asset/special agent label really depends on who you work for and how.
They are terrrists if they work for ecological groups.
They are criminals if they work for the Yakuza or Mafia.
They are irrgular assets if they work for corps or governments.
They are special agents if they work for the Draco Foundation on permenant contract.
They are freedom fighters if they ...ummm.....ummm.....well...help bring the Horrors over early. Yeah. That's it.
Clyde
Aug 12 2005, 10:10 PM
Shadowrunners are criminals because their motive is profit. Terrorists always have a political beef of some sort (even if it's an absurd one).
Kagetenshi
Aug 12 2005, 10:15 PM
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
Sabosect
Aug 12 2005, 10:15 PM
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.
Rev
Aug 12 2005, 10:25 PM
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.
Kagetenshi
Aug 12 2005, 10:32 PM
*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
Kanada Ten
Aug 12 2005, 10:47 PM
Criminals, mercenaries, terrorists, killers, kewlers, radicals, rebels, deviants, freedom fighters, anarchists, fringe elements, shadowrunners.
Shadow
Aug 12 2005, 10:59 PM
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.
Velocity
Aug 12 2005, 11:00 PM
QUOTE (nezumi) |
Terrorism is not 'legal' combat, that's why the US doesn't engage in it. |
I'm glad others have responded to this, 'cause I just about fell out of my chair.
Shadow
Aug 12 2005, 11:02 PM
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.
Canis
Aug 12 2005, 11:05 PM
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).
FrostyNSO
Aug 12 2005, 11:32 PM
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).
Velocity
Aug 12 2005, 11:45 PM
QUOTE (Shadow) |
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. |
Pointing out inaccuracies has nothing to do with personal feelings about a given nation-state.
Although I concur: this is no place to be discussing RL political & military events.
Birdy
Aug 13 2005, 12:22 AM
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
Canis
Aug 13 2005, 12:40 AM
I think that's a pretty good breakdown, a bit clearer than mine.
Phoniex
Aug 13 2005, 08:32 AM
Vaevictis
Aug 13 2005, 12:01 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
The difference between "terrorism" and "legal combat" is simply who is doing the fighting. "Terrorists" are uniformless irregulars. "Legal combatants" are regular soldiers wearing official uniforms. |
Wrong. Terrorists are anyone -- including sanctioned government troops -- that use fear as a primary means to enforce their political will upon a government or populace.
"uniformless irregulars" are simply illegal combatants or spies, depending on what you want to call them.
Don't confuse illegal combatants with terrorists just because the stereotypical terrorist is also an illegal combatant. Hitler and Stalin were terrorists, for example, and their troops were *very* legal combatants.
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
I speak, of course, of a little incident commonly known as the Revolutionary War, which was an "illegal" act of terrorism. |
Would you care to explain exactly how the colonies used fear to enforce their political will upon a government or populace? I can't really think of anything in the war that I would call "terrorism." (The closest thing I know of being the Boston Tea Party) If you've got something, I'm seriously interested, but based upon the above, I think you may just be confused and mixing the term "illegal combatant" with "terrorist" again.
And strictly speaking, IIRC, there were no established rules of war at the time, so the only thing illegal about that war was the fact that it was treasonous
(I just love listening to people in the US go bat-sh*t crazy about the treasonous right or left when the country was born of treason)
Shadowrunners are typically criminals, but depending on the run, their Johnson can *make* them terrorists. As a general rule, they are *also* illegal combatants as they are without uniform.
nezumi
Aug 13 2005, 02:08 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
The US has enguaged in terrorism in the past. I speak, of course, of a little incident commonly known as the Revolutionary War, which was an "illegal" act of terrorism. |
If memory serves, anyone who was caught as a revolutionary was arrested, no? (Although Vaevictus' response is more accurate, I think.)
What I was referring to specifically though in terms of GUERRILLA warfare is stuff that's illegal according to the rules of war. Had Al-Qaeda decided to bomb Fort Meade, it would have been illegal according to civil laws, but legal according to the rules of war. However, it would not have then been terrorism. Terrorism is always illegal according to the rules of war (with the possible exception of things like dropping propaganda, telling cities that they're going to be bombed, etc.) THe trade towers had no value from a military standpoint, they were completely civilian and therefore not a legal target.
THe US has, however, supported terrorists.
QUOTE |
Shadowrunners aren't criminals because their actions are sanctioned by an official government. It is just usually that that government has no authority in the places where the Shadowrunners opperate. It is no different from Israel sending agents into France to execute terrorists. These agents were following the lawful orders of a lawful government. |
Again, this makes you a CRIMINAL. Just because I'm not breaking the laws of France by driving on the left side of the road doesn't mean I won't go to jail doing it in the US.
QUOTE |
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? |
You were right before in the 'if people will be as stupid as they are now...' bit that they'll be labeled terrorists. THe DC sniper was called a terrorist because he caused fear and panic, although it was not his goal. His goal was to make it look like he was to make his motive unclear to detectives. The fact that he DID cause fear and panic got him convicted as a terrorist, however.
hyzmarca
Aug 13 2005, 02:31 PM
QUOTE (nezumi @ Aug 13 2005, 09:08 AM) |
THe trade towers had no value from a military standpoint, they were completely civilian and therefore not a legal target. |
Now it is my turn to blow tea out of my nose. That's like saying that a munitions factory has no value from a military standpoint.
The World Trade center was an intregral part of the economic infrastructure of the US. Any nation's ability to make war is dependant on its economic and social infrastructre. Infrasturcture targets are legitimate military targets. They have been for a while now. For example, one of the Allied tactics in WWII was to firebomb civilian homes because factories were too easily rebuildt. If the workers had nowhere to live, however, the factories couldn't function. The fact that there were civilians sleeping in their homes in the middle of the night is a coincidence that the Allied forces can't be held responsible for. It was just collatoral damage.
QUOTE |
QUOTE | Shadowrunners aren't criminals because their actions are sanctioned by an official government. It is just usually that that government has no authority in the places where the Shadowrunners opperate. It is no different from Israel sending agents into France to execute terrorists. These agents were following the lawful orders of a lawful government. |
Again, this makes you a CRIMINAL. Just because I'm not breaking the laws of France by driving on the left side of the road doesn't mean I won't go to jail doing it in the US.
|
Only if you get caught.
QUOTE (Vaevictis) |
Wrong. Terrorists are anyone -- including sanctioned government troops -- that use fear as a primary means to enforce their political will upon a government or populace. |
Not according to the official definition used by the US since the first Bush Administration. According to that definition, a terrorist is anyone who uses force to achieve a political goal without the sanction of a recognized government.
This includes fredom fighters and, incidently, Nelson Mandela.
imperialus
Aug 13 2005, 04:09 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
They have been for a while now. For example, one of the Allied tactics in WWII was to firebomb civilian homes because factories were too easily rebuildt. If the workers had nowhere to live, however, the factories couldn't function. The fact that there were civilians sleeping in their homes in the middle of the night is a coincidence that the Allied forces can't be held responsible for. It was just collatoral damage. |
Actually that is against international law and the allies could technically be held responsable for it had they lost. It's like the trial of the Japanese admeral Yamamoto where they were going to execute him for attacks on merchant shipping and his American counterpart (who's name I forget) actually testified for the defence that if they were going to execute Yamamoto based on that they better execute him as well.
mmu1
Aug 13 2005, 04:13 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
Now it is my turn to blow tea out of my nose. That's like saying that a munitions factory has no value from a military standpoint.
The World Trade center was an intregral part of the economic infrastructure of the US. |
Really? What about the planes, then? They were military assets too?
If this was a legitimate military action, what about all the non-US nationals indiscriminately killed?
Anything big enough is going to have an economic impact - that doesn't change the fact that actions meant primarily to slaughter and intimidate civilians wihtout any actual military goals (insane fantasies like fighting American imperialism, spreading Islam worldwide, or fighting the spread of "the Jew" don't count - it doesn't matter whether you believe in your imaginary cause) are terrorism...
Similar actions taken in support of an actual military campaign could still be war crimes, but they're not terrorism. Not if we're talking about something more than semantics.
mmu1
Aug 13 2005, 04:15 PM
QUOTE (imperialus) |
Actually that is against international law and the allies could technically be held responsable for it had they lost. It's like the trial of the Japanese admeral Yamamoto where they were going to execute him for attacks on merchant shipping and his American counterpart (who's name I forget) actually testified for the defence that if they were going to execute Yamamoto based on that they better execute him as well. |
Was this a trial in absentia? The admiral Yamamoto died when a plane carrying him was shot down by US fighter planes.
Talia Invierno
Aug 13 2005, 04:28 PM
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.
Kagetenshi
Aug 13 2005, 04:39 PM
QUOTE (mmu1) |
If this was a legitimate military action, what about all the non-US nationals indiscriminately killed? |
I would argue that it was a target of military significance, not that this particular instance was a legitimate military action.
(But yes, as part of a national transportation network, the planes had military significance as well. As you say, anything big enough has an impact.)
~J
hyzmarca
Aug 13 2005, 05:06 PM
QUOTE (mmu1 @ Aug 13 2005, 11:13 AM) |
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 13 2005, 10:31 AM) | Now it is my turn to blow tea out of my nose. That's like saying that a munitions factory has no value from a military standpoint.
The World Trade center was an intregral part of the economic infrastructure of the US. |
Really? What about the planes, then? They were military assets too?
If this was a legitimate military action, what about all the non-US nationals indiscriminately killed?
|
Planes weren't targets at all. They weere weapons in this case. People have to make due with what they have access to. If they had cruise missiles I'm sure they would have used them.
Wether or not the dead were US nationals doesn't matter. They were all civilians. However, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
It wasn't a legitimate military action, however, at least not at the time. It has, however, been treated as such by various authorities. No military action is legitimate at the time. Its legitimacy is determined by those who write the history books. The so called War on Terror has the effect of validating the attacks. After all, you can't have a war without a legitimate military to fight.
But, that is beside the point.
It does, however, illustrate the rather sticky issue of trying to classify Shadowrunners by actions or motives.
mmu1
Aug 13 2005, 05:15 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
Planes weren't targets at all. They weere weapons in this case. People have to make due with what they have access to. If they had cruise missiles I'm sure they would have used them. |
Yeah, ok... I think this is the point I exit this discussion, because from where I'm standing (assuming you're not just playing devil's advocate) you're insane.
mmu1
Aug 13 2005, 05:20 PM
QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
For what it's worth, some of the major tenants of Building 7 of the WTC (...) |
Yeah, I know. I used to work at the WTC (a few years before the attacks, fortunately), so I'm very well aware of what was in the area.
None of it matters particularly... The buildings were chosen for one main reason - they were a very visible symbol - and everything else was gravy.
hyzmarca
Aug 13 2005, 05:50 PM
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?
Birdy
Aug 13 2005, 06:13 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
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? |
What do you mean "if they possessed them"? Have you never heard about the Terrorist/Freedom fighter cruise missile? Highly advanced system:
+ Semi-Autonomous mission planing after given a target
+ Semi-Intelligent control unit capabel of changing mission plans during the operation and selecting alternate targets
+ Multiple navigation modes and route planing systems including GPS
+ Capabel of in-operation route changes, mission replaning and even abort and return
+ Totally ECM proof
+ Highly stealthy in it's standard operational environment
+ Capabel of extremly low Nap Of Earth flying
+ Basically immune agains Anti Aircraft systems
+ Multi-day Loitering-capabilities
+ Payload of more than two tons
The system:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ford-transit
Kagetenshi
Aug 13 2005, 06:16 PM
Extremely limited targeting capacity due to insanely low flight ceiling, though.
~J
Talia Invierno
Aug 13 2005, 06:59 PM
QUOTE |
For what it's worth, some of the major tenants of Building 7 of the WTC (...) - Talia Invierno
Yeah, I know. I used to work at the WTC (a few years before the attacks, fortunately), so I'm very well aware of what was in the area.
None of it matters particularly... The buildings were chosen for one main reason - they were a very visible symbol - and everything else was gravy. - mmu1 |
Yet this also suggests that the nature of the actual target is irrelevant in determining whether or not something is to be considered terrorism (vs. several other possible categories).
(In the interests of keeping this thread relatively focused, I won't divert into my own thoughts/experiences/history.)
hobgoblin
Aug 13 2005, 10:05 PM
one peoples fredomfighter are another peoples terrorist/criminal/whatever.
its all basicly a game of words and ways of looking at a incident.
Kagetenshi
Aug 13 2005, 10:08 PM
Only if you define your terms loosely and require them to be mutually exclusive.
~J
FrostyNSO
Aug 13 2005, 10:15 PM
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.
Vaevictis
Aug 13 2005, 10:53 PM
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 13 2005, 09:31 AM) |
For example, one of the Allied tactics in WWII was to firebomb civilian homes because factories were too easily rebuildt. |
They also firebombed civilian homes because the Japanese government moved the factories into the homes. The Japanese had a nasty habit of doing stuff like this -- putting civilian targets, POW camps, etc in or right next to legitimate military targets to muddle the issue.
Furthermore, the military decided that there were no civilians in Japan. And they were basically right. My grandmother would have been something like 10 years old at the time, and she was required to attend camps in which they trained the kids in the naginata and bamboo spear, and prepared them as militia in the event of invasion.
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 13 2005, 09:31 AM) |
Not according to the official definition used by the US since the first Bush Administration. According to that definition, a terrorist is anyone who uses force to achieve a political goal without the sanction of a recognized government. |
If that is the case, American government is wrong, and is redefining the term to meet its own political needs.
FrostyNSO
Aug 13 2005, 11:49 PM
QUOTE (Vaevictis) |
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 13 2005, 09:31 AM) | Not according to the official definition used by the US since the first Bush Administration. According to that definition, a terrorist is anyone who uses force to achieve a political goal without the sanction of a recognized government. |
If that is the case, American government is wrong, and is redefining the term to meet its own political needs.
|
I'm not sure what you're actually saying here. Clarify?
Kagetenshi
Aug 14 2005, 12:06 AM
Well, the whole "recognized government" part is insane.
~J
Glyph
Aug 14 2005, 01:14 AM
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.
FrostyNSO
Aug 14 2005, 01:22 AM
QUOTE (Glyph) |
the ideal run involves getting in and out with none the wiser. |
I suppose that depends on the job of course.
Vaevictis
Aug 14 2005, 01:47 AM
QUOTE (FrostyNSO) |
QUOTE (Vaevictis @ Aug 13 2005, 05:53 PM) | QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Aug 13 2005, 09:31 AM) | Not according to the official definition used by the US since the first Bush Administration. According to that definition, a terrorist is anyone who uses force to achieve a political goal without the sanction of a recognized government. |
If that is the case, American government is wrong, and is redefining the term to meet its own political needs.
|
I'm not sure what you're actually saying here. Clarify?
|
If you look at any of the classical definitions of terrorism, none of them require that the actor be acting without the sanction of a recognized government. As I said earlier, there are many "recognized" governments in history that have engaged in terrorism, from the government(s) in charge during the French Revolution (in fact, this is when and where terrorism was first identified from a political science point of view), to the governments of Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, and Mao Zedong's China.
The United States government has been involved in activities that have met these classical definitions of terrorism, and it is my opinion that redefining "terrorism" to include only those activities that are unsanctioned by a "recognized government" is a disingenuous attempt to avoid the label when we are involved in such activities. Futher, I think it is a way to ... label perjoratively certain resistance groups that otherwise behave in a reasonable fasion.
Keep in mind that under that definition, the colonies in the Revolutionaries would be considered terrorists, the Confederates in the Civil War would be considered terrorists, and it's clear that these groups (and others) were *not* terrorists even if they fit the definition as used by the USA today.
hobgoblin
Aug 14 2005, 02:02 AM
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