Bundschuh: Terrorists or not?

[Eternal.Journey]

Bundschuh. Are they Terrorists, or are they not?

A question that's veen asked to be put up for discussion here, for all to weigh in.

---

[Jazzi]

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. They're both.

[TheSauron]

...yes?

---

One MD Admiral

[TheSauron]

Actually, if you'll excuse the double post, but I'm deathly curious now - what prompted the question? Or rather, what is it about the Bundschuh that'd make someone think they're not terrorists?

---

One MD Admiral

[Zephyranthes]

It depends. Often the ones who use the term "terrorist" as a label are states and entities with power, and they use the label to denounce any kind of politically-motivated violent acts. It's extremely vague purposefully. Ostensibly, it has to do with the targeting of noncombatants, but states often are very arbitrary with what constitutes a legitimate combatant, and will apply the name of terrorist to any party that takes violent action as a means of enacting political change.

Therefore, as far as the people who would label them such are concerned, the Bundschuh are terrorists.

[jammi]

...I assume this is linked to the Platform soap opera going on in the comm channel?

Well, terrorism doesn't have a concrete definition as the particulars vary by jurisdiction and statute. I guess we can run with a very simplified American and British standard for the sake of argument, which broadly boil down to this:

A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws,

B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

The use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

The specific actions included are:

• serious violence against a person;
  
• serious damage to property;
  
• endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action);
  
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
  
• action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

The use or threat of action, as set out above, which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism regardless of whether or not the action is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.

In both the vanilla and Discovery continuity, the Bundschuh have engaged in assassinations and attacks against Rheinland state representatives / law enforcement for ideological reasons, and to advance political goals.

That obviously is not the same thing as launching indiscriminate attacks against civilians which the Bundschuh do not do, but their operations are clearly designed to coerce or intimidate the Rheinland state, or otherwise instigate a revolution that topples the state.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Weapon]

My personal interpretation of the Bundschuh has always been the more activist leaning bourgeoisie types who believe that the path to a more progressive Rheinland is primarily done through words, and when with guns, only against direct actors of the state (Police, Military, Buro).

Something that many, many people get wrong on Discovery is the distinctions between various types of revolutionary action. Terrorism specifically is an intentional targeting of civilians intended to effect change through fear.

Now, I'm also a firm believer that these groups necessarily must be large enough to maintain some sort of diversity between their various cells/divisions/factions/warlords/whatever. Even a faction intended to be small such as the Bundschuh or Maquis needs this diversity, because otherwise you end up shoving players into a very inflexible, tiny box.

So my verdict here would be for the player base, the Bundschuh are whoever is playing that Bundschuh character or faction in the given moment. For the lore of the mod, were I developer, I would consider such figures and actions within the movement to be outliers to the primary ideology, and overall damaging to the cause given the appearance the Bundschuh have worked to cultivate.

the Bundschuh have engaged in assassinations and attacks against Rheinland state representatives

For me, exactly who is being assassinated here is a rather defining factor. Not asking you to pull the cards, but I am curious!

---

Recruitment | Task Force Prometheus | ICN FIRESTORM

[Zephyranthes]

"Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur it is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims."

-Derrick Jensen

[Wesker]

There's been several different interpretations of the Bundschuh over the years much like other factions. For instance with the Order you have the more political entities like Order| looking at larger relations per house and then the Section 8 guys which are more vanilla-based Order groups.

If you don't like one, you can just start another.

---

[Weapon]

I am beginning to think the wrong question has been asked.

I am reasonably certain what people are after is "do the Bundschuh indiscriminately shoot down civvie transports, conduct bombings of civilian targets, hijack civilian vessels", etc.

To that, my answer is a resounding "not usually per the lore."

But I now understand that as per both the discussion and poll, the Bundschuh are not escaping the terrorist accusations, particularly by the point laid out in @Zephyranthes first post that a terrorist is what the state decides is a terrorist.

I will say that I think this is a terribly subjective point to be having high level lore discussions on, as what the state calls something is entirely separate from what that organization actually does.

---

Recruitment | Task Force Prometheus | ICN FIRESTORM