Bundschuh: Terrorists or not?

[A Magpie]

Can they shoot transports without a demand? Y/N

If "yes", terrorists. If "no", pirates with slightly different techcell. Everything else is up to how people RP. I could make a Rogue that goes around looking for civilian targets to blow up to make a name for himself and convince other traders that they should pay him, and then make a Xeno who spends more time yapping about how his life in the Liberty Free Republic and trying to convince Libertonians to emigrate.

[iiLeRoss]

They're terrorists because I say so.

And that's all that really matters.

And by God (me), they will continue to be terrorists until this here Rheinland Military obliterates every last one of them. And when we do that, they'll be former terrorists (past tense because they're all dead!).

*chomps through cigar and dies of nicotine poisoning*

[Eternal.Journey]

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?

A bunch of us disco players were chilling in VC and it became a topic of the moment. One present asked if there was a chance of a poll being made on the topic so I went ahead and made it. Call it curiosity on my end too, cause I havent ever been truly sure of the answer myself.

And @jammi, I guess you could say its partially related to the ongoing platform thread. It is why the topic came up in our discussion.

---

[Sally]

Ah yes, one of my favorite topics to discuss; psychological warfare.

Yeah the Bundies are definitely a terrorist paramilitary group, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, psychological warfare is a valid form of warfare against a political adversary, the target and rate of success is what really matters. When governments deem a group as "terrorists" it's not solely because they might disregard civilian safety, or as a form of public relations to try and taint the public perception of the group, but also because said government is genuinely scared and takes them as a serious threat. For such groups being deemed terrorists it's both proof they're successful and a badge of honor.

---

What is this world worth to you?

[Darius]

I'm going to be completely honest, this here thread is EXACTLY why political discourse in Discovery revolves solely around throwing around buzzwords and why the unlawfuls are somehow always ending up as the same bland bunch of bastards. Genuine question btw, but where in life did you take a path wrong to end up saying that being called a terrorist is a badge of honor? That might be by far one of the most unhinged takes ever mentioned on this entire forum, and I'm not sure at this point how we can possibly step even lower than this.

This entire conversation should've been locked after jammi posted the two definitions, because almost everything else after was just Awful Take after Awful Take. We don't need moderators pushing people towards political violence, and we don't need people calling terrorists schmucks with badges of honor for their work.

[Sally]

Genuine question btw, but where in life did you take a path wrong to end up saying that being called a terrorist is a badge of honor?

The problem seems to be abysmal reading comprehension from your part or me not explaining myself properly, or a mix of both.

I've been doing some deep digging and research about the topic of psychological warfare and terrorism, I've (tried to) figured out the kind cultures, motives, modus operandi and motivations individuals that are part of such groups have to understand how and why. When I say that it's a badge of honor for them to be taken seriously by their political adversary I do mean it from their point of view, I'm not saying that I agree with them or that I like what they do, I could talk about the topic all day because as I said before I like modern warfare, but I'm busy, unfortunately.

Good job at derailing and trying to frame or virtue signal public discourse, with the cherry on top being your bitching about locking down a thread that breaks no rules. You'd do a great government leader, though.

---

What is this world worth to you?

[Proselyte]

That might be by far one of the most unhinged takes ever mentioned on this entire forum, and I'm not sure at this point how we can possibly step even lower than this.

The world just isn't that simple, I'm sorry to say. I wish it were.

But a question like this was bound to touch on people's beliefs about the legitimacy of violence as political expression, and in an era like ours in real life, you'll get deeply varied opinions. Sometimes they get recycled into in-game opinions (in better or worse form) because Freelancer isn't shy about real world influences - it's half the game's personality, so people roll with that (for better or worse). Nobody's out here advocating for real violence against real people in this thread. They might if you ask them in a different context, but, that's life.

So, the question itself.

I don't know. Definitionally, sure, they are terrorists, but it is a definition coming from the perspective that political violence is an illegitimate tool for change. I really want to believe in that, but, an illegitimate government would use that same argument as our supposedly legitimate ones. Are the Galactic Empire terrorists in Star Wars? The Rebel Alliance would definitely qualify. Does that make them lesser, or evil? Star Wars doesn't seem to want you to think so, versus the evil inherent in the Empire. Even when Andor (best Star Wars media made in decades) dives into showing all the dirt and blood and muck of running a revolution, it's still shown as necessary, because the Empire is just that bad.

Is Star Wars then advocating political violence? I doubt it. Does that mean all definitional terrorists must be admirable rebels? No, the Xenos are gleeful about the mass murder they cause in comparison. It isn't the same spirit at all between them.

Freelancer, to the common reader, seems to lean more towards showing the Bundschuh as the admirable rebel type than the gleeful-about-slaughtering-infidels type.

So, I said no, in spirit. Putting them under the same label that the Xenos instead would wear proudly simply feels wrong, even if the Bundschuh's enemies would shout from the rooftops that it's right. They sure do lots of political violence, but it's of a less indiscriminate and bloodthirsty character than more out and out terrorists like the Maquis, who at this point would happily go Reign of Terror on Gallia if they could manage to, I'm sure. The (NPC) Bundschuh's work, far as I can tell, is very discriminate.

So in trying to wield the word "terrorist" in some way that matters from an outside perspective, I don't think so.

[Lord Caedus]

I'm going to be completely honest, this here thread is EXACTLY why political discourse in Discovery revolves solely around throwing around buzzwords and why the unlawfuls are somehow always ending up as the same bland bunch of bastards. Genuine question btw, but where in life did you take a path wrong to end up saying that being called a terrorist is a badge of honor? That might be by far one of the most unhinged takes ever mentioned on this entire forum, and I'm not sure at this point how we can possibly step even lower than this.

This entire conversation should've been locked after Jammi posted the two definitions, because almost everything else after was just Awful Take after Awful Take. We don't need moderators pushing people towards political violence, and we don't need people calling terrorists schmucks with badges of honor for their work.

Cowering in fear at the mere idea of having an actual discussion of the deeper ideas behind the motivations or actions of factions in Freelancer is not going to protect you, and pretending that there is no nuance there just does a discredit to anyone actually putting effort into making a character that isn't a cardboard cutout with a trope strapped to it.

While Jammi's quoted definitions of what a terrorist is are certainly valid, simply ignoring the fact that some people wouldn't view them as such honestly makes me doubt if anyone doing so isn't just here to fulfill a power fantasy. The Bundschuh are definitionally terrorists because they're fighting against people that consider them terrorists, but if these same tactics were being used by two houses they'd be seen as legitimate, if questionable, warfare. There are literally dozens of comparisons to real life groups that can be drawn to back this notion, but this is probably not the place for that as it would likely end up angering people.

There are a few comparisons that can be made that have happened in Freelancer and/or Discovery, and I'd be glad to discuss those here if you're up for having an actual conversation and not just hiding behind the comfortable blanket of not having your own opinion. Oh, and if you think political discourse in Disco only revolves around buzzwords then I guess you need to talk to people that can think outside of them.

---

[TheSauron]

I get the impression people in this thread get too hung up on the negative associations with the term terrorist. The Bundschuh are, as above, terrorists by definition. Just as much as water making things wet, there is no arguing about it. But them being terrorists does not make their cause invalid, it's merely a descriptor of the methods they use.

Bundschuh being labelled as terrorists (by definition, not just by the state) does not mean their cause is unjustified. These things are not mutually exclusive. A faction can be terrorists and be fighting the good fight.

---

One MD Admiral

[Darius]

With regard to Caedus' response, I don't believe in most online political discourse (especially when there's no basis set given the huge difference in opinions regarding both ideology and the general worldview) because the very nature of it promotes radical ideology by virtue of having the ability to hide oneself behind an anonymous (semi-anonymous, I suppose) account and face no repercussions (in the sense that you're meant to engage with the topic and not simply inject your personal beliefs -- or those of others -- beyond quoting academic sources -- the latter of which even I fall short in as a category as understanding such complicated subjects is not a matter of a 'yes' or a 'no' and requires one to, again, have a basis for what the debate is centered upon, OR actual responsibility for your statements in the case of advocates for extremist ideology).

On to the point at hand, that that somehow cowering behind a brick wall and pretending to not appreciate that such threads are being hosted, I think I speak for more than one person when I say that this thread is a good example of how the aforementioned internet anonymity being an absolute horror show for exchanging ideas and thoughts as the focus becomes not the discussion of one's different opinion, but an attempt at a 'gotcha'. Much the same way you will not find someone answering the questions in a short and simple way for other debates of similar kind, you are not going to receive a short answer by nature of how these movements operate. Again, past the very definitions given by Jammi and slightly expanded on by other members, revolutionary movements such as the Bundschuh will always have more than one camp that is hardline in their belief and resorts to violence, regardless of means, to achieve their goals, however just their cause may be.

What, then, would one make of this thread? That different, anonymous accounts, have varying opinions and experiences? How do we combat bias in these statements? What's to prevent someone from simply chiming in without a speck of knowledge about the Bundschuh movement, or at least the workings of revolutionary factions in Freelancer OR in real life?

If there is one lesson to learn from this, and, with all due respect, I think most commenters will not, in fact, learn anything from this thread, that's that if we are to hold debates centered on political topics (ranging from anything like simple questions like so to understanding what the greater goals of each House or faction is), then it must be done in a moderated environment and with questions and answers that are pertinent to the subject and do not deviate greatly. You need to ask very carefully worded questions, with research done beforehand, before you can begin expecting someone to engage with the topic.