[UA] Piromancy and terrorists (very OT)

[Allen Smith]

On Apr 10,  5:26pm, Clairr O'Connor & Kevin Honan wrote:
> > I got fixated in the taboo of the school, to be true, and overreacted. I
> > agree that terrorists doesn't consider themselves evil (read some
> > fragments of a terrorist's journal once. She was a depressive and
> > deluded woman, but she was not evil) Some of them are simply deluded.
> 
> Deluded ? I'm sure she'd have said commited. 
> 
> Who's a terrorist and who's not ? 
> 
> I'd kinda hafta agree with Mathew on this one, this is really OT and so and
> so forth, but terrorist is a label. It's used by the establishment owned
> media to produce a knee-jerk reaction from an audience. They're terrorists
> therefore their arguments cannot be reasonable, their actions cannot be
> justified.

Frequently, yes. A more politically neutral definition of terrorist is 
someone who commits violent acts which involve innocent bystanders,
when equally effective acts against one's enemies are available that
would not adversely affect innocent bystanders. (This still lets in
governments - including that of the US and other democracies - as
being terroristic at times, given that assasinations are a lot better
at targeting only the guilty (government leaders) than is bombing.)

To bring this back a bit more on-topic for UA... if a character did a
violent act against someone they sincerely believed deserved it,
should this be a lower level of a Violence Madness check? Or should
the person simply get a bonus on the Mind roll? I can see arguments
for both sides...

	-Allen

-- 
Allen Smith				easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu
	

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua