If you were in the Star Wars universe which side would you pick?

Morrus said:

You may call them terrorists, but that's not what 'terrorist' means to the rest of us.

"Terrorism is ... the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel).' [wikipedia]

Terrorists attack civilians in order to provoke terror. Fighting against the military might make them violent activists or secessionists or something, but to be a terrorist you are doing things that the Rebellion definitely does not do.

Your personal definition of terrorism is yours, of course, but the common definition of terrorism does not encompass the actions of the Rebels.

Click to expand...

Political assassination though?

The rebels were a non state actor who used force to kill a lawful head of state.

Not claiming Palps wasn't evil or used illegal means to assume power.

An interesting thread in Legends was Luke does contemplate the Death Star, a million people died on it, not all of them were evil, the Empire used conscription. There was no immediate threat to another planet (Yavin moon was a military target) after Alderaan was blown up.

Rogue One was also a bit darker and made the Rebels a bit more morally ambiguous.

And in both Legends and new canon the New Republic fails for mostly the same reasons, an in legends there was worse than Palpatine out there his military build up was to defend the galaxy.

The only government that ends up effective in Star Wars was the Empire post Endor which reforms into a military egalitarian type state. Its not a utopia but better than the New Republic. They also learn form bigger is better and start using smaller ships and better TIEs.

Say if Saddam was overthrown by someone else than the Americans and you still end up with ISIS. Its more the law of unintended consequences but interesting IMHO.

Morrus said:

You may call them terrorists, but that's not what 'terrorist' means to the rest of us. ...

Terrorists attack civilians in order to provoke terror. Fighting against the military might make them violent activists or secessionists or something, but to be a terrorist you are doing things that the Rebellion definitely does not do.

Click to expand...

Might be a bit of a cultural thing. In the US, laws about terrorism are a lot broader. For example, the US Code of Federal Regulations just says "the unlawful use of force and 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", which the Alliance clearly fits. Australia has also charged people with terrorism for attacking a military base. I think discussing this further may get a little political, so I'll just point out that Wikipedia also says, "There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism."

In any case, I'm okay not calling the Rebel Alliance "terrorists". "Violent religious extremists" works just as well.

Zardnaar said:

Point on the temple, they don't worship anything though and I don't recall any holy text. The books Rey got could be training manuals for all we know.

Click to expand...

Just looked it up and they are specifically called "sacred texts" in the movie. Also, Motti refers to the Jedi as a religion in ANH. You don't have to be theist to be a religion.

Deset Gled said:

Just looked it up and they are specifically called "sacred texts" in the movie. Also, Motti refers to the Jedi as a religion in ANH. You don't have to be theist to be a religion.

Click to expand...

Ok didn't know that, and yeah forgot it was Motti not Tarkin who said that. Might need to do an OT/PT binge watch but I gave the DVDs to the kids next door.

Morrus said:

You may call them terrorists, but that's not what 'terrorist' means to the rest of us.

"Terrorism is ... the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a religious or political aim. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel).' [wikipedia]

Terrorists attack civilians in order to provoke terror. Fighting against the military might make them violent activists or secessionists or something, but to be a terrorist you are doing things that the Rebellion definitely does not do.

Your personal definition of terrorism is yours, of course, but the common definition of terrorism does not encompass the actions of the Rebels.

Click to expand...

Deset Gled said:

Might be a bit of a cultural thing. In the US, laws about terrorism are a lot broader. For example, the US Code of Federal Regulations just says "the unlawful use of force and 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", which the Alliance clearly fits. Australia has also charged people with terrorism for attacking a military base. I think discussing this further may get a little political, so I'll just point out that Wikipedia also says, "There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism."

In any case, I'm okay not calling the Rebel Alliance "terrorists". "Violent religious extremists" works just as well.

Click to expand...

Rebels. The word you’re searching for is rebels. Revolutionaries kinda works, too, but since they’re fighting a tyrannical dictator who abolished the democratic governing body, it doesn’t seem as apt as rebels. Resistance fighters or freedom fighters also works.

They avoid killing civilians, even to the point of avoiding civilians who support the wholly illegitimate imperial government, and are engaged in a revolutionary war to restore the legitimate government.

The fact that they mostly all believe in the force also doesn’t magically make them religious extremists, since they aren’t using religious dogma to justify violence. They’re saying “space Godspeed” to each other before going into danger. There is literally nothing in the OT that suggests that anyone in the Alliance was looking to put the Jedi back into a seat of power within the Republic government, and your claim that the Old Republic is a theocracy because it features an order of Knights dedicated maintaining peace and order as an advisory body, and a specialized military tool is specious.

There is no evidence that the people of the Republic have to submit to Jedi religious practice. In fact, we know that they don’t, because joining the Jedi ain’t a requirement of joining the Republic, even on worlds that have strong non-Jedi Force Traditions.

The Empire, on the other hand, are actual terrorists. They are a terrorist government, as Fascists and other totalitarians often are if they don’t have more powerful neighbors to keep them in check.

Palpatine dissolved the Senate which supposedly used to be the democratic body of the Republic/Empire. That isn't an act of terrorism, but it suggests that the legitimate ways of disagreeing with the government and changing its policies have been closed down. If a nation does not have institutions that allow its citizens to influence the policies of its government, I don't think you can apply US legal definitions. The prerequisites under which these legal definitions were created do not apply.

There might still be laws that could apply in such a scenario - for example, ther right to resist unlawful / unconstitutional government. IIRC, Germany has laws like that, and I think the US might have, too. Of course, it is always debatable how well such laws can work in practice, since theoretically an unconstitutional government could use its powers to change the laws (even the constitution), and you would be prosecuted according to thosenew laws - only if your resistance is succesful could you be expeted to be judged on the original laws and get away with it.

Rebels would have been terrorists to an average Imperial citizen. They would not be aware of the crimes of the Empire and could rationalize away the ones they did find out about. Or believe the propaganda. There's no internet in the SW Galaxy, the rebels used courier droids and the Empire controlled the holonet.

The audience knows Palpatine is an evil Sith, at worst people in universe would think he was a despot.

A lawful head of state was assassinated by non state actors. Palpatine was not in the military. The rebels were terrorists from a certain point of view.

Zardnaar said:

Rebels would have been terrorists to an average Imperial citizen. They would not be aware of the crimes of the Empire and could rationalize away the ones they did find out about. Or believe the propaganda. There's no internet in the SW Galaxy, the rebels used courier droids and the Empire controlled the holonet.

The audience knows Palpatine is an evil Sith, at worst people in universe would think he was a despot.

A lawful head of state was assassinated by non state actors. Palpatine was not in the military. The rebels were terrorists from a certain point of view.

Click to expand...

We've only a very limited view of the "average man", but Luke wanted to join the Rebels even before he knew about Obi Wan's past, Leia or the Death Star. And the rebellion was a galactic counter-movement to the Empire. To some they might look like terrorist, but there was obviously some ability to inform people that not everything was okay.

Do we pretend for the discussion of the question that we are living on some particular planet with a certain level of Imperial or Rebel propaganda? Or is it more a question based on subjective preferences based on all the information we know as viewers?

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

We've only a very limited view of the "average man", but Luke wanted to join the Rebels even before he knew about Obi Wan's past, Leia or the Death Star. And the rebellion was a galactic counter-movement to the Empire. To some they might look like terrorist, but there was obviously some ability to inform people that not everything was okay.

Do we pretend for the discussion of the question that we are living on some particular planet with a certain level of Imperial or Rebel propaganda? Or is it more a question based on subjective preferences based on all the information we know as viewers?

Click to expand...

He wanted to join the academy which was the Empire.

Zardnaar said:

He wanted to join the academy which was the Empire.

Click to expand...

What Academy?