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

[Zardnaar]

Lol dumb and dumber in space basically covers it. There rebels are geniuses by comparison and the Empire looks better.

One persons terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. It's why I picked the Imperial Remnant. It's the only Star Wars government that doesn't suck.

 

[Umbran]

For starters, there's the Endor Holocaust.

Which does not appear in any canon source. Sorry.

And even though I would categorically reject your arbitrary decision to remove military targets from the discussions, there's the well known problem that the Death Star II was unfinished and wouldn't completely fit in that category.

It isn't arbitrary - military targets are generally considered legitimate targets in a war. Civilian populations are usually not.

Even beyond those examples, though, Rogue One openly discusses the fact that they are violent terrorists. A central point of the movie is that the Rebels are formed by an Alliance of existing terrorist cells. And there is significant debate around the fact that many of the cells find other groups (e.g. Saw Gerrera) to be too violent to work with. Nevertheless, the leadership is eventually willing to work with all of the most violent members in the name of taking down the legitimate government.

Terrorism is not just about being violent. It is about who is the target of that violence - terrorism is about instilling fear within a population in order to influence political actions. I ask, again, whether we ever see, in canon, any terrorist acts done by the Rebels or Resistance. Where do we ever see them intentionally try to influence the population by fear? If it happens, it shouldn't be hard to point out.

The Empire and First Order are guilty of outright terrorism and genocide with the destruction of entire planets and their populations. They repeatedly make weapons of mass destruction. They authorize gunning down whole villages to find one enemy agent, and consider mental conditioning for a soldier who does not fire upon civilians *after* the enemy agent is taken.

On a very related note, can you think of any examples of the Rebels doing anything non-violent for the people of the galaxy? Their victories are all battles. Their bases are all military installations.

We don't see them controlling/governing any territory, either. They are a small military organization, seemingly without the resources or infrastructure to "help the people of the galaxy" with humanitarian efforts on any scale.

They are a religious military organization bent on physically destroying the politically established government and replacing it with their theocracy.

Bzzt! Stop right there. At the time of the Rebellion, the organization is not overtly religious in nature. IIRC, the only believers we see are Force practitioners (Luke, Obi-Wan, Vader and Palpatine - if we are using these as a measure, both sides are theocracies*) and Admiral Ackbar (who says, "May the Force be with you" - do you want to try to argue that statement alone qualifies as evidence wanting to establish a theocracy?). Our everyman stand-in is Han Solo, and he openly and disdainfully mocks belief in the Force.

I don't see strong indication of theocratic intent in the whole organization, there.

Violent terrorists.

War is violent. You have as yet not been able to directly document even a single in-cannon terrorist act by the Rebellion or Resistance. Your best is handwaving at things the characters say they aren't proud of - but there is no clear indication that those we terrorist acts, specifically. They could easily have been assassinations, or actions with civilian casualties that were not actually targeted at civilians to intimidate them.

Meanwhile, the Empire/First Order destroy five inhabited worlds, and was stopped in an attempt on a sixth, if I recall correctly. Kind of wagging a finger at a plump dog while there's an elephant in the room, no?

Note: I am only considering the movies. IMNSHO, the discussion of politics in the EU is very different than politics in the movies.

Agreed. And for sake of discussion, we can expect most of us have seen all the movies. The EU is a large body of work, and I don't think we can expect many are familiar with most of it.



*Technically, the term "theocracy" doesn't really apply, as the Force is not a theistic deity. But I'll accept use of the term for now.

 

[Tonguez]

I’m joining the Hutts

 

[Satyrn]

Jawa's make a good curry? Then I'm definitely on their side; resistance otherwise.

Wait. The curry is made by jawas?

That's not worth my vote.

 

[dragoner]

Wait. The curry is made by jawas?

That's not worth my vote.

No spicy robot? Mmmm, it's metalicious.

 

[Zardnaar]

Which does not appear in any canon source. Sorry.



It isn't arbitrary - military targets are generally considered legitimate targets in a war. Civilian populations are usually not.



Terrorism is not just about being violent. It is about who is the target of that violence - terrorism is about instilling fear within a population in order to influence political actions. I ask, again, whether we ever see, in canon, any terrorist acts done by the Rebels or Resistance. Where do we ever see them intentionally try to influence the population by fear? If it happens, it shouldn't be hard to point out.

The Empire and First Order are guilty of outright terrorism and genocide with the destruction of entire planets and their populations. They repeatedly make weapons of mass destruction. They authorize gunning down whole villages to find one enemy agent, and consider mental conditioning for a soldier who does not fire upon civilians *after* the enemy agent is taken.



We don't see them controlling/governing any territory, either. They are a small military organization, seemingly without the resources or infrastructure to "help the people of the galaxy" with humanitarian efforts on any scale.



Bzzt! Stop right there. At the time of the Rebellion, the organization is not overtly religious in nature. IIRC, the only believers we see are Force practitioners (Luke, Obi-Wan, Vader and Palpatine - if we are using these as a measure, both sides are theocracies*) and Admiral Ackbar (who says, "May the Force be with you" - do you want to try to argue that statement alone qualifies as evidence wanting to establish a theocracy?). Our everyman stand-in is Han Solo, and he openly and disdainfully mocks belief in the Force.

I don't see strong indication of theocratic intent in the whole organization, there.



War is violent. You have as yet not been able to directly document even a single in-cannon terrorist act by the Rebellion or Resistance. Your best is handwaving at things the characters say they aren't proud of - but there is no clear indication that those we terrorist acts, specifically. They could easily have been assassinations, or actions with civilian casualties that were not actually targeted at civilians to intimidate them.

Meanwhile, the Empire/First Order destroy five inhabited worlds, and was stopped in an attempt on a sixth, if I recall correctly. Kind of wagging a finger at a plump dog while there's an elephant in the room, no?




Agreed. And for sake of discussion, we can expect most of us have seen all the movies. The EU is a large body of work, and I don't think we can expect many are familiar with most of it.



*Technically, the term "theocracy" doesn't really apply, as the Force is not a theistic deity. But I'll accept use of the term for now.

Jedi don't strike me as a religion much, it was Tarkins dismissive opinion of them. Philosophy sure.

 

[Deset Gled]

Going a little bit out of order here…

The Empire and First Order are guilty of outright terrorism and genocide with the destruction of entire planets and their populations. They repeatedly make weapons of mass destruction. They authorize gunning down whole villages to find one enemy agent, and consider mental conditioning for a soldier who does not fire upon civilians *after* the enemy agent is taken.

First, I need to set one big point straight here. The Empire and First Order are two completely different organizations from completely different times, as are the Rebellion and the Resistance. My arguments here are about the Empire and Rebellion. I am not going to address the First Order or the Resistance.

It isn't arbitrary - military targets are generally considered legitimate targets in a war. Civilian populations are usually not.

Terrorism is not just about being violent. It is about who is the target of that violence - terrorism is about instilling fear within a population in order to influence political actions. I ask, again, whether we ever see, in canon, any terrorist acts done by the Rebels or Resistance. Where do we ever see them intentionally try to influence the population by fear? If it happens, it shouldn't be hard to point out. --
…
War is violent. You have as yet not been able to directly document even a single in-cannon terrorist act by the Rebellion or Resistance. Your best is handwaving at things the characters say they aren't proud of - but there is no clear indication that those we terrorist acts, specifically. They could easily have been assassinations, or actions with civilian casualties that were not actually targeted at civilians to intimidate them.

There’s no answer I can give you that will fulfill your expectations here, because you are Begging the Question. You have labeled the deeds of the Rebellion as acts of war, and are then questioning why I can’t give examples of acts of terrorism. I can give you plenty of examples, but you have already decided none of them count. Rather than bicker over examples, then, I will explain my viewpoint another way (and do my very best to keep real world politics out of it).

Say there is a domestic group that opposes the government and wants the government to change. What do we call them? If they attempt to use political methods and influence to change the government, I call them political activists. If they grow large enough, they may become a political party or a faction. If they attempt to flee from the government, I call them asylum seekers or pilgrims. If they influence a region to remove themselves from the government, I call them secessionists (which are another group I support in the prequel trilogy, BTW). If they lead by example and use their resources to aide those that have been wronged by the government, I call them humanitarians. If they use violence, I call them terrorists.

The Rebel Alliance is a domestic group that has devoted all their resources to violent conflict with the standing government. "Terrorist" is the word I use to describe that. What word do you use? Does labeling them something other than “terrorist” change the fact that they are a completely military organization devoted to overthrowing the government with no shown attempts at political activism, secession, pilgrimage, or humanitarianism?

Bzzt! Stop right there. At the time of the Rebellion, the organization is not overtly religious in nature. IIRC, the only believers we see are Force practitioners (Luke, Obi-Wan, Vader and Palpatine - if we are using these as a measure, both sides are theocracies*) and Admiral Ackbar (who says, "May the Force be with you" - do you want to try to argue that statement alone qualifies as evidence wanting to establish a theocracy?). Our everyman stand-in is Han Solo, and he openly and disdainfully mocks belief in the Force.
I don't see strong indication of theocratic intent in the whole organization, there.
…
*Technically, the term "theocracy" doesn't really apply, as the Force is not a theistic deity. But I'll accept use of the term for now.

I completely disagree with this viewpoint… except for your discussion of the term “theocracy” which is technically correct but it’s the easiest shorthand notation I have to describe a form of government ruled by religion so I will continue to use it until someone proposes a better term.

For starters, the Rebels use the phrase “May the Force be with you” more times than you remember. It’s used by Mon Mothma, General Dodonna, and General Reekan, and is used by Rebel leaders in every one of the original trilogy, as well as by the early Alliance in Rogue One. It is a mantra repeated by many (including Han) and clearly used in a religious context.

Second, the purpose of the Alliance is to overthrow the Empire and return to the government of the Republic. And the Republic was a theocracy. The Jedi are the either the official or de facto (it’s not made clear) religion of the state and are heavily intertwined with the government. The Jedi are a critical branch of the Republic, whose powers included diplomatic and law enforcement roles. And, most nefariously, the Jedi are allowed to influence the Senate, but the Senate is not allowed to oversee the actions of the Jedi. But the main point here is that the Jedi are a key part of the Republic. You cannot fight to restore the Republic without also fighting to restore the Jedi, and all the of the religion that entails. Consequently, the Rebellion is a group with religious intents. Individuals in the group may have varying degrees of devotion, but that’s a driving goal of the organization.

Also, the Empire is not a theocracy, as shown by General Motti in ANH. It is lead by a religious person, but there is no evidence of his religion on any level of government.

 

[Deset Gled]

Jedi don't strike me as a religion much, it was Tarkins dismissive opinion of them. Philosophy sure.

A philosophy with temples, leadership, schools, and holy texts? Looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[Zardnaar]

A philosophy with temples, leadership, schools, and holy texts? Looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck...

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.

 

[Morrus]

Say there is a domestic group that opposes the government and wants the government to change. What do we call them? If they attempt to use political methods and influence to change the government, I call them political activists. If they grow large enough, they may become a political party or a faction. If they attempt to flee from the government, I call them asylum seekers or pilgrims. If they influence a region to remove themselves from the government, I call them secessionists (which are another group I support in the prequel trilogy, BTW). If they lead by example and use their resources to aide those that have been wronged by the government, I call them humanitarians. If they use violence, I call them terrorists.

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.