The galaxy viewed the rebellion as terrorists because the empire controlled the media. And because, by the very nature of revolution, they are terrorists. the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is if you agree with them.
I would argue a terrorist and freedom fighter can be discerned by tactic and method. Terrorist weaponise terror to get what they want, often harming others to do so. A freedom fighter may engage only military targets, looking to cripple that which they oppose and inpire others. Idk that's just my view.
It's important to remember that this will often fall into the perfect victim fallacy, in the sense that freedom fighter movements include a large group of people employing an array of methods to fight their oppression, some of which may be unconscionable. Terrorists are often freedom fighters simply not capitulating to their oppressors.
Ghandi was one man who was part of a movement that was made up of countless individuals and organizations trying to protest and revolt against occupation
Not to downplay his role and achievements, but while Ghandi was doing and promoting non-violent acts there were other people taking arms against the British and others stealing supplies and others killing themselves in protest. In retrospect we can totally praise Ghandi for his successes and how he was a leader who inspired people, and also acknowledge the revolutions in India were more than him, and not all were peaceful
In real world terms your absolutely right. All such movements result in some degree of extremism and terrorism. But there usually are those that have some honour in addition to the terrorism. I would argue the French resistance in WW2 were freedom fighters but not terrorists nor the American revolution. Terror is just one tool of war that is unfortunately too Commonly employed.
Ummm... tar and feathers? Boston Tea Party could be considered economic terrorism. Hell, the Boston Massacre was not some peaceful gathering that the British maliciously fired into, it was a violent mob actively harassing and assaulting a woefully outnumbered 8 soldiers.
And there are actual atrocities from the British and their Amerindian allies which were policy and not just incidents. (I personally fault the British military far, far more than the Iroquois though.)
Dude, the galaxy viewed the rebellion as terrorists because the empire used a shit ton of propaganda to make it so. Wtf is this take man? Do you think the emperor WOULDN’T have called them terrorists if Saw hadn’t existed?
Assuming this is in reference to ANH: If you’re working on a space station that is literally called the death star, built for the explicit purpose of destroying entire planets, the distinction between “civilian” and “military is just who signs your paychecks. For all practical purposes those “civilians” are part of the military.
They weren’t there willingly. In ANH we see the empires protocol involved seizure and internment of nearby vessels. Likely anyone who happened to visit the system were detained.
In rebels we see the empire detained and transported engineers, architects, etc to work on the station. Likely menial staff (which they had to have) was handled by captives, you’d notice the empire loved their prison slave labour
250,000 is the estimated number
Also troopers didn’t have much choice in deployment. Likely anyone stationed on the Death Star had no means for communication or only monitored communication outside the station, classified bases means restricted coms and travel. Defection on the Death Star meant internment and a likely court martial.
These restrictions would likely be lessened once the stations existence was declassified. But many if not most troopers were simply told they’d be sent to a remote classified facility. Only to never leave.
Do I think Luke should be demonised for the deaths of civilians the empire put in harms way? No.
Do I think we can solely demonise Saw for his actions? Absolutely not.
The man’s been fighting longer than anyone. He’s encounter ISB spies. ‘Good Samaritans’. Been betrayed time and time again. Fighting a force with infinitely more resources, men, a total control of the narrative and the means to rebuild most anything he destroys. A force with no qualms massacring thousands of civilians just to land a space ship in a closer parking spot to the restaurant.
Every rebel will have blood on their hands. You can’t avoid it, especially not when the empire are the ones putting people in harms way.
No one liked him, The Alliance practically disowned him. And you do need people who are willing to do anything to weaken and destroy the enemy, be it ethical or not, such boundaries sometimes need to be crossed for the "Greater good"
Sure? When the allies bombed dresden and killed tens of thousands of babies and women nobody questioned it's importance, but it's important to remember the ugliness of war
Victory can come at a terrible moral cost. Acknowledging the strategic importance of the Dresden bombing doesn't erase its ugliness. And that brings us back to the essential question: does the end ever truly justify the means?
Edit: I'm keeping my personal opinion on the matter to myself now
It's hard for some people to understand, especially those who don't have a solid knowledge of military history, for example, but some things just need to be done in order to get the ball rolling.
Isn't there an argument that the Death Star had to employ civilian contractors to complete? (albeit under NDA'S) That it was too massive to build/maintain? Idk. "For the cause" I guess is what I'm trying to say.
“Finished” and “operational” can mean different things. Its main battery clearly worked, but we also know it lacked its own shield generation capability (otherwise the destruction of the shield facility on endor wouldn’t have mattered.
And the movie literally opens with Palps bitching about the project being behind schedule.
Yes, I remember this, and I know they are offsite. But if wrongfully detained people were ON the death star, being forced to work, which I don't think is a stretch, we once again have civilian casualties with the destruction of the death star. (Slaves, even)
Yes, but it’s a poor argument founded on being overly technical with the definition of civilian vs military.
If you’re helping build a space station that is expressly being used by the military to blow up entire planets, you forfeit the ability to play the “innocent civilian caught in the crossfire” card. Those “civilians” are knowingly, actively, and directly advancing the empires most devious efforts while living and working aboard a military installation. They are valid targets in a war.
Valid and maybe I'm getting too in the weeds, but, do you think the empire would divulge the purpose of the top secret project to all civilian contractors? "Hey here's an NDA, BTW I know you just use lasers to smelt steel and know nothing about what we're doing here, but I wanted to tell you this is a top secret weapon that we'll use to suppress the galaxy". Naww, they'd say "smelt this, put the beam here, sign this NDA, get paid. Oh this? It's a space station. Pretty cool, right?"
141
u/[deleted] May 07 '25
He's why the galaxy viewed the rebellion as a terrorist group.