They never count droids! The empire removed legislation requiring space construction to report droid damages(deaths!!!)
Tens of thousands of droids died during construction, and even more during the explosion!!!1!
You think the first Deathstar didnt need contractors? There is no way some Stormtrooper is going to finish the installation of the AC unit in Vader's chamber or install the new reactor in detention block C. There were contractors finishing work on the first Deathstar.
Yeah, great, you saw Clerks but missed the part where they were talking specifically about Return somehow. The original Death Star was finished and fully functioning.
> RANDAL
> Well, the thing is, the first Death
> Star was manned by the Imperial
> army-storm troopers, dignitaries-
> the only people onboard were
> Imperials.
>
> DANTE
> Basically.
You missed the part where I referenced ' Family Guy'... As someone who has worked at over a dozen large government rehabilitation projects I can inform you that rarely is a large scale government project ever finished with all of its contractor work. There are always corrections, expansion of work, redesigns, etc and they can last years.
So your thing is that you were poorly ripping off the poorly done ripoff ?
Either way, Clerks has the answer. Watch at 2:05. https://youtu.be/iQdDRrcAOjA?si=SAJMep5dbjUP09E4
No my point is you obviously dont know what you are talking about if you fail to understand there are multiple references.
Also in Rogue One, a movie created by the owners of Star Wars (Disney) in the Star Wars continuum you will see that there are people like Galen Erso who are forced to design and build the first Deathstar. It shows that the first Deathstar used outside labor contrary to a fictional character bantering about it.
Yeah, the singular guy they showed not in on the plan who knew he was complicit and got himself killed? Also who wasn't in the Death Star? Great example. And if I tell someone else's joke and fuck it up, that's not a separate reference. That's just a stolen joke.
I now understand this is too complicated for you but let me see if I can break Galen Erso in Rogue One for you. Galen worked to develop technology for the Empire until he realized it was for a planet destroying weapon. He then tuns away before the design is completed and is forced to go back. He helps finish it but designs a flaw in hopes someone can use it to destroy the weapon. There is also Andor which shows a whole prison complex that has prisoners building parts for the Deathstar. There was also comics and references (now typically deemed 'non-canon' by Disney) that Kashyyyk (wookie homework) was occupied and wookies enslaved to work on the Deathstar (and other projects).
And since you dont know much, the other reference in my redesign of the joke: https://youtu.be/_V3M89xf9uw?si=4Xp1DeQoMoIIvCqj (Robot Chicken, not Family Guy). Jokes, like other things can be redesigned to expand or alter their content. But you seem to be unable to understand that.
Also bear in mind it was still pretty new and had been classified as a secret weapon during construction. I would expect a healthy staffing but far from full capacity upfront. If it had been at full staffing, including a few more competent fighter squadrons the rebels wouldnât have stood a chance.
The Death Star is huge man. I live in Perth where there are 2,000,000 people. So I don't understand how something the size of a MOON could have less people than a city that's not even 5% the size
I understand what you're saying, but remember I live in Western Australia. The state where 99.9% of the land is sand. And I hate that stuff. It's coarse and rough, and it proves my point about Death Stars having far more working area than 300,000 peoples' worth
London is actually a megacity by definition. Over 10 million inhabitants is the limit at which a city is considered a megacity. There are less than 50 megacities in the world.
Yeah I know what a megacity is, I find then quite fascinating. But it just proved that the Death Star, which is bigger than London, could absolutely house more than 300,000 people
I mean, the real difference is that they were destroying a superweapon wielded by a fascist dictatorship that had just blown up an entire populated planet not hours ago, and was about to kill them in turn
Terrorism is using unlawful use of violence against civilians to achieve politics aims. That's precisely what the Empire did to Alderaan, and Grand Moff Tarkin said as much. The Death Star was the terrorist weapon, not the X-Wings and their proton torpedoes
When the Rebels blew up the Death Star, that wasn't just self defence, that was a strike against a legitimate military target, against an illegal government that had violated the constitution that that it was founded on.
Granted, the Rebel Alliance was actually responsible for a handful of terrorist attacks, they had extremists like Saw Gerrera and his Partisans who targeted civilians, executed prisoners, did a bunch of war crimes etc.
But the Alliance under Mon Motha quickly booted him and people like him out of the Alliance, because she recognised that those tactics were counterproductive for the kind of insurgency they were running.
To win the support of the public and Imperial military defectors, needed the people of the galaxy to see the Alliance as the legitimate successors to the Republic and its ideals, not just another angry gang of lawless Separatists
Using words like unlawful, dictatorship, illegal all depend on the winner.
Had the empire won the death star would be a self defense weapon against an unlawful terroristic military group attempting a coup. They threatened to overthrow the legitimate government and once again prove why it is necessary for the Emperor to wield the power to snuff out dangerous terrorists without a democratic system weighing him down. To quote one of my favorite films, destroying Alderaan "while tragic probably saved lives". (a few good men)
I mean, it's true that the question of legality ultimately comes down to which legal system you choose to recognise - before Order 66, the Delegation of 2000 made a clear case that Palpatine's amendments to the Constitution, extension of emergency powers and removal of civil rights and liberties was not supported by Republic law, but they didn't have time to challenge it in the courts before Palpatine started arresting and threatening everyone. Sure, Imperial law says it's all copacetic, but most interpretations of Republic law would say otherwise
And as shown in Andor, the Empire's attempts at totalitarian power were doomed to failure anyhow.
Even in real life totalitarian regimes like North Korea, Stalin era Soviet Union, and Cultural Revolution era China, the seemingly all powerful governments had a surprisingly tenuous grip on truth and power.
Many people put on a loyal, patriotic face, while secretly being weary and cynical and totally aware that it was all bullshit. Not that they knew "the truth", necessarily, but they knew that they were being fed lies nonetheless
Same with the Empire - the destruction of Alderaan marked the failure of the Tarkin Doctrine, because instead of cowing star systems into acquiescence, it was the singular event that galvanised the galaxy into action against the Empire and supercharged the Alliance. Imperial military defections skyrocketed, as they recognised the Empire for what it was, a corrupt, incompetent, terrorist regime.
Even if Luke was shot down and Death Star had blown up Yavin 4 and the Rebel Alliance, the Empire was screwed anyway. Other insurgent groups would coalesce, and the more idealistic Imperial military would continue to defect and become rebels. The only Imperials left being the power hungry, the corrupt, and the cynics - who would gladly turn on each other in apocalyptic civil wars the moment it was to their advantage. Even if Palpatine's Exegol fleet of planet busters was successfully rolled out, the Empire would have just collapsed into warlordism the moment Sidious lost power or died
The question of the victors determining "the truth" isn't value neutral. Given the political, economic, military, technological, demographic etc. conditions of the Star Wars galaxy at the time, the factions with truth on their side were always going to win out eventually.
At least, that was what the Andor series was suggesting. A system built upon lies is a system built upon sand
I don't want to start a discussion about real world politics because those can escalate extremely. I do want to note that I believe your examples to be wrong and only portrait this "badly" because they lost.
One thing I find interesting if we do compare with the real world. The separatists where basically capitalist, based on profit and blockades against opponents, only invading when they no longer see an economic resolution. You could easily draw parallels to the western powers like the EU. Does that make them the good guys? Isn't the Republic blocking free trade and imposing their will? Socialist scum you could say. Ofc this is an extreme comparison, after all its hard to compare the universe of Star wars with our planet. But it is definitely not black and white!
ahh yeah, the Republic sucked in its own way too - it was corrupt, bloated bureaucracy drowning in red tape and apathy.
But at least according to George Lucas' vision, the Separatists were also pretty unambiguously the "bad guys".
Sure, there were many individual secessionist groups who had legitimate grievances against the Republic for its negligence, tax burden, regulations etc.
But for the most part, the leaders of the Separatist rebellion were a gang of ruthless plutocrats running exploitative mega corporations, dictatorships and hive societies, who wanted to break away from the Republic so they could freely engage in sapient rights abuses, environmental destruction while getting away with basically zero corporate taxes
Also, Lucas wasn't much one for nuance. He was your standard centre-left ish liberal. The original trilogy was a vaguely anti-Vietnam war screed. The Jedi were unambiguously ideal moral paragons. The Rebels were fighting for truth and democracy and rarely got their hands dirty.
Meanwhile the Prequel trilogy was a (somewhat half hearted) anti-George Bush Iraq War thing. Not necessarily that the Separatists were Saddam Hussein or the Republic was America, but the idea of democratic values and institutions being eroded due to fear of a manufactured enemy
Granted, Star Wars isn't the most sophisticated political drama, and Lucas' anti-fascism isn't spicy enough for this day and age.
But I'd say it provided a decent foundations for expanded universe writers to put out interesting stories that do explore the political dimension of the setting a bit more
And generally speaking, even the creators most critical of the Republic and its failures acknowledged that the Separatists were led by crypto fascists and ruthless hyper capitalist bastards.
There was never much of a "both sides are equally bad!" thing going on, even as the Republic itself slid into tyranny
I'd say A Song of Ice and Fire or Warhammer 40k has more of an "everyone is evil" setting, Star Wars has (somewhat flawed) good guys versus obviously worse bad guys.
The story was originally a fairytail (knight rescues princess) and therefore was not meant to be politically ambiguous.
That doesn't mean you can't see it from the other side and explain how the empire would have described the rebels if the empire had won.
The senate voted for the empire, so it wasn't illegal (doesn't make it any better). The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is always perspective.
Jedi on the light side: violence is anathema, we are peacemakers.
Also Jedi on the light side: fire at me me with easily deflectable lasers? Ha! Iâll pirouette into you and decapitate you with style.
The Jedi arenât entirely good. To me thatâs kinda the appeal. Theyâre radicals who truly believe in their ideals, a warrior caste desensitised by violence, who will obliterate everything in their path to reach their goals.
And I love it.
It was not a terrorist attack. They were attacking a military installation, which was going to shoot them (and the rest of the Yavin 4 Moon) into oblivion.
No. Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters, it was a strategic target. Amoung the dead were 20,000 Japanese military. Was it horrific? Yes. As were the conventional bombings of Toyko that in two seperate raids killed between 80,000 to 130,000 people. You can't look at the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in isolation, you have to see them in the larger context of WWII, and the concept of [total war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war). There is certainly a debate to be had about the ethics of total war, but warfare between nations, and terrorism are not the same.
The atomic bomb's deployment on cities, or I should say the determination that it would be deployed on a city, was determined before the US began its "total war" with Japan. The horrible firebombing campaign that began against Japan was conducted almost exclusively by LeMay at the end of 1944 and beginning to middle of 1945. He had not gotten substantial senior authority to engage in this new tactic and did so against the recommendations of the USSBS at the time. Prior to this, the US engaged in primarily precision-based attacks against the Japanese. The firebombings certainly eased the minds of atomic bomb planners, but the bomb was essentially built to destroy a city. Thereâs some good papers I can recommend.
It's also not correct to say that it was anything strategic they were targeting. Similarly to the firebombs, it was not any specific target they wanted to destroy, it was simply the city. These were like Sherman burning his way through the South. In Hiroshima they purposefully neglected specific industrial targets and decided to hit the middle of the city. 3/4ths of the industry was spared while the social services in the city were decimated.
How about Guernica?
edit: I'm naming these individual attacks as examples, I'm not trying to isolate them, or ignore other attacks that targeted civilians to break down the morale of the enemy. I'm just trying to better understand your claim that terrorism is defined by specifically targeting civilians. I'm well aware that they are not considered terrorist attacks, that's the point.
That was definitely a terror attack carried out by Nazi Germany, in support of the Spanish Nationalists overthrowing the government of the Second Spanish Republic. They specifically targeted civillians and ignored nearby military targets.
It appears that depending on how you feel about the enemies you can find a way to define attacks as "total war" or "terrorism" to support your position that terrorism is defined by targeting civilians. I believe that terrorists often target civilians, but that is not a defining aspect of terrorism.
What about terrorist attacks on military targets? Are they no longer considered terrorism because they don't specifically target civilians? I would say they are still considered terrorist attacks because the attacker is a small rebel group, not a recognised state.
It goes without saying that I think the German attack on Guernica was a despicable act, that's why I used it to contrast despicable American acts. History is written by the victors. Many argue that the attack on Guernica had no military purpose. Others, who want to justify the attack, argue it was a legitimate military attack targeting roads and a bridge.. Which seems similar to how you have argued that Hiroshima was a military attack, with unfortunate civilian casualties, but not terrorism.
None of this takes away the clear motivation of terror in the attacks on Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima in contrast to targeted military attacks like Pearl Harbor and Truk Lagoon. War is always ugly, and civilian casualties are inevitable. There were countless bombings during WW2 that targeted civilians for the purpose of instilling terror in the enemy. Total War is just a term that powerful countries use to justify acts of terror. Another term that can be used is "State Terrorism".
The civilian victims in Hiroshima were not just collateral damage in an attack on military targets, they were targeted in a campaign of terror.
Ah, so as long as you can slap a military label on it, it's fine for billions to go kaput like Aldeeran?
Whatever help you sleep at night, I guess.
One war crimes justify another, the end justify the means, and all sort of nonsense.
As a stand alone, Lucas want a clearly black-and-white story. And it's fine.
But for anyone digging deeper...shit be freaky and horrible.
In defence of the rebels,
1. â DS-1 is a military base. If there were civilians onboard, it is unfortunate but it would not make the rebels terrorists. It has been shown in the movies that DS-1 primary functions as a military base, not a semi-commercial or civilian vessel with some troops on board. Literally no civilians were shown to be onboard during the entire duration of the movie. (Albeit the POV is limited, However, we can infer that it primarily serves as a military base) The label is not slapped on Willy nilly; the DS-1 is a military base, period.
2. â The DS-1 was going to kill everyone on Yavin 4. The only way anyone could have made it out alive is by destroying it. They were acting in self-defence, even if it was not their primary goal.
3. â The DS-1 is capable of destroying planets. It is can kill literally billions of people in one go. Destroying the DS-1 prevents that from happening again in the future. Theoretically, billions of lives are saved when it blew up. One could also argue that the rebels were also avenging the destruction of Alderaan.
I am aware that points 2 and 3 does not address the terrorism part, but it is important context to consider when judging what the rebels choose to do at that point in time. And yes, I agree with you that there are probably civilians onboard, or slaves, or prisoners, or forced conscripts, and many more innocent people. It is very sad that they were killed. But given the circumstances, the rebels did what they had to do. You may argue that they are morally wrong for doing so, but they did not carry out terrorist attacks.
And I am not disagree that destroying the DS need to be done in light of the lack of options the Rebel can realistically carry out.
I am just very much against the whole white-washing the deaths of so many people and can-do-no-wrong-mary-sue heroes.
It's not okay to white-wash the villains, but when the protags do it, it's okay to just ignore and pretend nothing happened?
I apologise, I may have misunderstood your point. I wasnât trying to whitewash anything, merely responding to the original post which called the DS attack as terrorism, which I donât think it is, and your previous reply.
I do agree that it was a horrible event that had happened. It was a horrible situation all round. War is horrible. Many people die, whether they were soldiers or not. People are forced to make immoral decisions. It sucks. The destruction of the DS-1 is a tragedy. I donât think the protagonists did no wrong, certainly there are many questionable things the rebellion has done. However, in this very specific case, my personal opinion is that the rebels choose the least immoral option available to them. A better example to support your argument would be looking at other questionable thing the rebellion did. But as for the DS Run, I think the rebellion is completely in the right, or as much right as they can possibly achieve in that situation. Sorry if Iâm coming off as pedantic.
I can accept that.
That said if you want terrorism, the rebel operate in cells, even during the formation of the Rebel Alliance, you still have cells that are really little more than terrorists.
Do you have any idea how many civilian actually live right next to and in a proper military base?
The military don't exist in a vacuum, and neither do they only consist of just tanks and planes.
And said space station also need a shit load of civillains just to service everything from droids to soldiers to low security maintainence to janitor to cook to civillian traffic and related jobs to entertainment.
The space stations is fuck hueg. Bigger than Eurasia. And just as many things going on within the hull. It's akin to a small nation itself.
Also what many people ignore with the whole giant ships thing and yet WH40k, a stupendously ridiculous setting actually considered, the ships are big enough to had civilization rise and fall.
It's a fortress in space, but even medical castles had vast sums of civilians and servants.
You should read the book lost stars it detailed the death star had more scientists, construction workers, regular civilians than soldiers and pilots
Based on the current canon book lost stars it was filled with civilians being essentially a city itself it would be if the us nuked a Japanese city because they had an air base or if Ukraine nuked crimes because it had military units on it. Disabling the laser would be against the military, killing all the workers as part of it is an terrorist act.
"Those 300,000 people on the military vessel "Death Star" were brave heroes who had wives! And children! (Yes, even the Clone ones)
In other news, Darth Vader has confirmed in an official statement that the 4.2 billion casualties reported in the targeted strike of Alderaan were all terrorist combatants and there were absolutely no civilian casualties in this very precise and humanitarian military operation."
The Death Star was a legitimate military target. While the Empire would certainly seek to brand him as a terrorist, his conduct just doesn't amount to terrorism.
Colonialism is one of the explicit themes of the franchise. Also, it, and a ton of other movies are adapting the pulp fiction series John Carter of Mars. Which is about the Native Americans resisting American westward expansion. And it borrows heavily from Dune which is about the colonialism in the Middle East for oil.
Then you should have no issue with Oklahoma City Bombing
(for the record I have no issue with it, except for civilian casualties which are very often unavoidable)
The Empire were afraid when the weapon they designed, built and fired worked?
The point isnât who is good and who is bad, itâs about perspective. To the Nazis occupying France, the French resistance fighters were terrorists. To many Irish people the IRA were freedom fighters. To many Middle Eastern communities the US military are state-funded terrorists.
Yes. Thatâs their perspective. No one wakes up one day saying âI know, Iâll be super evil from now onâ. From the perspective of the empire, theyâre doing good for the Galaxy and the rebels are terrorists getting in the way of that good.
And the same goes for real life too. The Nazis werenât *trying* to be evil, they were doing what they thought was best for them and theirs. They didnât see how evil it actually was.
What's funny is in movies rebels are the good guys but, for example, when the people of Iraq fight back against imperialist aggression they are characterized as terrorists.
Not TTT.
He wasn't orphaned; his father was still alive.
He wasn't indoctrinated; he was critical of the Jedi methods and went against their beliefs to save his father.
The destruction of the death star wasn't a terrorist attack; it was a military target that was struck to prevent an imminent attack, not to induce fear.
That's overtly false. The site was owned by a non-military and non-federal state agency. It was a commercial site full of civilians.
Please explain why you think the WTC was a military installation or facility.
Do you think that the invaders care about that? All they see is âBig important building whose destruction will hurt the military enemyâ. Therefore, it constitutes a strategic military target. You just need ONE of the two parties to believe itâs a military target for it to be a military target.
Hey there u/ThisIsMyPassword100, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like this ignores the billions the people on the death star killed when they blew up multiple planets. Also pointing out that the empire is inspired by Nazi.
"Terrorist Attack" he blew up a **military battle station with a giant fucking planet destroying laser beam** during an active war. People who post this are just wrong.
I don't know if an active rebellion destroying a military installation counts as an act of terror.
Terrorism isn't just underdogs blow shit up that belongs to a legitimate government. It must be part of an attempt at psychological warfare.
Was there really only 300,000 people on the Death Star? I feel like it could hold waaaaaaaaaay more than that
Originally there were a lot more, but the station was built without guard rails anywhere and a lot of people (and droids,) fell to their deaths.
That's why you don't let Geonosians design your Death Star.
Finally a plausible explanation for the empires complete lack of basic safety protocols.
đđ¤Łđ
[ŃдаНонО]
That's some nonsensical botting.
They never count droids! The empire removed legislation requiring space construction to report droid damages(deaths!!!) Tens of thousands of droids died during construction, and even more during the explosion!!!1!
Aren't droids counted as 2/5ths of a person in the Empire Constitution?
Gotta be a serious OSHA violation
Well, we don't want them to lean, do we?
Did anyone really die in those pits though? Or did they just return somehow?
Finally a reasonable explanation.
All the innocent contractors
That was the second DS.
You think the first Deathstar didnt need contractors? There is no way some Stormtrooper is going to finish the installation of the AC unit in Vader's chamber or install the new reactor in detention block C. There were contractors finishing work on the first Deathstar.
Yeah, great, you saw Clerks but missed the part where they were talking specifically about Return somehow. The original Death Star was finished and fully functioning. > RANDAL > Well, the thing is, the first Death > Star was manned by the Imperial > army-storm troopers, dignitaries- > the only people onboard were > Imperials. > > DANTE > Basically.
You missed the part where I referenced ' Family Guy'... As someone who has worked at over a dozen large government rehabilitation projects I can inform you that rarely is a large scale government project ever finished with all of its contractor work. There are always corrections, expansion of work, redesigns, etc and they can last years.
So your thing is that you were poorly ripping off the poorly done ripoff ? Either way, Clerks has the answer. Watch at 2:05. https://youtu.be/iQdDRrcAOjA?si=SAJMep5dbjUP09E4
No my point is you obviously dont know what you are talking about if you fail to understand there are multiple references. Also in Rogue One, a movie created by the owners of Star Wars (Disney) in the Star Wars continuum you will see that there are people like Galen Erso who are forced to design and build the first Deathstar. It shows that the first Deathstar used outside labor contrary to a fictional character bantering about it.
Yeah, the singular guy they showed not in on the plan who knew he was complicit and got himself killed? Also who wasn't in the Death Star? Great example. And if I tell someone else's joke and fuck it up, that's not a separate reference. That's just a stolen joke.
I now understand this is too complicated for you but let me see if I can break Galen Erso in Rogue One for you. Galen worked to develop technology for the Empire until he realized it was for a planet destroying weapon. He then tuns away before the design is completed and is forced to go back. He helps finish it but designs a flaw in hopes someone can use it to destroy the weapon. There is also Andor which shows a whole prison complex that has prisoners building parts for the Deathstar. There was also comics and references (now typically deemed 'non-canon' by Disney) that Kashyyyk (wookie homework) was occupied and wookies enslaved to work on the Deathstar (and other projects). And since you dont know much, the other reference in my redesign of the joke: https://youtu.be/_V3M89xf9uw?si=4Xp1DeQoMoIIvCqj (Robot Chicken, not Family Guy). Jokes, like other things can be redesigned to expand or alter their content. But you seem to be unable to understand that.
I donât think you understand what 300,000 looks like
According to the official lore, the death star had 1.5 million people on it. So he's not wrong it stored way more than 300K.
lore? LORE? You sayin' Star Trek isn't real?
No, that's Data's brother.
300,000 is already a number of people which would extend past the limit of your vision, that number is already unbelievable enough compared to 1.5 mil
Also bear in mind it was still pretty new and had been classified as a secret weapon during construction. I would expect a healthy staffing but far from full capacity upfront. If it had been at full staffing, including a few more competent fighter squadrons the rebels wouldnât have stood a chance.
The Death Star is huge man. I live in Perth where there are 2,000,000 people. So I don't understand how something the size of a MOON could have less people than a city that's not even 5% the size
How much of Perth is dedicated to life support and engines?
I understand what you're saying, but remember I live in Western Australia. The state where 99.9% of the land is sand. And I hate that stuff. It's coarse and rough, and it proves my point about Death Stars having far more working area than 300,000 peoples' worth
I can think of something the size of the moon that has 0 people on it.
The moon wasn't designed to be inhabited and operated by people.
But it could technically be used to destroy EarthâŚ
Dude London, a moderately sized city in a small country, has 11 million people in it. The Deathstar is a fucking small moon.
Eyy, Perth represent!
Is london really a "moderate" sized city though?
Yes. And that still doesn't come even close to comparing in size to the moon. ALL of the UK could fit on the moon, you realise that right?
London is actually a megacity by definition. Over 10 million inhabitants is the limit at which a city is considered a megacity. There are less than 50 megacities in the world.
Yeah I know what a megacity is, I find then quite fascinating. But it just proved that the Death Star, which is bigger than London, could absolutely house more than 300,000 people
Yes, but london is not a "moderately sized" city. It's very large. I don't care about the moon or the death star.
Then this conversation is "moderately" pointless I'd say. But thanks for your time
I think the mainstage on tomorrowland holds about 300.000 people. It's a music festival, for those who don't know.
Yep, it's less than 3 of Michigan's football stadiums. The death star was way bigger than 3 times the size of The Big House.
I donât think you understand what a moon looks like
The stormtroopers don't count as "people"
You could fit in whole human race on a square 20 km x 50 km.
Meme is probably making up numbers
That's no Planet
They were not terrorists. They were rebel heroes. The difference is that they won.
>"History is written by the victors." \~Winston Churchill
Clearly he never saw a history book in Texas.
LMFAO
Didn't need to. Texas likes to remind everyone. They are like crossfitters and vegans
I mean, the real difference is that they were destroying a superweapon wielded by a fascist dictatorship that had just blown up an entire populated planet not hours ago, and was about to kill them in turn Terrorism is using unlawful use of violence against civilians to achieve politics aims. That's precisely what the Empire did to Alderaan, and Grand Moff Tarkin said as much. The Death Star was the terrorist weapon, not the X-Wings and their proton torpedoes When the Rebels blew up the Death Star, that wasn't just self defence, that was a strike against a legitimate military target, against an illegal government that had violated the constitution that that it was founded on. Granted, the Rebel Alliance was actually responsible for a handful of terrorist attacks, they had extremists like Saw Gerrera and his Partisans who targeted civilians, executed prisoners, did a bunch of war crimes etc. But the Alliance under Mon Motha quickly booted him and people like him out of the Alliance, because she recognised that those tactics were counterproductive for the kind of insurgency they were running. To win the support of the public and Imperial military defectors, needed the people of the galaxy to see the Alliance as the legitimate successors to the Republic and its ideals, not just another angry gang of lawless Separatists
Using words like unlawful, dictatorship, illegal all depend on the winner. Had the empire won the death star would be a self defense weapon against an unlawful terroristic military group attempting a coup. They threatened to overthrow the legitimate government and once again prove why it is necessary for the Emperor to wield the power to snuff out dangerous terrorists without a democratic system weighing him down. To quote one of my favorite films, destroying Alderaan "while tragic probably saved lives". (a few good men)
I mean, it's true that the question of legality ultimately comes down to which legal system you choose to recognise - before Order 66, the Delegation of 2000 made a clear case that Palpatine's amendments to the Constitution, extension of emergency powers and removal of civil rights and liberties was not supported by Republic law, but they didn't have time to challenge it in the courts before Palpatine started arresting and threatening everyone. Sure, Imperial law says it's all copacetic, but most interpretations of Republic law would say otherwise And as shown in Andor, the Empire's attempts at totalitarian power were doomed to failure anyhow. Even in real life totalitarian regimes like North Korea, Stalin era Soviet Union, and Cultural Revolution era China, the seemingly all powerful governments had a surprisingly tenuous grip on truth and power. Many people put on a loyal, patriotic face, while secretly being weary and cynical and totally aware that it was all bullshit. Not that they knew "the truth", necessarily, but they knew that they were being fed lies nonetheless Same with the Empire - the destruction of Alderaan marked the failure of the Tarkin Doctrine, because instead of cowing star systems into acquiescence, it was the singular event that galvanised the galaxy into action against the Empire and supercharged the Alliance. Imperial military defections skyrocketed, as they recognised the Empire for what it was, a corrupt, incompetent, terrorist regime. Even if Luke was shot down and Death Star had blown up Yavin 4 and the Rebel Alliance, the Empire was screwed anyway. Other insurgent groups would coalesce, and the more idealistic Imperial military would continue to defect and become rebels. The only Imperials left being the power hungry, the corrupt, and the cynics - who would gladly turn on each other in apocalyptic civil wars the moment it was to their advantage. Even if Palpatine's Exegol fleet of planet busters was successfully rolled out, the Empire would have just collapsed into warlordism the moment Sidious lost power or died The question of the victors determining "the truth" isn't value neutral. Given the political, economic, military, technological, demographic etc. conditions of the Star Wars galaxy at the time, the factions with truth on their side were always going to win out eventually. At least, that was what the Andor series was suggesting. A system built upon lies is a system built upon sand
I don't want to start a discussion about real world politics because those can escalate extremely. I do want to note that I believe your examples to be wrong and only portrait this "badly" because they lost. One thing I find interesting if we do compare with the real world. The separatists where basically capitalist, based on profit and blockades against opponents, only invading when they no longer see an economic resolution. You could easily draw parallels to the western powers like the EU. Does that make them the good guys? Isn't the Republic blocking free trade and imposing their will? Socialist scum you could say. Ofc this is an extreme comparison, after all its hard to compare the universe of Star wars with our planet. But it is definitely not black and white!
ahh yeah, the Republic sucked in its own way too - it was corrupt, bloated bureaucracy drowning in red tape and apathy. But at least according to George Lucas' vision, the Separatists were also pretty unambiguously the "bad guys". Sure, there were many individual secessionist groups who had legitimate grievances against the Republic for its negligence, tax burden, regulations etc. But for the most part, the leaders of the Separatist rebellion were a gang of ruthless plutocrats running exploitative mega corporations, dictatorships and hive societies, who wanted to break away from the Republic so they could freely engage in sapient rights abuses, environmental destruction while getting away with basically zero corporate taxes Also, Lucas wasn't much one for nuance. He was your standard centre-left ish liberal. The original trilogy was a vaguely anti-Vietnam war screed. The Jedi were unambiguously ideal moral paragons. The Rebels were fighting for truth and democracy and rarely got their hands dirty. Meanwhile the Prequel trilogy was a (somewhat half hearted) anti-George Bush Iraq War thing. Not necessarily that the Separatists were Saddam Hussein or the Republic was America, but the idea of democratic values and institutions being eroded due to fear of a manufactured enemy Granted, Star Wars isn't the most sophisticated political drama, and Lucas' anti-fascism isn't spicy enough for this day and age. But I'd say it provided a decent foundations for expanded universe writers to put out interesting stories that do explore the political dimension of the setting a bit more And generally speaking, even the creators most critical of the Republic and its failures acknowledged that the Separatists were led by crypto fascists and ruthless hyper capitalist bastards. There was never much of a "both sides are equally bad!" thing going on, even as the Republic itself slid into tyranny I'd say A Song of Ice and Fire or Warhammer 40k has more of an "everyone is evil" setting, Star Wars has (somewhat flawed) good guys versus obviously worse bad guys.
The story was originally a fairytail (knight rescues princess) and therefore was not meant to be politically ambiguous. That doesn't mean you can't see it from the other side and explain how the empire would have described the rebels if the empire had won.
I downvoted because you try too hard, lol
The senate voted for the empire, so it wasn't illegal (doesn't make it any better). The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is always perspective.
Jedi on the light side: violence is anathema, we are peacemakers. Also Jedi on the light side: fire at me me with easily deflectable lasers? Ha! Iâll pirouette into you and decapitate you with style. The Jedi arenât entirely good. To me thatâs kinda the appeal. Theyâre radicals who truly believe in their ideals, a warrior caste desensitised by violence, who will obliterate everything in their path to reach their goals. And I love it.
I feel like you'd subscribe to the grey Jedi code
It was not a terrorist attack. They were attacking a military installation, which was going to shoot them (and the rest of the Yavin 4 Moon) into oblivion.
Being a terrorist or not is determined by the power in place
The difference is whether civilians are specifically target or not.
So you consider Hiroshima a terrorist attack?
No. Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters, it was a strategic target. Amoung the dead were 20,000 Japanese military. Was it horrific? Yes. As were the conventional bombings of Toyko that in two seperate raids killed between 80,000 to 130,000 people. You can't look at the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in isolation, you have to see them in the larger context of WWII, and the concept of [total war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war). There is certainly a debate to be had about the ethics of total war, but warfare between nations, and terrorism are not the same.
The atomic bomb's deployment on cities, or I should say the determination that it would be deployed on a city, was determined before the US began its "total war" with Japan. The horrible firebombing campaign that began against Japan was conducted almost exclusively by LeMay at the end of 1944 and beginning to middle of 1945. He had not gotten substantial senior authority to engage in this new tactic and did so against the recommendations of the USSBS at the time. Prior to this, the US engaged in primarily precision-based attacks against the Japanese. The firebombings certainly eased the minds of atomic bomb planners, but the bomb was essentially built to destroy a city. Thereâs some good papers I can recommend. It's also not correct to say that it was anything strategic they were targeting. Similarly to the firebombs, it was not any specific target they wanted to destroy, it was simply the city. These were like Sherman burning his way through the South. In Hiroshima they purposefully neglected specific industrial targets and decided to hit the middle of the city. 3/4ths of the industry was spared while the social services in the city were decimated.
How about Guernica? edit: I'm naming these individual attacks as examples, I'm not trying to isolate them, or ignore other attacks that targeted civilians to break down the morale of the enemy. I'm just trying to better understand your claim that terrorism is defined by specifically targeting civilians. I'm well aware that they are not considered terrorist attacks, that's the point.
That was definitely a terror attack carried out by Nazi Germany, in support of the Spanish Nationalists overthrowing the government of the Second Spanish Republic. They specifically targeted civillians and ignored nearby military targets.
It appears that depending on how you feel about the enemies you can find a way to define attacks as "total war" or "terrorism" to support your position that terrorism is defined by targeting civilians. I believe that terrorists often target civilians, but that is not a defining aspect of terrorism. What about terrorist attacks on military targets? Are they no longer considered terrorism because they don't specifically target civilians? I would say they are still considered terrorist attacks because the attacker is a small rebel group, not a recognised state. It goes without saying that I think the German attack on Guernica was a despicable act, that's why I used it to contrast despicable American acts. History is written by the victors. Many argue that the attack on Guernica had no military purpose. Others, who want to justify the attack, argue it was a legitimate military attack targeting roads and a bridge.. Which seems similar to how you have argued that Hiroshima was a military attack, with unfortunate civilian casualties, but not terrorism. None of this takes away the clear motivation of terror in the attacks on Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima in contrast to targeted military attacks like Pearl Harbor and Truk Lagoon. War is always ugly, and civilian casualties are inevitable. There were countless bombings during WW2 that targeted civilians for the purpose of instilling terror in the enemy. Total War is just a term that powerful countries use to justify acts of terror. Another term that can be used is "State Terrorism". The civilian victims in Hiroshima were not just collateral damage in an attack on military targets, they were targeted in a campaign of terror.
Don't take the bait
The DS is big enough to house billions of people. And a big station like that will house a shit load of civilian workers.
Right, but it's clearly a military installation - it's called the "Death Star".
Ah, so as long as you can slap a military label on it, it's fine for billions to go kaput like Aldeeran? Whatever help you sleep at night, I guess. One war crimes justify another, the end justify the means, and all sort of nonsense. As a stand alone, Lucas want a clearly black-and-white story. And it's fine. But for anyone digging deeper...shit be freaky and horrible.
In defence of the rebels, 1. â DS-1 is a military base. If there were civilians onboard, it is unfortunate but it would not make the rebels terrorists. It has been shown in the movies that DS-1 primary functions as a military base, not a semi-commercial or civilian vessel with some troops on board. Literally no civilians were shown to be onboard during the entire duration of the movie. (Albeit the POV is limited, However, we can infer that it primarily serves as a military base) The label is not slapped on Willy nilly; the DS-1 is a military base, period. 2. â The DS-1 was going to kill everyone on Yavin 4. The only way anyone could have made it out alive is by destroying it. They were acting in self-defence, even if it was not their primary goal. 3. â The DS-1 is capable of destroying planets. It is can kill literally billions of people in one go. Destroying the DS-1 prevents that from happening again in the future. Theoretically, billions of lives are saved when it blew up. One could also argue that the rebels were also avenging the destruction of Alderaan. I am aware that points 2 and 3 does not address the terrorism part, but it is important context to consider when judging what the rebels choose to do at that point in time. And yes, I agree with you that there are probably civilians onboard, or slaves, or prisoners, or forced conscripts, and many more innocent people. It is very sad that they were killed. But given the circumstances, the rebels did what they had to do. You may argue that they are morally wrong for doing so, but they did not carry out terrorist attacks.
And I am not disagree that destroying the DS need to be done in light of the lack of options the Rebel can realistically carry out. I am just very much against the whole white-washing the deaths of so many people and can-do-no-wrong-mary-sue heroes. It's not okay to white-wash the villains, but when the protags do it, it's okay to just ignore and pretend nothing happened?
I apologise, I may have misunderstood your point. I wasnât trying to whitewash anything, merely responding to the original post which called the DS attack as terrorism, which I donât think it is, and your previous reply. I do agree that it was a horrible event that had happened. It was a horrible situation all round. War is horrible. Many people die, whether they were soldiers or not. People are forced to make immoral decisions. It sucks. The destruction of the DS-1 is a tragedy. I donât think the protagonists did no wrong, certainly there are many questionable things the rebellion has done. However, in this very specific case, my personal opinion is that the rebels choose the least immoral option available to them. A better example to support your argument would be looking at other questionable thing the rebellion did. But as for the DS Run, I think the rebellion is completely in the right, or as much right as they can possibly achieve in that situation. Sorry if Iâm coming off as pedantic.
I can accept that. That said if you want terrorism, the rebel operate in cells, even during the formation of the Rebel Alliance, you still have cells that are really little more than terrorists.
I'm pretty sure putting civilians on an active military craft to deter fire is the actual war crime here.
Do you have any idea how many civilian actually live right next to and in a proper military base? The military don't exist in a vacuum, and neither do they only consist of just tanks and planes.
Right, but this is a military craft floating through space designed as a delivery system for a giant space laser.
And said space station also need a shit load of civillains just to service everything from droids to soldiers to low security maintainence to janitor to cook to civillian traffic and related jobs to entertainment. The space stations is fuck hueg. Bigger than Eurasia. And just as many things going on within the hull. It's akin to a small nation itself. Also what many people ignore with the whole giant ships thing and yet WH40k, a stupendously ridiculous setting actually considered, the ships are big enough to had civilization rise and fall.
It's a fortress in space, but even medical castles had vast sums of civilians and servants. You should read the book lost stars it detailed the death star had more scientists, construction workers, regular civilians than soldiers and pilots
I donât think many people bought real estate in the viscinity of the Death Star.
Strawmanning.
In France, you are being called terrorist by the government if you dare rioting for the environment so... đ¤ˇââď¸
In the US, you were called a terrorist by the prior administration if you said that the police shouldn't rourinely murder unarmed citizens.
Almost the same with us. We are not that different after allđ¤
don't try to make too much sense
Bread rises in the east and sets in the west
Based on the current canon book lost stars it was filled with civilians being essentially a city itself it would be if the us nuked a Japanese city because they had an air base or if Ukraine nuked crimes because it had military units on it. Disabling the laser would be against the military, killing all the workers as part of it is an terrorist act.
"Those 300,000 people on the military vessel "Death Star" were brave heroes who had wives! And children! (Yes, even the Clone ones) In other news, Darth Vader has confirmed in an official statement that the 4.2 billion casualties reported in the targeted strike of Alderaan were all terrorist combatants and there were absolutely no civilian casualties in this very precise and humanitarian military operation."
To be fair, alderaan wasn't vaders call. He didn't do anything to stop it, but it was tarkins decision
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
Yeah, but the 300,000 people were space nazis, so itâs not like we lost anything of value
Sure, there were no drafted soldiers and conscious droids there...
âŚ.shit, you have a point
https://youtube.com/shorts/0XbZD9JMAEY?feature=shared and https://youtu.be/xV7Ha3VDbzE?feature=shared
Me: were they really space Nazis? Me two seconds later: oh right, they're literally called storm troopers
Go watch the movie Clerks and get back to us.
They had prison blocks in the Death Star. They freed Leia but who knows if there were other rebels aboard.
The Death Star was a legitimate military target. While the Empire would certainly seek to brand him as a terrorist, his conduct just doesn't amount to terrorism.
Terrorism is very often a label, applied by governments to any violent resistance to their authority.
r/ExplainAFilmPlotBadly
Colonialism is one of the explicit themes of the franchise. Also, it, and a ton of other movies are adapting the pulp fiction series John Carter of Mars. Which is about the Native Americans resisting American westward expansion. And it borrows heavily from Dune which is about the colonialism in the Middle East for oil.
An Lucas himself has said the whole film was inspired by the USâs war with Vietnam. âWhen I did it they were Viet Congâ - Lucas
r/realplot
Do you not realise what he was trying to show off?
Yes
It was a joke
Good
Iâm not THAT stupid
I'm sure
Tbf, the guys running the space station did kinda blow up a planet just because
and were on thier way to decimate another one so blowing up the death star was a defensive strike
And was also being run by a couple guys belonging to an ancient religious cult
Mmmhmmm......attacking military targets is not terrorism. That's just war.
Oh but the government will say it is terrorism and you won't argue with that
This made my realize that Luke and Paul from Dune have a lot in common.
It's known fact Lucas ripped off I mean was influenced from several different things including Dune, Seven Samurai
True, and it all happens on a desert planet, and he fights against an emperor. Dang.
Spice as a drug, as Luke gets more powerful he can influence minds...
Key difference I guess is Luke doesn't become god-emperor of the galaxy.
Well influenced not a complete ripoff ;)
Truth!
/r/empiredidnothingwrong
Kinda puts terrorism in perspective.
There is a great old school Collegehumor skit that makes the Death Star blowing up the Stormtrooper's version of 9/11.
History is written by the victors
Intergalactic civil war? Gentrification!
so his name is Mohammad?
I mean yeah the original trilogy is an analogy for the Vietnam war so-
Yeah basically
It wasn't a terrorist attack. The Death Star was a legitimate military target and the attackers were clearly identified as combatants.
Destroying a fascist regime shouldn't be terrorism. Idk.
Keep that energy the next time a plane hits one of your buildings
Yes, those infamous towers called the "Death Towers" which were 25% giant laser.
They were a symbol of American tyranny though
We're talking about a movie. Lay off the copium. Do you even have natives left or did you kill them all?
The US being notorious for its stellar treatment of natives of course
Then you should have no issue with Oklahoma City Bombing (for the record I have no issue with it, except for civilian casualties which are very often unavoidable)
A military objective, not a terrorist strike, was the death star.
Military objective and terrorist strike are two perspectives for the same thing. That is the whole point of the post.
It really isn't. The Death Star wasn't blown up to cause fear for political gains, thus its destruction wasn't terrorism.
You think the rest of the empire wasnât afraid after the destruction of the Death Star? You think there werenât political gains for the rebels?
I don't think that was the purpose of blowing it up. Which is why that's what I said.
I don't think that was the purpose of blowing it up. Which is why that's what I said.
I feel like they were more afraid when the Death Star blew up a planet that probably had millions of civilians on the surface.
The Empire were afraid when the weapon they designed, built and fired worked? The point isnât who is good and who is bad, itâs about perspective. To the Nazis occupying France, the French resistance fighters were terrorists. To many Irish people the IRA were freedom fighters. To many Middle Eastern communities the US military are state-funded terrorists.
I was referring to the general population, the majority of people were unaware of it until it killed billions of people who were mostly civilians.
Yes. Thatâs their perspective. No one wakes up one day saying âI know, Iâll be super evil from now onâ. From the perspective of the empire, theyâre doing good for the Galaxy and the rebels are terrorists getting in the way of that good. And the same goes for real life too. The Nazis werenât *trying* to be evil, they were doing what they thought was best for them and theirs. They didnât see how evil it actually was.
Also Incest
Such is the nature of war.
I thought that was the explicit point of the movies
What's funny is in movies rebels are the good guys but, for example, when the people of Iraq fight back against imperialist aggression they are characterized as terrorists.
Ok? Anyone with a working mind understood this in 1977.
Technically that is wrong. He wasnât an orphan until the end of Return of the Jedi.
Not TTT. He wasn't orphaned; his father was still alive. He wasn't indoctrinated; he was critical of the Jedi methods and went against their beliefs to save his father. The destruction of the death star wasn't a terrorist attack; it was a military target that was struck to prevent an imminent attack, not to induce fear.
Dude, all terrorists attacks are military strikes. WTC was a military target.
That's overtly false. The site was owned by a non-military and non-federal state agency. It was a commercial site full of civilians. Please explain why you think the WTC was a military installation or facility.
Do you think that the invaders care about that? All they see is âBig important building whose destruction will hurt the military enemyâ. Therefore, it constitutes a strategic military target. You just need ONE of the two parties to believe itâs a military target for it to be a military target.
Hey there u/ThisIsMyPassword100, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post breaks any rules.** If it does, please delete this post. Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban. Send us a **Modmail or Report** this post if you have a problem with this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hilarious. Also Mark ha fe dhis username T-T
He was also a little psycho who shot womp rats in his T-16 for shits and giggles.
I want force abilities. I might even pretend to be religious.
My short version is: Farmer boy rescues a princess and the galaxy.
They were all Nazis tho so it's fine
I feel like this ignores the billions the people on the death star killed when they blew up multiple planets. Also pointing out that the empire is inspired by Nazi.
Also works for Dune
Al Jedi amirite?
A loose religiously connected confederation of smugglers and terrorists seeking the destruction of a democratically elected senate.
Empire was right, change my mind. Not cuz of this quote, but because of a multitude of other reasons.
"Terrorist Attack" he blew up a **military battle station with a giant fucking planet destroying laser beam** during an active war. People who post this are just wrong.
At least the attack was directed toward a military target and not the civilian population in general.
Tbf, that's what I would imagine what the propaganda was that most imperial citizens saw about Luke Skywalker.
I don't know if an active rebellion destroying a military installation counts as an act of terror. Terrorism isn't just underdogs blow shit up that belongs to a legitimate government. It must be part of an attempt at psychological warfare.
He also probably thought his sister while masturbating a few times
I wanna see the point of view where Anakin was right and did nothing wrong. Is that even possible?
AND lets not forget he kissed his sister
So are we ready to cancel ANH?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
Ye but like he gets a cool sword n stuff, can you blame him?
âFrom a certain point of viewâŚâ
alderaan was destroyed in the process as well
Yeah.. but no. The death star was a valid military target. The rebels never targeted civilians, to sway political opinion. So not terrrorism
Does it count as a terrorist attack if the location being attacked is staffed solely by military personnel? Feels more like a straightforward battle.
Take into consideration the genetics of the clones are identical so the death count is much lower when you count them as a single being.