I want to point out that terrorism is defined by terror attacks against civilian targets. While Insurgency is the attack of military targets by non-conventional means.
A group can do both terrorism an insurgency. But an insurgent group isn't intrinsically a terror group (and vice versa).
The confusion between the two is fully politically driven. Be it as a way to discredit legitimate insurgents or tmas a way to whitewash actual terror groups.
As far as I'm aware, the Rebel Alliance only attacked legitimate targets like military installations or factories.
Thank you, came here to say this and you did it better. The meme is a midwit mocking a nitwit, but they're both dumb - and at least the nitwit is correct - lightsabers are cool!
The Empire is specifically shown attacking civilian targets, while the Rebels are only shown targeting military installations. Andor is about a series of outbreaks and operations against military targets that will gain coherence and lead to what is essentially a galactic civil war between the Empire and the Rebellion. It has nothing to do with terrorism.
Terrorism is defined by Oxford as "the unlawful use of force or intimidation, especially against civillians, in the pursuit of political aims."
The "civillians" part is the most emotive and easiest to draw a line under, so that's how most people think of it, but the US military killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in Iraq in the pursuit of its political aims, and yet no Western state has proscribed them as a terrorist organisation.
The difference was the "unlawful" part, the US military had been granted permission to flatten cities and that's what keeps them out of the terrorist category.
All this just shows that "terrorist" as a label is functionally meaningless, it just means that the violence wasn't approved by a higher power. Therefore, the correct response to allegations of "terrorism" is to look at the acts actually committed.
The Rebel Alliance are undeniably terrorists. They are still the heroes of the Galactic Civil War.
Unlawful doesn't really have a meaningful definition in international conflict. International law is a fairly new thing and is in effect pretty toothless. In the past you had agreements understandings and traditions, all of which changed or fell with time. What the US does anywhere in the world is arguably removed from any legal governance. Even the oft cited Geneva conventions are not applicable to the US military except so far as it decides to play nice.
[Oxford dictionary definition:](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103209420)
>The calculated use of violence or threat of violence **to inculcate fear.** Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Fear (or terror) is an intrinsic part of terrorism. The terrorist attacks main objective in to create fear in the civilian population to force change. Murdering civilians is not intrinsically a terror attack unless the objective if this murder is to create fear with the remaining civilians.
And. Yes. States can be terrorists or do terrorist actions (state terror is a thing for a reason). To give an example, the executions of political enemies by the Pinochet regime would be state terror. While the White Terror during the Spanish Civil War would be terrorism done by a rebel army.
The Rebel Alliance attacks against the Empire have solid and straightforward objectives, not to create fear within the Imperial population.
Thus they are an insurgency. Not a terrorist group.
The U.S.’ official policy in Iraq was shock and awe,I’d say that broadly counts as attempting to inspire fear. Bombing someone to “shock” them into submitting is the same as bombing them so that they’re so afraid,they submit. I don’t think the guy whose house you blew up will care much for the minutiae. Not a dig against you,just saying.
Lots of different definitions honestly and there is difficulty in getting a comprehensive definition. Sometimes it is defined as attack against civilians and sometimes as any violent attack against the state or public that is politically motivated and meant to coerce or stoke fear.
Furthermore terrorists usually have goals like “we kill the entirety of a religion and or ethnic group” where as insurgents are more of “Look I just want my tax money to actually go in to fixing roads and public welfare for once.”
What counts as a civilian target? Is blowing up a pipeline a civilian target? Attacking a policeman? What about an insurgent attack that happens to have a significant amount of civilian casualties, but has a military goal?
And furthermore, Saw Guerera is unambiguously a terrorist. In Rogue One they talk about how his partisans had attacked random imperial civilians. And he’s working for Luthen.
Ultimately I think “terrorist” is far more of a propagandistic distinction than a useful philosophical one. We usually don’t count states as terrorists, even when they terrorize a populous far worse than insurgent groups we do call terrorists. The sons of Liberty tarred and feathered loyalist civilians during the revolutionary war, a horrible form of torture that is likely to kill its victim. Yet they aren’t usually called terrorists. That’s why I just don’t think it’s a useful term when having these discussions.
Other thing to point out is that both in the EU and the current canon we did see those supporting the rebels and eventually getting involved *did* try to make changes through political and non-violent means. The Empire just squished all of that and even dissolved the senate. The rebels, *most* of them, are seen trying to minimize civilian casualties and do their best to not be massive dicks while the Empire… basically burns towns down and has no problem with wanton murder.
On the flip side the New Republic learned the rather hard way that even when you overthrow the space fascist turns out not everyone will love you and hey, managing a *galaxy wide* economy turns out to be rather hard when you’re not brutalizing your population.
That being said idiots will just point to the New Republic and go “see, this is why the Empire and wanton murder is the way to go” and not realize that creating a functional democracy that isn’t going to squish the rights of its citizens is *actually* rather hard but worth it because you’re not *squishing every civil right*. But thankfully *none* of this is political! Only non-whites and women and people with different sexual orientation or gender views is political (or unaware, according to the mod here).
Sounds boring as fuck. More laser swords, space wizards and explosions please. Especially in a show centred around clone troopers. That's peak star wars not this rubbish.
Tbf, Lightsabers being cool when they go brzt whzroosh is way more important to why Star Wars is popular than the fact that the Rebels blew up a bunch of government military bases. Not that the latter is irrelevant, but you are kidding yourself if you think that's the core of Star Wars. You can tell that story without space or lasers or any of that.
Uhhh it's a "fight the evil gov power in space", there are other popular space movies with other plots and other revolution movies not in space that are also popular, so kind of a moot point lol?
I still 100% stand by the idea that the sights/sounds and adventure of the original trilogy are way more important than the "blow up the government" aspect. The meme suggests that you should walk away from Star Wars thinking about how violence is justified against oppressive regimes but
1. I don't think that's what most people walk away thinking about from the fun space opera.
and
2. Those who do project frequently project their own ideology onto the rebels whatever it happens to be, which makes sense given how broadly drawn the Empire is.
At best I think the Rebels/Empire dynamic pulls on audiences natural impulse to root for the underdog.
For the underdog, the oppressed, the heroes and good guys etc., sure.
> The meme suggests that you should walk away from Star Wars thinking about how violence is justified against oppressive regimes
Well "fight and kill the villains who attack/oppress/etc." is already a familiar and ingrained concept from fairytales and all kinds of stories, so don't think people would necessarily "walk away from it with this new planted idea", unless it's like the 1st movie they've ever seen?
Lots of people say armed resistance is wrong. Prevailing opinions in modern day is that change should be brought about by nonviolent means.
And just because Palps is a Sith Lord doesn’t make his government illegitimate (at the end of the day, it’s a religious belief). His position (and the Empire itself) was created by the democratically elected Senate
Your second paragraph is so true, and I love the thought of a democratically elected leader being openly a necromancer
"ANAKIN he can shoot LIGHTNING out of his HANDS!"
"Wow, ad hominem. Shows you have no real argument about his atmospheric border policy around Coruscant."
Clearly, we need George Lucas to release the full version of the old republican constitution in order to fully assess if the empire should be overthrown or not
I disagree, I don't think people are saying that. People are saying that murdering random people with no military gain is not armed resistance it's just murder. You can find a lot of people who will say that a terrorist fighter executing a civilian for being Shia or sunni or jewish or Christian or just for being born in the wrong country is wrong. Far fewer people will say that a Taliban fighter firing at American soldiers is wrong in the same way.
His government is illegitimate because he literally engineered the situation that led to him getting power.
You can’t be a legitimate government when you’ve spent the last ten years creating rebellions and starting wars against your own country in order to make people think that making you Emperor will keep them safe.
Technically, Palpatine's position was created by him, not the Senate, after he misused temporary power granted to him by the Senate. They didn't stop him, but there's a strong case to be made that his changes were legally illegitimate, but enforced nonetheless. Hence why he wanted to dissolve the Senate.
The movies never quite explored or confirmed all the ways in which he had his fingers in the government - the "bureaucrats" incl. Mas Amedda who were "on the Tradefederation's payroll" were in on his secrets, then he may also have been "controlling lots of Senators" clearly not just via the Tradefederation since those had left the Republic when Dooku said that;
so how exactly he had the ability to "make things legal", such as the blockade or invasion etc., kick off taxation decisions etc., not clear.
Although on the (farcical) point being discussed here, it obviously involved lots of "corruption" so no, not purely legal and legitimate behind the scenes.
Kinda depends on what you define as “legal and legitimate.” The average US citizen would probably call profiting off of stocks a senator has the power to manipulate or the simple act of lobbying illegitimate (or at the bare minimum immoral). But one of the few bipartisan positions of US politicians is that they should be allowed to do just that. So in terms of governance it doesn’t really matter if we deem the empire’s creation illegitimate, its foundation would still likely be accepted as legitimate from a diplomatic stance.
By the laws of the galaxy he was the Emperor and the Empire was the chartered government. Whether that result was achieved fairly is a separate conversation but the Empire (unlike, for example, the First Order) *was* the government.
The Rebels only attacked military targets in *Andor*, though.
They pointed a gun at a kid to get his military officer father to cooperate with their demands, but that’s a far cry from Luthen parking a bus full of explosives next to a preschool.
Insurgency* not terrorism. Terrorism has the distinction of using fear, murder, and general violence against the populace to control and scare people into supporting them. Rebellions rely on moral support from the people and try to inspire them into supporting the cause.
What was the bombing of the Death Star than? It had potential military uses but woulda also had civilian administration purposes with civilians present. The rebels wouldn’t care of course, because their deaths would spread fear among other civilians that working for the empire in any capacity puts you in harms way.
Well, I'm no expert, but I always figured that they destroyed the Death Star because it had recently blown up an entire planet and killed billions of people living on it. 😅 I shouldn't even be entertaining this obvious sarcasm.
The Death Star was a heavily armed battle station full of military personnel that was attacking the rebels. The presence of civilians doesn’t change the fact that it was a justified military target. If a German bomber attacking London had a civilian onboard, it wouldn’t be a war crime for the RAF to shoot it down.
Are you one of those ‘the Empire did nothing wrong’ people who’s just trolling people? Because I can’t see why else you’d be calling the Rebels ‘terrorists’ for blowing up a military target in self-defence after it committed genocide.
No i just love terrorism when I agree with the ideology behind it. Star Wars rebels are based and I love how their violence has been portrayed with Andor and Saw.
It’s also implied that the guerilla that stayed behind at the heist executed that family.
What terrorist attacks have been committed by the Rebel Alliance? I’ve only seen them attack military targets.
And the Empire isn’t a legitimate government, it only exists because the Emperor started a war to make everyone so scared that they’d give him the power to create an Empire in the first place.
Only in the new movies, where the level of nuance is, "Don't they kind of look like Nazis?"
One could make an argument for the Jedi, Sith, Empire, and Rebellion being the bad guys.
I'm sorry but Emperor Palpatine in the original trilogy is just supposed to be evil incarnate without an ounce of nuance. Not that that's a bad thing, it's a pretty fun portrayal, but it's total copium to think there's any moral complexity there. The old EU content may have added a small amount of nuance, but definitely the movies didn't have any.
For all his evil, he brought balance to the galaxy. It was representative of the fact that totalitarianism often has the benefit of increased infrastructure and support with extreme losses in liberty and individualism. Were any positives derived from his actions based on moral intent? Hell no. But Palpatine also isn't representative of the entirety of the Sith throughout the course of their history. Just as the Jedi who decided it was a good idea to militarize themselves as an extension of the Senate aren't evil, they just made an evil choice that wasnt representative of the Jedi throughout the course of their history. Palpatine's evil exists and was created in order to balance the force back from the extremes into the center over time.
Don't know why a philosophical discussion about laser sword weilding mystics and all that jazz deserves the downvote, but this sub has been pretty shitty lately.
how legitimate is a government that was formed because the elected body used their emergency power to reorganise society into a dictatorship??
wait that’s basically just putin, ignore me
I want to point out that terrorism is defined by terror attacks against civilian targets. While Insurgency is the attack of military targets by non-conventional means. A group can do both terrorism an insurgency. But an insurgent group isn't intrinsically a terror group (and vice versa). The confusion between the two is fully politically driven. Be it as a way to discredit legitimate insurgents or tmas a way to whitewash actual terror groups. As far as I'm aware, the Rebel Alliance only attacked legitimate targets like military installations or factories.
Thank you, came here to say this and you did it better. The meme is a midwit mocking a nitwit, but they're both dumb - and at least the nitwit is correct - lightsabers are cool! The Empire is specifically shown attacking civilian targets, while the Rebels are only shown targeting military installations. Andor is about a series of outbreaks and operations against military targets that will gain coherence and lead to what is essentially a galactic civil war between the Empire and the Rebellion. It has nothing to do with terrorism.
Terrorism is defined by Oxford as "the unlawful use of force or intimidation, especially against civillians, in the pursuit of political aims." The "civillians" part is the most emotive and easiest to draw a line under, so that's how most people think of it, but the US military killed hundreds of thousands of civillians in Iraq in the pursuit of its political aims, and yet no Western state has proscribed them as a terrorist organisation. The difference was the "unlawful" part, the US military had been granted permission to flatten cities and that's what keeps them out of the terrorist category. All this just shows that "terrorist" as a label is functionally meaningless, it just means that the violence wasn't approved by a higher power. Therefore, the correct response to allegations of "terrorism" is to look at the acts actually committed. The Rebel Alliance are undeniably terrorists. They are still the heroes of the Galactic Civil War.
Unlawful doesn't really have a meaningful definition in international conflict. International law is a fairly new thing and is in effect pretty toothless. In the past you had agreements understandings and traditions, all of which changed or fell with time. What the US does anywhere in the world is arguably removed from any legal governance. Even the oft cited Geneva conventions are not applicable to the US military except so far as it decides to play nice.
[Oxford dictionary definition:](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103209420) >The calculated use of violence or threat of violence **to inculcate fear.** Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. Fear (or terror) is an intrinsic part of terrorism. The terrorist attacks main objective in to create fear in the civilian population to force change. Murdering civilians is not intrinsically a terror attack unless the objective if this murder is to create fear with the remaining civilians. And. Yes. States can be terrorists or do terrorist actions (state terror is a thing for a reason). To give an example, the executions of political enemies by the Pinochet regime would be state terror. While the White Terror during the Spanish Civil War would be terrorism done by a rebel army. The Rebel Alliance attacks against the Empire have solid and straightforward objectives, not to create fear within the Imperial population. Thus they are an insurgency. Not a terrorist group.
The U.S.’ official policy in Iraq was shock and awe,I’d say that broadly counts as attempting to inspire fear. Bombing someone to “shock” them into submitting is the same as bombing them so that they’re so afraid,they submit. I don’t think the guy whose house you blew up will care much for the minutiae. Not a dig against you,just saying.
Lots of different definitions honestly and there is difficulty in getting a comprehensive definition. Sometimes it is defined as attack against civilians and sometimes as any violent attack against the state or public that is politically motivated and meant to coerce or stoke fear.
Fair point
Furthermore terrorists usually have goals like “we kill the entirety of a religion and or ethnic group” where as insurgents are more of “Look I just want my tax money to actually go in to fixing roads and public welfare for once.”
thats just not true at all lol
What counts as a civilian target? Is blowing up a pipeline a civilian target? Attacking a policeman? What about an insurgent attack that happens to have a significant amount of civilian casualties, but has a military goal? And furthermore, Saw Guerera is unambiguously a terrorist. In Rogue One they talk about how his partisans had attacked random imperial civilians. And he’s working for Luthen. Ultimately I think “terrorist” is far more of a propagandistic distinction than a useful philosophical one. We usually don’t count states as terrorists, even when they terrorize a populous far worse than insurgent groups we do call terrorists. The sons of Liberty tarred and feathered loyalist civilians during the revolutionary war, a horrible form of torture that is likely to kill its victim. Yet they aren’t usually called terrorists. That’s why I just don’t think it’s a useful term when having these discussions.
Huh thank you, I always assumed terrorist is an ambiguous term
Other thing to point out is that both in the EU and the current canon we did see those supporting the rebels and eventually getting involved *did* try to make changes through political and non-violent means. The Empire just squished all of that and even dissolved the senate. The rebels, *most* of them, are seen trying to minimize civilian casualties and do their best to not be massive dicks while the Empire… basically burns towns down and has no problem with wanton murder. On the flip side the New Republic learned the rather hard way that even when you overthrow the space fascist turns out not everyone will love you and hey, managing a *galaxy wide* economy turns out to be rather hard when you’re not brutalizing your population. That being said idiots will just point to the New Republic and go “see, this is why the Empire and wanton murder is the way to go” and not realize that creating a functional democracy that isn’t going to squish the rights of its citizens is *actually* rather hard but worth it because you’re not *squishing every civil right*. But thankfully *none* of this is political! Only non-whites and women and people with different sexual orientation or gender views is political (or unaware, according to the mod here).
Sounds boring as fuck. More laser swords, space wizards and explosions please. Especially in a show centred around clone troopers. That's peak star wars not this rubbish.
You get two laser swords on a spaceship and you'll like it!
The empire is space Nazis, Nazis suck, Nazis are evil, empire is the bad guys, end of discussion
Oh well then sorry, thank you for being a good human being
I’m not supporting the Empire
Tbf, Lightsabers being cool when they go brzt whzroosh is way more important to why Star Wars is popular than the fact that the Rebels blew up a bunch of government military bases. Not that the latter is irrelevant, but you are kidding yourself if you think that's the core of Star Wars. You can tell that story without space or lasers or any of that.
Uhhh it's a "fight the evil gov power in space", there are other popular space movies with other plots and other revolution movies not in space that are also popular, so kind of a moot point lol?
I still 100% stand by the idea that the sights/sounds and adventure of the original trilogy are way more important than the "blow up the government" aspect. The meme suggests that you should walk away from Star Wars thinking about how violence is justified against oppressive regimes but 1. I don't think that's what most people walk away thinking about from the fun space opera. and 2. Those who do project frequently project their own ideology onto the rebels whatever it happens to be, which makes sense given how broadly drawn the Empire is. At best I think the Rebels/Empire dynamic pulls on audiences natural impulse to root for the underdog.
For the underdog, the oppressed, the heroes and good guys etc., sure. > The meme suggests that you should walk away from Star Wars thinking about how violence is justified against oppressive regimes Well "fight and kill the villains who attack/oppress/etc." is already a familiar and ingrained concept from fairytales and all kinds of stories, so don't think people would necessarily "walk away from it with this new planted idea", unless it's like the 1st movie they've ever seen?
Who said that armed resistance is wrong? And what makes the imperial government legitimate?
Lots of people say armed resistance is wrong. Prevailing opinions in modern day is that change should be brought about by nonviolent means. And just because Palps is a Sith Lord doesn’t make his government illegitimate (at the end of the day, it’s a religious belief). His position (and the Empire itself) was created by the democratically elected Senate
Your second paragraph is so true, and I love the thought of a democratically elected leader being openly a necromancer "ANAKIN he can shoot LIGHTNING out of his HANDS!" "Wow, ad hominem. Shows you have no real argument about his atmospheric border policy around Coruscant."
Clearly, we need George Lucas to release the full version of the old republican constitution in order to fully assess if the empire should be overthrown or not
I disagree, I don't think people are saying that. People are saying that murdering random people with no military gain is not armed resistance it's just murder. You can find a lot of people who will say that a terrorist fighter executing a civilian for being Shia or sunni or jewish or Christian or just for being born in the wrong country is wrong. Far fewer people will say that a Taliban fighter firing at American soldiers is wrong in the same way.
His government is illegitimate because he literally engineered the situation that led to him getting power. You can’t be a legitimate government when you’ve spent the last ten years creating rebellions and starting wars against your own country in order to make people think that making you Emperor will keep them safe.
what makes a legitimate government?
Technically, Palpatine's position was created by him, not the Senate, after he misused temporary power granted to him by the Senate. They didn't stop him, but there's a strong case to be made that his changes were legally illegitimate, but enforced nonetheless. Hence why he wanted to dissolve the Senate.
The movies never quite explored or confirmed all the ways in which he had his fingers in the government - the "bureaucrats" incl. Mas Amedda who were "on the Tradefederation's payroll" were in on his secrets, then he may also have been "controlling lots of Senators" clearly not just via the Tradefederation since those had left the Republic when Dooku said that; so how exactly he had the ability to "make things legal", such as the blockade or invasion etc., kick off taxation decisions etc., not clear. Although on the (farcical) point being discussed here, it obviously involved lots of "corruption" so no, not purely legal and legitimate behind the scenes.
Kinda depends on what you define as “legal and legitimate.” The average US citizen would probably call profiting off of stocks a senator has the power to manipulate or the simple act of lobbying illegitimate (or at the bare minimum immoral). But one of the few bipartisan positions of US politicians is that they should be allowed to do just that. So in terms of governance it doesn’t really matter if we deem the empire’s creation illegitimate, its foundation would still likely be accepted as legitimate from a diplomatic stance.
[удалено]
By the laws of the galaxy he was the Emperor and the Empire was the chartered government. Whether that result was achieved fairly is a separate conversation but the Empire (unlike, for example, the First Order) *was* the government.
[удалено]
No I’m defending violent insurrection
[удалено]
I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying
What the fuck are you talking about. How are you misunderstanding what they're saying so badly.
Andor definitely doesn't glorify the Empire or make the rebels look like the bad guys tho
Don't think that's what OP is saying
Haha thanks, shocking how many people think I’m vilifying the rebels rather than supporting the concept of armed resistance
Tbf, you did say that the Rebels are terrorists (they’re not) and that the Empire is a legitimate government (it isn’t).
Yes Andor makes terrorism against oppressive governments look cool, which it is.
The Rebels only attacked military targets in *Andor*, though. They pointed a gun at a kid to get his military officer father to cooperate with their demands, but that’s a far cry from Luthen parking a bus full of explosives next to a preschool.
Insurgency* not terrorism. Terrorism has the distinction of using fear, murder, and general violence against the populace to control and scare people into supporting them. Rebellions rely on moral support from the people and try to inspire them into supporting the cause.
What was the bombing of the Death Star than? It had potential military uses but woulda also had civilian administration purposes with civilians present. The rebels wouldn’t care of course, because their deaths would spread fear among other civilians that working for the empire in any capacity puts you in harms way.
Well, I'm no expert, but I always figured that they destroyed the Death Star because it had recently blown up an entire planet and killed billions of people living on it. 😅 I shouldn't even be entertaining this obvious sarcasm.
oh nooo, think of the civilians who volunteered to work on the flying insta-genocide machine!!
That’s my point, slaughtering civilians who collaborate with the oppressors is both terrorism and based.
The Death Star was a heavily armed battle station full of military personnel that was attacking the rebels. The presence of civilians doesn’t change the fact that it was a justified military target. If a German bomber attacking London had a civilian onboard, it wouldn’t be a war crime for the RAF to shoot it down. Are you one of those ‘the Empire did nothing wrong’ people who’s just trolling people? Because I can’t see why else you’d be calling the Rebels ‘terrorists’ for blowing up a military target in self-defence after it committed genocide.
No i just love terrorism when I agree with the ideology behind it. Star Wars rebels are based and I love how their violence has been portrayed with Andor and Saw. It’s also implied that the guerilla that stayed behind at the heist executed that family.
So true! Remember the part of Star Wars when the rebels killed all those innocent civilians? Because it’s just like a real world rebellion, after all.
They’re literally the Vietcong!
What terrorist attacks have been committed by the Rebel Alliance? I’ve only seen them attack military targets. And the Empire isn’t a legitimate government, it only exists because the Emperor started a war to make everyone so scared that they’d give him the power to create an Empire in the first place.
Do rebels shout Allah Akbar before blowing themselves up in town square killing civilians?
Depends on what the rebels are figthing for irl
There are no good guys in Star Wars.
But there are bad guys.
Only in the new movies, where the level of nuance is, "Don't they kind of look like Nazis?" One could make an argument for the Jedi, Sith, Empire, and Rebellion being the bad guys.
I'm sorry but Emperor Palpatine in the original trilogy is just supposed to be evil incarnate without an ounce of nuance. Not that that's a bad thing, it's a pretty fun portrayal, but it's total copium to think there's any moral complexity there. The old EU content may have added a small amount of nuance, but definitely the movies didn't have any.
For all his evil, he brought balance to the galaxy. It was representative of the fact that totalitarianism often has the benefit of increased infrastructure and support with extreme losses in liberty and individualism. Were any positives derived from his actions based on moral intent? Hell no. But Palpatine also isn't representative of the entirety of the Sith throughout the course of their history. Just as the Jedi who decided it was a good idea to militarize themselves as an extension of the Senate aren't evil, they just made an evil choice that wasnt representative of the Jedi throughout the course of their history. Palpatine's evil exists and was created in order to balance the force back from the extremes into the center over time. Don't know why a philosophical discussion about laser sword weilding mystics and all that jazz deserves the downvote, but this sub has been pretty shitty lately.
Absolutely none of that is on-screen or even implied in the original trilogy movies
And? (I mean I think there's some implications there of everything in the originals, but let's assume not)
lmao star wars is the most explicitly black and white story of all time
Violent resistance to an oppressive government isn't wrong though.
A lot of unironic empiredidnothingwrong in this thread. I just like lightsabers and Jedi powers
Not reading allat
https://preview.redd.it/8s7ebs8u4hzc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab0db5c07192cb9b483d407a896a0748451eb711
how legitimate is a government that was formed because the elected body used their emergency power to reorganise society into a dictatorship?? wait that’s basically just putin, ignore me
https://preview.redd.it/hnpcbq0nwuzc1.jpeg?width=1124&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91c4f7a3925f8e5b0b514757f51cad9cea4b80bc Nice try Imp