A defence analysis of the Galactic Civil War

[RogueCorona 1,043]

Why do so many people claim the rebels are terrorists when no reasonable definition of the term terrorist would apply to them?

[Robin Graves 6,054]

Remote base? Check.

Guerillia tactics? Check.

Killing soldiers and personel who are only doing their duty? Check.

Destruction of governement instalations? Check.

 

It's as the saying goes:

 

"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

 

 

 

Not that the empire is the good guys, but in universe Palps would definatly paint of the rebelion as a bunch of terrorists, especially after the destruction of the 1st death star.

[Gadge 4,294]

add to that list

 

1. infiltrating agents and saboteurs into the ruling system

2. Targetting and destroying key symbols of the regime as political (and military) objectives

 

Essentially by constantly threatening the stability of the Empire they cause the empire to deploy troops in even backwaters to protect instalations and also allow the empire to control its citezens more completely as they can claim they are under threat from 'insurgents'  (in fact an early 'a new hope' sourcebook pretty much says this, most imperial military totally believe the rebels are terrorists trying to undermins their way of life)

 

 

By the same measures in WWII when it was the British Empire fighting the nazi on our own for three or so years (with the poles and french who managed to get away) we used 'terror tactics' to 'set the world ablaze' as churchil wanted.

 

You wouldnt call the British Army of WWII  'terrorists' because they were part of the winning allies but lets look at a typical commando raid from say 1940

 

A group of guy would land at night on a coastline, they would kill *anyone* who saw them and was likely to say anything, they would probably capture a german or two to interrogate if they could.  Then they'd destroy as much industrial and war material as they could not actually that bothered if the town then had reprisals or say lost its fishoil industry.

 

But the results were that no german garrison felt 'safe' even when they ruled all of europe, hitler ordered all 'commandoes' to be executed on capture (against the geneva convention) and was forced to deploy hundreds of thousands of men to patrol the French, Norweigian Dutch coasts.

 

Clear 'terror tactics' and had the nazis won i'm sure that the Special Operations Executive on the war (SOE were called the 'ministry for ungentlemanly warfare' ) would have been tried as war criminals.

 

History is as always written by the victor and to back up Robin

 

When NATO were equipping afghan tribesmen and helping foster radical islam to 'expel the godless soviets' the Mujahdin were 'freedom fighters'

 

When those same people we equipped and trained later train a generation of taliban to attack the 'infidel west' (and im generalising here they are 'terrorists'

 

Same people, we know who they were because we helped them defeat the russians.....

 

Same tribes as we (as in the British) paid them to attack each other 100 years earlier

[Black Knight Leader 424]

 

 

 

 

 

Really comparing the Alliance to the Confederacy is a big mistake IMO because their goals are completely different. The Alliance wants to re-establish the government that existed before the Empire while the Confederacy just wanted to be allowed to exist independently from the Union.

 

 

 

 

 

For a time... Problem is they had planes to create a tropical empire that had control of all of the middle and southern Americas.  They probably would had had another war, or at the very least would have tried to change the north to be more like its self, taking slaves again, and then adopting a speciest genetics breading program similar to the NAZI party.

 

 

 

Are there any actual records proving this because it sounds like a very insane conspiracy theory, or something by the writers of the last Zoro movie, and the jump between fighting a war for independence and planning one of conquest is huge.

 

Not to mention the fact it would have probably taken decades to build an infrastructure capable of supporting such a campaign. And they would probably still be trying to get enough of a population to have enough soldiers to hold that territory and defend their homelands without crippling their economy and production of needed supplies, equipment, and resources today.

 

 

The part about the Confederates planing to make a Tropical Empire is based off documents.  I saw it in a documentary, this book probably talks about it too.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Dream-Caribbean-Empire-1854-1861/dp/0813025125

 

As for the other part of my post, I think its just a theory, it was in the same documentary I saw the information about the Confederate tropical empire.

[Black Knight Leader 424]

The can't argue the man had a point and a bit of foresight there.

 

I'd have said the near lack of shipping and a industrial production base would have made effective colonisation impossible.

 

I'd argue though that in relatively 'recent' history the South had seen an 'underdog' take on the most powerful empire in the world and win (as in the revolutionary war) and so you can forgive them for thinking 'strength of will' and resolve would overcome being numerically inferior and lacking the resources?

 

edit: i put 'possible' , i actually meant 'impossible' as a lack of shipping and industrial base could in no way be construed as useful national assets (or non assets ) when setting up colonies

 

War 1812 is more significant I believe.  The States had to deal with the British, Canada was our fault but I can understand why they attacked them because the were part of the British Empire, but most grievous of all was that the States had to fight all but 5-8 Native American Nations all at once because the British convinced them that the Colonists were the demons and devils of the religions the Natives followed.  They wanted to wipe out every man woman and child after they were convinced we were spiritually evil creatures.  I believe this event may had contributed to the later years hostile actions of the States towards Native Americans.  Unfortunately after said war the natives that were tricked into thinking we were demons never saw us as anything else... 

[Gadge 4,294]

That's an interesting way of looking at the war of 1812

 

I'd imagine if we hadn't been a bit busy kicking the French out of Spain and Portugal we could have sent a proper army over to do the job rather than our reserve battalions

 

I'd also imagine the hostility with the indigenous population probably had more to do with occupying vast swathes of land that they felt no one had a right to own and moving them to 'Indian nations'

 

Considering those people 'savages' and needing that land for agriculture and a growing railroad network probably meant that the government of the time didnt really consider their needs as those of 'real people'

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

 

and

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/tcrr-tribes/

 

To me the plains wars had more to do with that than a bit of propaganda in 1812...

 

I'm not attacking you or defending it, the British empire hardly has a blameless history of looking after the people in lands it has subjugated but i think its a little disingenuous to say that all the 'bad blood' between colonists and the indigenous peoples is down to a story told by the British.

 

Given that those *same colonists* were supported by native tribes to help fight against the french only a couple of decades earlier (and obviously some fought for the French too).   I don't think you are giving those people much credit for common sense.

 

But then I don't know that much about US history, we only learn the basics like stuff like that in UK schools

 

As a Brit, all but a Welsh one, I'll put my hand up to the Empire being a 'bad thing' but I don't think its out fault the USA treated the native americans really really really badly

Edited January 30, 2016 by Gadge

[Robin Graves 6,054]

 

The can't argue the man had a point and a bit of foresight there.

 

I'd have said the near lack of shipping and a industrial production base would have made effective colonisation impossible.

 

I'd argue though that in relatively 'recent' history the South had seen an 'underdog' take on the most powerful empire in the world and win (as in the revolutionary war) and so you can forgive them for thinking 'strength of will' and resolve would overcome being numerically inferior and lacking the resources?

 

edit: i put 'possible' , i actually meant 'impossible' as a lack of shipping and industrial base could in no way be construed as useful national assets (or non assets ) when setting up colonies

 

War 1812 is more significant I believe.  The States had to deal with the British, Canada was our fault but I can understand why they attacked them because the were part of the British Empire, but most grievous of all was that the States had to fight all but 5-8 Native American Nations all at once because the British convinced them that the Colonists were the demons and devils of the religions the Natives followed.  They wanted to wipe out every man woman and child after they were convinced we were spiritually evil creatures.  I believe this event may had contributed to the later years hostile actions of the States towards Native Americans.  Unfortunately after said war the natives that were tricked into thinking we were demons never saw us as anything else... 

 

 

What? that actually happened? Puts that song from Pochahontas in a new light. "It is what we feared, the pale face is a demon, the only thing they feel at all is greed. Beneath that milky hide, there's emptiness inside! I wonder if they even bleed!"

 

Then again the settlers did give them blankets with small pox in them. That's an evil aligned deed if there ever was one.

[RogueCorona 1,043]

Remote base? Check.

Guerillia tactics? Check.

Killing soldiers and personel who are only doing their duty? Check.

Destruction of governement instalations? Check.

 

 

The first one has nothing to do with a group being terrorists or not.

 

The last three are acts of war not acts of terrorism, as is infiltrating agents into enemy ranks.

[Verlaine 1,647]

Remote base? Check.

Guerillia tactics? Check.

Killing soldiers and personel who are only doing their duty? Check.

Destruction of governement instalations? Check.

 

It's as the saying goes:

 

"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

 

 

 

Not that the empire is the good guys, but in universe Palps would definatly paint of the rebelion as a bunch of terrorists, especially after the destruction of the 1st death star.

In all honesty, none of those are part of a commonly accepted explicit definition of terrorism.

 

Terrorism, as is commonly defined, is using violence to create fear, on a large scale. So more abstractly, it is violence to influence the psychological factors in a conflict rather than to achieve some tangible tactical goal. You can do that with guerilla tactics, but it's not necessary. Note that a terrorist blowing himself up at a party checks none of your boxes, but he's still a terrorist, because the party most likely is on no way important for any conflict. He's just trying to create a state of fear.

 

State terrorism - acts of terrorism performed by the state - is also possible. The destruction of Alderaan qualifies (as well as some bombings by real nations) because Alderaan was not that important for the Rebellion. Blowing it up was primarily intimidation.

 

So joking aside: the Rebels are not seen committing terrorism in the Star Wars films. Whether any terrorism was committed during the American Civil War is a question for historians. Most likely, it was, by both sides.

[GrimmyV 7,421]

Tarkin Doctrine. You know who the real terrorists were.

[Arterial Spray 235]

Most definitions of terrorism I've encountered fall along this basic line:

"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims".

Rebel cells used a range of covert and overt violent tactics in the pursuit of their obvious political aims, including blowing up civilian staffed factories and even public parades.

I don't see how you can argue that they weren't terrorists, even if their cause was just. War isn't pleasant, and civil wars are generally amongst the worst.

Edit: and if we want to focus just on the new cannon for a moment, the 'rebels' cell are stressed by certain imperial officers as being particularly non-violent compared to most rebels. How many troopers have they killed now? How many crew on those capitol ships? What the hell are the rest like?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Arterial Spray

[incinerator950 387]

I stopped applying logic to Star Wars a long time ago. It wasn't meant to, and it was drawn on comparisons to real world ideologies and events to give relatability and familiarity to it.

[RogueCorona 1,043]

The thing is the officers and crews of those ships and the ships themselves are military targets thus attacking them is an act of war not an act of terrorism.

 

And before anyone tries to claim Alderaan was a military target so the Empire wasn't committing a terrorist act by destroying it let me remind you that Tarkin himself did not consider the planet a military.

 

"You would prefer another target, a military target, then name the system."

[incinerator950 387]

Most definitions of terrorism I've encountered fall along this basic line:

"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims".

Rebel cells used a range of covert and overt violent tactics in the pursuit of their obvious political aims, including blowing up civilian staffed factories and even public parades.

I don't see how you can argue that they weren't terrorists, even if their cause was just. War isn't pleasant, and civil wars are generally amongst the worst.

Edit: and if we want to focus just on the new cannon for a moment, the 'rebels' cell are stressed by certain imperial officers as being particularly non-violent compared to most rebels. How many troopers have they killed now? How many crew on those capitol ships? What the hell are the rest like?

Military engagements and Guerrilla strikes.  Generally the rest of the rebels are more active in fighting or are actively trying to fight the Empire militarily toe to toe. 

 

Although, by old EU standards and grandfather carry over from ANH and ROTS, Alderaan was a rebel aligned world. 

[Gadge 4,294]

The difference between being a 'freedom fighter' or a 'terrorist' is whether or not you win...

[incinerator950 387]

The difference between being a 'freedom fighter' or a 'terrorist' is whether or not you win...

 

Or just attacking unsolicited targets, whether you're funded directly by someone or given a handout to someone's inept policies.  The rebels wouldn't be such a "good" force if they were attacking Imperial families, bases in the midst of cities, and bombing civilian manufacturing related to Imperial Industry.  Although in the EU, the Rebels authorized privateers to raid Commercial shipping of companies supporting the Empire.

[RogueCorona 1,043]

 

Most definitions of terrorism I've encountered fall along this basic line:

"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims".

Rebel cells used a range of covert and overt violent tactics in the pursuit of their obvious political aims, including blowing up civilian staffed factories and even public parades.

I don't see how you can argue that they weren't terrorists, even if their cause was just. War isn't pleasant, and civil wars are generally amongst the worst.

Edit: and if we want to focus just on the new cannon for a moment, the 'rebels' cell are stressed by certain imperial officers as being particularly non-violent compared to most rebels. How many troopers have they killed now? How many crew on those capitol ships? What the hell are the rest like?

Military engagements and Guerrilla strikes.  Generally the rest of the rebels are more active in fighting or are actively trying to fight the Empire militarily toe to toe. 

 

Although, by old EU standards and grandfather carry over from ANH and ROTS, Alderaan was a rebel aligned world. 

 

 

Being aligned with the rebellion doesn't necessarily make the planet a military target though. Nuking Alderann was basically a government nuking a rebel aligned city in a civil war even though it had no rebel military assets or forces that the government knew of.. Not every city IRL or planet in Star Wars has a military base or military production. Even in Legends where Alderaan was working on building a new military all the actual ships and production sites, and thus the military targets, were off world. There is also a matter of scale involved. Does the presence of one military factory make the entire world a military target when a surgical strike could remove the factory without killing billions of bystanders?

 

Also while we could debate whether Alderaan really was, or wasn't a military target ANH shows that Tarkin doesn't consider it one.

 

And finally AFAIK there have been no canon Rebel military bases on Alderaan nor any Alderaanian military material produced expressly for the Rebellion to use so far.

 

 

 

The difference between being a 'freedom fighter' or a 'terrorist' is whether or not you win...

 

Or just attacking unsolicited targets, whether you're funded directly by someone or given a handout to someone's inept policies.  The rebels wouldn't be such a "good" force if they were attacking Imperial families, bases in the midst of cities, and bombing civilian manufacturing related to Imperial Industry.  Although in the EU, the Rebels authorized privateers to raid Commercial shipping of companies supporting the Empire.

 

 

Targeting enemy merchant traffic during war has been part of every big naval war I can think of so if that is an act of terrorism so are most nations with long histories. Both World Wars, The Napoleonic Wars, most of the European and many Asian Wars of the 15th century or later, 1812, the American Revolution and the US Civil War, the South and Central American Wars of Independence, the list goes on and on. And in a number of those conflicts which involved rebellions such attacks, including hiring privateers, were done by rebel and government forces alike.

Edited February 9, 2016 by RogueCorona

[incinerator950 387]

I don't know why you're trying to argue a point I'm not defending.

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

I don't know why you're trying to argue a point I'm not defending.

 

Possibly because at this stage the discussion has drifted to such an extent that it is impossible to tell what points any of you are arguing either for or against.

[Gadge 4,294]

Yeah its just a decent discussion at this point and not too partisan either way.  Again why i love these forums.   On any others it would have got nasty by now.

[Verlaine 1,647]

Most definitions of terrorism I've encountered fall along this basic line:

"the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims".

Rebel cells used a range of covert and overt violent tactics in the pursuit of their obvious political aims, including blowing up civilian staffed factories and even public parades.

I don't see how you can argue that they weren't terrorists, even if their cause was just. War isn't pleasant, and civil wars are generally amongst the worst.

Edit: and if we want to focus just on the new cannon for a moment, the 'rebels' cell are stressed by certain imperial officers as being particularly non-violent compared to most rebels. How many troopers have they killed now? How many crew on those capitol ships? What the hell are the rest like?

The point is not that the Rebels' cause is just, but rather that their military actions have military tactical goals.

I don't recognize your definition of terrorism, because I think it is too excluding. All violence with some kind of (geo-)political goal will invariably be authorized by some authority, somewhere. On the other hand, any nation will regard an invasion of its territory to be 'unsanctioned', so that would make all invasions acts of terror. It should be remembered that states can commit terrorism, but that does not mean all violence automatically is. Ultimately, it's the goal that usually defines whether or not something is terrorism.

Again: the most common definition I know is violence that tries to destabilize a group's psychology, rather than destabilize tangible targets, like infrastructure or military power. This means that the destruction of Alderaan was probably an act of terror, because it was intended to frighten rather than cripple the Rebels. But while the destruction of the Death Star was surely demoralizing for some Imperials, it was a true military threat. Sanctioned or official is not really relevant here, probably because it is too relative; the Old and New Republic both would not sanction blowing up Alderaan, so it would just be terrorism relative to who is in charge. That is not practical.

In real life, some bombardments of German and English cities can be qualified as state terrorism, because it was done to make the respective nations weary of the war. The bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam war might also be regarded as state terrorism; the tactical advantage was, I think, small.

 

We think of terrorism as small groups of people who strike in some unexpected spot and then hide again. The reason such groups resort to terrorism is because truly achieving military goals is beyond what they can accomplish. You just can't destroy infrastructure with a few bombs and some guns. So they go for intimidation, and try to hit some target that will scare the most people and bring home the point that they are trying to make - the psychological goals. But it would be a mistake that because of this pattern, what we know now as typical terrorists are the exemplars that define the term.

 

A bit like the word 'salesman'. You might meet dozens of these in your life, and yet it would be possible that, in another place and another age, some guy is a salesman in a way that you can hardly recognize.

[incinerator950 387]

We think of terrorist groups as guerrillas fighting to destabilize a region by inciting panic and fear, their goals are what you described, but the aim is control of the region while cells abroad are just focused on damage.  They know full well no one is going to wipe out everyone alongside with them, and will use that.

 

State terrorism as justifiable or unjustifiable only came after as terrorism was loosely thrown around.  The rebels aren't terrorists, but will be labeled as such.  Star Wars is just white and black, and as such most of the writing reflects that.

[McFoy 672]

 

The can't argue the man had a point and a bit of foresight there.

 

I'd have said the near lack of shipping and a industrial production base would have made effective colonisation impossible.

 

I'd argue though that in relatively 'recent' history the South had seen an 'underdog' take on the most powerful empire in the world and win (as in the revolutionary war) and so you can forgive them for thinking 'strength of will' and resolve would overcome being numerically inferior and lacking the resources?

 

edit: i put 'possible' , i actually meant 'impossible' as a lack of shipping and industrial base could in no way be construed as useful national assets (or non assets ) when setting up colonies

 

War 1812 is more significant I believe.  The States had to deal with the British, Canada was our fault but I can understand why they attacked them because the were part of the British Empire, but most grievous of all was that the States had to fight all but 5-8 Native American Nations all at once because the British convinced them that the Colonists were the demons and devils of the religions the Natives followed.  They wanted to wipe out every man woman and child after they were convinced we were spiritually evil creatures.  I believe this event may had contributed to the later years hostile actions of the States towards Native Americans.  Unfortunately after said war the natives that were tricked into thinking we were demons never saw us as anything else... 

 

In the War of 1812 the Natives joined with the British primarily because they were promised a British backed Native Confederacy state in the Midwest. Prior to that they had been being funded by the British as well to harass American settlers on the frontier. After the siege of Detroit Brock had to pull back to Niagara to defend it from an American army where he was killed. He was a big reason why the Natives cooperated and once he retreated/died they ended up losing to American counterattacks and eventually were slaughtered. They didn't do these things because they though the Americans were demons, they did it for the same reasons any people would when they keep losing lands.