StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Yes I know this was done in the past but I was reminded of the Death Star II.contractor thing they mentioned in Clerks and Larry the Cable Guy

Would you say that assassinating PAlpatine deliberately as a plan makes then Terrorists? (but bear in mind Mon Mothma wanted not to do that originally until Madine and others reminded her over and over that Palpatine would have no problem killing her).

Would you say attacking a construction site on the DSII would be terrorism?

Also; were there many civilian casualties on the Imperials; based off the movie and novelization most construction workers and Xizor transports, etc. were gone when a few days earlier thousands of transports were around the construction site. It is mentioned that Teshik was helped by a construction workers so were all non-important workers evacuated and/or sent to the Death Star?

Jerjerrod did order an evacuation of most forces in the DS II when the shield went down; how effective was it?

Also, do you think the civilian Alliance casualties (Medical Frigates being attacked; various unarmed transports, etc) were the Rebels' Fault and were justifable targets by the Empire given they sent them into a combat zone?

I'd say that the Medical Frigate and whatever else the rebels had was fair game. It was in the combat area, and it got blown away. That's war.

As for assassinating Palpatine, I don't think that it's terrorism so much as effective warfare. Civilian leaders, like Palps or the American president, are a legitimate military target in my eyes. Of course this completely ignores the feasibility of assassinating Palpatine.

The construction site of a weapon or battle station is also a fair target. Construction workers know the risks, if they die then that's too bad. They are aiding and abetting the enemy, thus they are the enemy. However, that doesn't mean that I would specifically target them, because they are noncombatants. If a few of them die in the crossfire, or because they are on the DS 2 when it blows, then that's too bad.

Also, do you think the civilian Alliance casualties (Medical Frigates being attacked; various unarmed transports, etc) were the Rebels' Fault and were justifable targets by the Empire given they sent them into a combat zone?

Justifable targets. Those ships must of been sent in for a reason. They could of been packed with explosives, give extra sensors etc. Sending ships into the battlefield makes them justifable targets.

What's the current legislation/accepted principles which determine the line between war crime and high-casualty military operation? The death count at the DS1 must have been in the tens of billions at the very least, and even if they were mostly military personnel, is it still a justified action?

Current ethics suggest that an 'insurgent' attack on a military convoy in Iraq is not an act of aggression by one military force on another, but an illegal action by 'terrorists' (that lovely loosely defined word). Does the same not apply to the Rebels? One man slaughtered dozens of billions of people at the push of a button. Can such an action ever be justified?

Lazarus wrote:What's the current legislation/accepted principles which determine the line between war crime and high-casualty military operation? The death count at the DS1 must have been in the tens of billions at the very least, and even if they were mostly military personnel, is it still a justified action?

Current ethics suggest that an 'insurgent' attack on a military convoy in Iraq is not an act of aggression by one military force on another, but an illegal action by 'terrorists' (that lovely loosely defined word). Does the same not apply to the Rebels? One man slaughtered dozens of billions of people at the push of a button. Can such an action ever be justified?

When its an attack on a weapon that will vaporize billions in turn, you darn tootin' it is. The Death Star represents such a deadly threat that it is very much a legitimate target.

War crimes are not defined by body counts, but by the norms and conventions of warfare among civilized states (in fact, it is perfectly possible to commit a war crime without killing anyone -- e.g., the taking of hostages or the use of torture). The Death Star was classified as a "deep space mobile Imperial battle station" (ref. The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels), and as such was a legitimate military target, regardless of how many people were killed in its loss.

(Cf. the controversy over the May 1982 sinking of ARA General Belgrano, torpedoed outside the UK maritime exclusion zone surrounding the Falkland Islands. Despite dismay over the deaths of 323 officers and men, there was never any question that the sinking had been a perfectly legitimate military act.)

It need not be said that it is a war crime to attack a hospital ship (provided that her name and description has been clearly established between belligerent parties), but at the same time it is also a breach of international law to use a hospital ship for any military purpose. The fact of the matter is that a frigate is a warship; a medical frigate is still a frigate, and has no claim to the protections afforded a hospital ship. (Cf. RFA Argus, who is considered a primary casualty reception ship rather than a hospital ship because of her guns.)

The rebel Alliance's 'unarmed transports' employed at Endor were hardly innocuous; Return of the Jedi's novelization makes quite clear that they were in fact bomb ships, and perfectly legitimate targets for it.

Lazarus wrote: Current ethics suggest that an 'insurgent' attack on a military convoy in Iraq is not an act of aggression by one military force on another, but an illegal action by 'terrorists' (that lovely loosely defined word). Does the same not apply to the Rebels? One man slaughtered dozens of billions of people at the push of a button. Can such an action ever be justified?

Killing billions on a galatical scale is similar to the bombing of Hiroshima on earth and it can be justified perhaps not that particular incident but it can be justifiable.

They're terrorists fighting for their freedoms. At best, they're a fringe counterrevolutionary group.

TC Pilot wrote:They're terrorists fighting for their freedoms. At best, they're a fringe counterrevolutionary group.

How are they terrorists? Do they terrorize the common masses and attack civilian targets? If anyone was terrorizing the people, it was the Empire. Especially because ruling through fear was their stated doctrine.

Dark Flame wrote:

TC Pilot wrote:They're terrorists fighting for their freedoms. At best, they're a fringe counterrevolutionary group.

How are they terrorists? Do they terrorize the common masses and attack civilian targets? If anyone was terrorizing the people, it was the Empire. Especially because ruling through fear was their stated doctrine.

Even disregarding the comparative status of the Empire, calling the actions of the Alliance to Restore the Republic, at least those cells directly affiliated with Leia Organa, Mon Mothma, and the Mon Calamari, terrorism may be something of a misrepresentation. As I understand it, "terrorists" are those who use terror itself to further their political ends. No action undertaken by the aforementioned parties I can recall fits that definition. They conducted bombings and strikes on targets involved with the Imperial military and leadership, up to and including assassination, but their objective was never one of fear. If anything, they sought to embolden the general public by weakening the image of the totalitarian Empire.

Some of the acts of more obscure Rebel cells, system-localized ones and those not directly tied with the Alliance Council, may have been and probably were terrorist in nature, but I don't think that it would be accurate to classify the Rebel Alliance of the OT as such, in any of the films.

The Galactic Empire enjoys the overwhelming support of the populace, whereas the Rebel Alliance represented a pathetically tiny group of disaffected Outer Rimmers and criminals. These are the people who released known arsonists, murderers, and other degenerates from prison into Coruscant, who the citizens of Coruscant fled from in terror. They sought to impose their political and idealogical beliefs on an unwilling and unenthusiastic galaxy.

As for the Empire's rule through fear, who better than Ars Dangor to explain?

"We rule through might and fear—fear of the chaos that would ensue should the Imperial government falter."

TC Pilot wrote:The Galactic Empire enjoys the overwhelming support of the populace, whereas the Rebel Alliance represented a pathetically tiny group of disaffected Outer Rimmers and criminals. These are the people who released known arsonists, murderers, and other degenerates from prison into Coruscant, who the citizens of Coruscant fled from in terror. They sought to impose their political and idealogical beliefs on an unwilling and unenthusiastic galaxy.

As for the Empire's rule through fear, who better than Ars Dangor to explain?

"We rule through might and fear—fear of the chaos that would ensue should the Imperial government falter."

The Empire's support largely comes from the core. Further out into the Rim and Outer Rim has traditionally be a bastion of support for the Alliance. When the Emperor "died" at Endor, the worlds that seceded from the Empire were largely Rimward.

That sounds like an apologenic twisting of the Tarkin Doctrine that we see in A New Hope and that fact of the existence of the Death Star. What other use is the Death Star other than to be used as a terror weapon to prevent uprisings?

Dark Flame wrote:

TC Pilot wrote:They're terrorists fighting for their freedoms. At best, they're a fringe counterrevolutionary group.

How are they terrorists? Do they terrorize the common masses and attack civilian targets? If anyone was terrorizing the people, it was the Empire. Especially because ruling through fear was their stated doctrine.

You would do well to bear in mind that they could both well be terrorizing the same populace.

Isolder74 wrote:That sounds like an apologenic twisting of the Tarkin Doctrine that we see in A New Hope and that fact of the existence of the Death Star. What other use is the Death Star other than to be used as a terror weapon to prevent uprisings?

In the Outer Rim. As others said, the Core and Colonies had overwhelming support for the Empire. given most of the Galaxy's populltion was in said worlds the loyalist worlds likely had nothing to worry about.

Oh, yeah. about the madical frigates and transports. Ackbar bitched about that once, claiming it was "immoral" or something in the X-wing books (Wedge's Gamble or Rogue Squadron) I believe.

And have you heard of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" people?

TC Pilot wrote:The Galactic Empire enjoys the overwhelming support of the populace,

True; most of the Galaxy's support for the Empire was in the Core, and the Core Worlds held most of the Galaxy's population. Further out it decreases somewhat. Also hold in mind the racist element; e.g. the Empire relying on Human worlds and gettign support mailny from Humans while Rebel Forces getting more support from non-humans in the Rim

Like the Separatist Crisis and Clone Wars before it.

whereas the Rebel Alliance represented a pathetically tiny group of disaffected Outer Rimmers and criminals.

Given most people live in ward yes; but many outer rim worlds went rebel, also given many of them were COnfederate worlds.

As for the Empire's rule through fear, who better than Ars Dangor to explain?

"We rule through might and fear—fear of the chaos that would ensue should the Imperial government falter."

Yeah; the Clone Wars really screwed many over and allowed a strong empire and/or will to resist to go away; they didn't want a second Clone Wars and were less willing to resist.

How much of that core support was from planetary goverments and how much was from the 'people'? Even before Moffs, a lot of planets had King and Queens, Dictates and Viceroys. Authoritarian local goverments might indeed enjoy a dictatorship on the galactic level that supported them instead of a democracy.

But on a public level, there were a lot of people on Coruscant cheering and partying after learning of the death of the Emperor to say overwhelming amounts of the 'people' wanted the empire.

Why? I mean, drama and all, but a single street having a hoo-hah on a planet of trillions really doesn't mean anything.

Stark wrote:Why? I mean, drama and all, but a single street having a hoo-hah on a planet of trillions really doesn't mean anything.

A single street? How about the whole plaza deal, packed with citizens, rioting and cheering, pulling down statues. yeah, there might be a portion of the population that's not enamoured with the Empire.

Knife wrote:

Stark wrote:Why? I mean, drama and all, but a single street having a hoo-hah on a planet of trillions really doesn't mean anything.

A single street? How about the whole plaza deal, packed with citizens, rioting and cheering, pulling down statues. yeah, there might be a portion of the population that's not enamoured with the Empire.

Even if you pack a plaza full of people and stack people on top of people until that plaza is a cubical compressed mass of riot, you'd still not come close to a percentage point of the population of Coruscant.

So I don't really consider it to mean much either way, since you probably could find an equal proportion of people in real life America who celebrated during 9/11 or something else equally unlikely.

Knife wrote:A single street? How about the whole plaza deal, packed with citizens, rioting and cheering, pulling down statues. yeah, there might be a portion of the population that's not enamoured with the Empire.

Dude, I'm not arguing, I'm just saying it's an absolutely infintesimal part of the Coruscant population. They could be football hooligans with no political agenda at all, or they could be a bunch of rebel sympathisers gathering together while the literally millions of people around them just close their windows and wait for it to stop. It by itself doesn't prove there was widespread distate for the Empire.

You'll quote me saying I think there's no portion of the population that doesn't like the Empire (which would be absurd), or suggested there wasn't widespread rioting after the Emperors death. All I said was that example is of a staggeringly small part of the population and proves nothing (beyond dramatically with the whole 'oh yeah it was that easy to overthrow the Empire lol).

Stark wrote:Dude, I'm not arguing, I'm just saying it's an absolutely infintesimal part of the Coruscant population. They could be football hooligans with no political agenda at all, or they could be a bunch of rebel sympathisers gathering together while the literally millions of people around them just close their windows and wait for it to stop. It by itself doesn't prove there was widespread distate for the Empire.

More damning than the street parties themselves is the lack of police action to stop them. They're out there vandalizing public property, and yet there's no official presence watching the riot.

Surlethe wrote:More damning than the street parties themselves is the lack of police action to stop them. They're out there vandalizing public property, and yet there's no official presence watching the riot.

Isn't there a 'crowd surfing Stormtrooper' being manhandled by the crowd? Then again, it is interesting that the evil Empire can't react to huge gathering crowds forming and loitering and being angry with statues - which may suggest there are widespread riots and they may have no available forces of oppression.

weren't three of the founding members of the Alliance core worlds?

namely Alderaan, Corellia and Chalindria. True that the support for the Empire on the capitol might have been high but all things considered that's expected.

Stark wrote:

Surlethe wrote:More damning than the street parties themselves is the lack of police action to stop them. They're out there vandalizing public property, and yet there's no official presence watching the riot.

Isn't there a 'crowd surfing Stormtrooper' being manhandled by the crowd?

I hadn't seen the crowd-surfing Stormtrooper before, but yeah, there he is upon Youtube ReviewTM.

Then again, it is interesting that the evil Empire can't react to huge gathering crowds forming and loitering and being angry with statues - which may suggest there are widespread riots and they may have no available forces of oppression.

That was the point I was getting at: since there's no oppressive reaction against the vandalism going on, it suggests that either the police force is not working or the riots are widespread, and in both cases the satisfaction with the Empire's fall is not limited to a few street-corners on Coruscant and a couple of outer-rim planets.

Surlethe wrote:

Stark wrote:Dude, I'm not arguing, I'm just saying it's an absolutely infintesimal part of the Coruscant population. They could be football hooligans with no political agenda at all, or they could be a bunch of rebel sympathisers gathering together while the literally millions of people around them just close their windows and wait for it to stop. It by itself doesn't prove there was widespread distate for the Empire.

More damning than the street parties themselves is the lack of police action to stop them. They're out there vandalizing public property, and yet there's no official presence watching the riot.

I believe I remember one of the X-Wing books stating that Stormtroopers opened fire on those crowds to "pacify" them. With blasters set to kill, not stun. Don't remember which book though.