The Jedi were arrogant, short sighted and failed to live up to their beliefs. They were too blinded by the ideal of the republic to see how rotten it had become at its core.

Also, I disagree with the statement that any of the Jedi are meant to be the good guys either. Protagonists, yes, but not good guys. The Jedi order itself lives in a palace in the capital city far above anyone else training child soldiers and (as we see in the movies) acting as spies/soldiers/assassins for the republic.

Qui-Gon introduces us to midichlorians, showing how out of touch he is with the actual force. Keep in mind that he has Anakins mother left behind even though he's completely willing to cheat and could have gotten her out if he'd wanted. Qui-Gon is not acting as a good guy, he's just following his religion and beginning the manipulation of Anakin.

Yoda is basically incompetent.

Some interesting ideas. But Assassins? That assumes murder. A Jedi was permitted to kill in self-defense—only if there was no other option. If they were assassins, that would go against the Jedi code.

Yoda was not incompetent, he was overcome by Sideous and the use of the dark side. the whole idea of Midi's was just poor writing by GL to create an arbitrary number for people to understand how powerful in the force Anakin was to Yoda, and to give evidence that only Anakin could defeat Sideous alone. (which anakin as vader redeemed was able to do)

The entire 6 star wars movies is basically Anakins fall to the dark side and redemption. SIdeous corrupted and mislead anakin to think the Jedi were against the Emperor... when it was the other way around.

And GL has stated the Empire was based off of Nazi's. The parrell of vietnam is a bit of a stretch. The main political idea in the prequals was "Only a sith deals in absolutes" which means taking the power away from people, and the republic, and giving it to a dictator.

Some interesting ideas. But Assassins? That assumes murder. A Jedi was permitted to kill in self-defense—only if there was no other option. If they were assassins, that would go against the Jedi code.

Yoda and Obiwan both wanted to train Luke to kill Darth Vader and the Emperor. Not only that, but that purposefully lied about Luke's father so that they could be more sure he'd go through with murdering him. Darth and the Emperor are political figureheads, and thus Luke was being trained as an assassin. What is the Jedi code as stated in the movies? Did someone actually say you could only kill in self-defense? They don't seem to have any problem with murdering droids or sending people off to die.

Yoda was not incompetent, he was overcome by Sideous and the use of the dark side. the whole idea of Midi's was just poor writing by GL to create an arbitrary number for people to understand how powerful in the force Anakin was to Yoda, and to give evidence that only Anakin could defeat Sideous alone. (which anakin as vader redeemed was able to do)

Yoda and Obiwan both stare blankly at a map with a missing planet until a child has to point out to them that someone probably removed it. Yoda decides to use a massive clone army without once doing anything to check out where it really came from or what its purpose is (this is never mentioned in the movie). Yoda warns Anakin in episode 1 that fear leads to the dark side and then later says he is afraid of things to come. This is the Yoda depicted in the prequels. Yoda is pretty incompetent. He also fails in his coup/assassination attempt of Palpatine (note that Luke only wins by refusing to kill someone, going directly against what Yoda told him to do).

And blah blah this was poor writing and therefore can be excised from the movie. It's in the movie. It's what happened. Yes, midichlorians are dumb and miss the point of the force. Maybe Lucas didn't intend them to show that Qui-Gon misses the point of the force but that's what they actually do show. This is corroborated by Qui-Gon also refusing to help Anakin's mother for the sole reason it would inconvenience his hopes of indoctrinating Anakin in his religion.

The entire 6 star wars movies is basically Anakins fall to the dark side and redemption. SIdeous corrupted and mislead anakin to think the Jedi were against the Emperor... when it was the other way around.

And GL has stated the Empire was based off of Nazi's. The parrell of vietnam is a bit of a stretch. The main political idea in the prequals was "Only a sith deals in absolutes" which means taking the power away from people, and the republic, and giving it to a dictator.

The Jedi were absolutely against the Emperor. They decide to arrest him for no reason other than him being a Sith Lord (i.e. not their religion). That's their entire justification. They don't know that he orchestrated the clone wars, besides which they are equally culpable for engaging in. Sideous is a bad person and a villain, but the Jedi weren't really much better.

And yes, the empire was aesthetically based on nazis. But its historical context was the film coming off the end of the Vietnam war. You really think that anti-establishment spirit of the rebel alliance had nothing to do what was going on in the US at the time? Lucas is a political film-maker, and he laces those themes into the movies. Beyond his intent, the parallels of the empire to U.S. empire are pretty obvious. And you're latching onto the paradoxical statement of "only the sith deal in absolutes" as a denouement of the sith. Think about what the inherent contradiction of that statement, and who it's coming from. A jedi so blinded to the truth that he brutally maims his best friend (a friend who essentially was begging Obiwan to kill him) and leaves him to burn and suffer. Ice cold, that Obiwan is. Also, taking the power away from people and giving it to a dictator? The power that people vested in an ineffectual republic run by an order of religious zealots who can't even be bothered to lift a hand to stop slavery while adopting the garb (robes) of the common people and living in a castle in the clouds? Again, the reason people dislike the prequels in addition to their bad production qualities is that the plot is mixing an upbeat adventure serial style with a story about corruption and decay, a gap that the movies fail to bridge in an entertaining way. Still, the story and message are there, and are interesting to think about.

Someone pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago that prior to the prequels, it was possible to believe that Anakin Skywalker had been redeemed by his son.

According to him, after the prequels, it becomes clear that everything Anakin did was for selfish reasons. Thus, at the end, his decision to save Luke Skywalker was not a rejection of evil, but to protect his family. It was functionally no different than his decision to murder Mace Windu and join Palpatine- in order to protect his family. What lesson did Anakin learn? How did he ever change?

As far as Vietnam parallels go, it's pretty clear what the Ewoks are supposed to represent: a technologically and numerically inferior indigenous force that overcomes a technologically and numerically superior force. The movie was released in 1983. Draw what conclusions you will.

I think people will pick and choose how they want to view their entertainment through their own personal lens, at least politically. In every interview I've read GL based Star Wars on a combination of various historical analogies both visually, and literally, Tatooine is a province where WW2 battles were waged in North Africa, Chancellor is the technical term for head of state from Germany, Legion was a Roman military major unit of command, Stormtroopers are obvious.

Characters are heavily influenced by pop serial sci fi of the 30s, Kurosawa, and spaghetti westerns. There are scenes drawn almost exactly from classics like Lawrence of Arabia. Religious foundations and philosophy drawn from a number of eastern influences.

Honestly Palpatine looks far more like an evil sci fi wizard version of Napoleon or Caesar than anything from Vietnam. Vietnam was political ideology, Star Wars is definitely character driven.

You can take any dramatic piece based on war and draw parallels to the human experience as essentially all conflict shares many of the same roots, and most certainly the same results.

You can take any dramatic piece based on war and draw parallels to the human experience as essentially all conflict shares many of the same roots, and most certainly the same results.

Well, yes. When I was referring to Endor, I was trying (perhaps poorly) to point out that there have been numerous occasions in history where a numerically and technologically inferior force has defeated a technologically and numerically superior force. Yes, Vietnam was one of the most recent examples of the time, but the 1980's also saw the beginnings of the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan and the Mujahadeen. And then there was the American Revolution, and all of the other relevant historical examples.

That said, I think alternate interpretations of the events in Star Wars through various political, social, or even religious lenses can be fascinating. The alternate interpretation of the rebels as terrorists and the Empire as "the good guys" (often played for laughs) is one I enjoy exploring a great deal.

Some interesting ideas. But Assassins? That assumes murder. A Jedi was permitted to kill in self-defense—only if there was no other option. If they were assassins, that would go against the Jedi code.

Yoda and Obiwan both wanted to train Luke to kill Darth Vader and the Emperor. Not only that, but that purposefully lied about Luke's father so that they could be more sure he'd go through with murdering him. Darth and the Emperor are political figureheads, and thus Luke was being trained as an assassin. What is the Jedi code as stated in the movies? Did someone actually say you could only kill in self-defense? They don't seem to have any problem with murdering droids or sending people off to die.

Ok when do we see them murdering droids? The only droids I remember seeing them kill were enemy soldiers. Jedi killing those droids was no more murder than my grandfather killing German or Italian soldiers in World War II was.

I'm not being critical of anyone's interpretation of Star Wars, it's just there is no single direct parallel historically which was my point. GL just cherry picked what he liked and used it in a big fictional patchwork that is fun to watch.

I think there's something to be said for having a peaceful order of warrior monks officially go to war for political reasons rather than survival, and given the Jedi's positions as commanders, don't they become more culpable for their actions? That and there was no war going on for most of the first two movies. Those droids get cut down pretty frequently. "Oh but they're just droids so it isn't as bad as killing people" isn't just about allowing Jedi to cut down swathes of enemies in a PG movie. Think of what that means in the universe itself, in which droids have personalities and one of them is a literal deus ex machina of the force in the form of R2. Something else to note, Jedi in these movies are always the first to draw weapons. They love battle, they're reckless, and they go a lot more for the warrior than the monk part.

And yes, Lucas talked about going for a WW2 aesthetic, down to directly lifting a sequence from a ww2 film. However, people like to talk about the cultural zeitgeist of Star Wars and how it came out at just the right place and time? What makes that one right? What makes Star Wars fit? I think the anti-authority slant of the movie is a big part of that, coming off the Vietnam war. It's also worth talking about the fact that the movie was renamed from Star Wars to A New Hope. Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a military action. It's absolutely a coincidence, but a funny one, no?

Nimsim, I agree with some of what you wrote and the rest I think is a supportable viewpoint. But I don't think Yoda asking the child(1) about the missing planet is the inditement you say. We don't know what the security is on the Jedi archives. We don't know how long it's been since the Jedi were actually betrayed by one of their own. In short, we don't really know just how unthinkable it is that someone could have deleted a whole planet from their archives. I see that moment as akin to someone trying to work out how their company accounts look slightly off and then an outsider pointing out casually: "well look - these two don't match so your son who's an employee has been stealing from you." Sometimes things are not so much hard to work out, as unthinkable because they challenge a long-held assumption. Children do not have long-held assumptions by their nature.

(1) nope, sorry, tried. still can't say "youngling" with a straight face.

Nimsim, I agree with some of what you wrote and the rest I think is a supportable viewpoint. But I don't think Yoda asking the child(1) about the missing planet is the inditement you say. We don't know what the security is on the Jedi archives. We don't know how long it's been since the Jedi were actually betrayed by one of their own. In short, we don't really know just how unthinkable it is that someone could have deleted a whole planet from their archives. I see that moment as akin to someone trying to work out how their company accounts look slightly off and then an outsider pointing out casually: "well look - these two don't match so your son who's an employee has been stealing from you." Sometimes things are not so much hard to work out, as unthinkable because they challenge a long-held assumption. Children do not have long-held assumptions by their nature.

(1) nope, sorry, tried. still can't say "youngling" with a straight face.

I I think part of the problem with the drawing the lightsabers so fast has to do with Jedi using them as a tool to cause others to back down. they have been using them that way for so long they do not realize how thuggish it really is.

Nimsim, I agree with some of what you wrote and the rest I think is a supportable viewpoint. But I don't think Yoda asking the child(1) about the missing planet is the inditement you say. We don't know what the security is on the Jedi archives. We don't know how long it's been since the Jedi were actually betrayed by one of their own. In short, we don't really know just how unthinkable it is that someone could have deleted a whole planet from their archives. I see that moment as akin to someone trying to work out how their company accounts look slightly off and then an outsider pointing out casually: "well look - these two don't match so your son who's an employee has been stealing from you." Sometimes things are not so much hard to work out, as unthinkable because they challenge a long-held assumption. Children do not have long-held assumptions by their nature.

(1) nope, sorry, tried. still can't say "youngling" with a straight face.

I I think part of the problem with the drawing the lightsabers so fast has to do with Jedi using them as a tool to cause others to back down. they have been using them that way for so long they do not realize how thuggish it really is.

That's very common. Those with power begin to see anyone not accepting their power as causing the problem. Sadly it gets extended to others within the group - if someone is seen as powerful then others in the group will turn on someone challenging that authority regardless of right or wrong, because it threatens group cohesion. That's primate politics: keeping the peace within the group trumps right or wrong, too often. And if one party is used to power, then the one not accepting it is perceived as "causing trouble".

I think there's something to be said for having a peaceful order of warrior monks officially go to war for political reasons rather than survival, and given the Jedi's positions as commanders, don't they become more culpable for their actions? That and there was no war going on for most of the first two movies. Those droids get cut down pretty frequently. "Oh but they're just droids so it isn't as bad as killing people" isn't just about allowing Jedi to cut down swathes of enemies in a PG movie. Think of what that means in the universe itself, in which droids have personalities and one of them is a literal deus ex machina of the force in the form of R2. Something else to note, Jedi in these movies are always the first to draw weapons. They love battle, they're reckless, and they go a lot more for the warrior than the monk part.

Oh there was definitely a war being fought in Episode I, it may not have been a large scale war in Star Wars terms, and no one may have formally declared war but it was still a war. The Trade Federation fired on a Republic diplomatic ship, tried to kill the Jedi sent to try and meditate the conflict between the Trade Federation and Naboo than launched a full scale invasion of Naboo. Any of those would be an act of war, especially the last one.

I mean, when you're a telepathic, precognitive master of an order whose stated purpose is to look out for the influence of evil, then I think there are some issues when you don't notice that someone took something out of the library. Generally, if someone heads up an organization and is ignorant of its shady goings-on, they're either incompetent or in on it. Just because Yoda had become overly relaxed with power doesn't make his behavior any better. And same for the jedi not being aware of how thuggish it is to brandish swords all the time. Not taking the time to think through your actions doesn't excuse you for their consequences.

I mean, when you're a telepathic, precognitive master of an order whose stated purpose is to look out for the influence of evil, then I think there are some issues when you don't notice that someone took something out of the library. Generally, if someone heads up an organization and is ignorant of its shady goings-on, they're either incompetent or in on it. Just because Yoda had become overly relaxed with power doesn't make his behavior any better. And same for the jedi not being aware of how thuggish it is to brandish swords all the time. Not taking the time to think through your actions doesn't excuse you for their consequences.

Well we know that their precognition falters when faced with the Dark Side. And a group can be great at spotting external threats and still be blind to betrayal within the family (so to speak). That's how I take the "lost a planet, Obi Wan has..." scene. It's a bit more than "took something out of the library". I assume Dooku was a very high-ranking Jedi. He was Yoda's own Padawan was he not (and yes, I know you're about to bring that back now I've mentioned it as another example of Yoda's failure. ). So it's very likely, imo, that only senior Jedi would have the access to start deleting things from the archives. It's perhaps quite reasonable for the Jedi to not see this right away when the answer is that one of their own high-ranking members was acting against them. Imagine you're in the US army and you find one of your generals is working for the Russians. Surprised, you will be.

I mean, when you're a telepathic, precognitive master of an order whose stated purpose is to look out for the influence of evil, then I think there are some issues when you don't notice that someone took something out of the library. Generally, if someone heads up an organization and is ignorant of its shady goings-on, they're either incompetent or in on it. Just because Yoda had become overly relaxed with power doesn't make his behavior any better. And same for the jedi not being aware of how thuggish it is to brandish swords all the time. Not taking the time to think through your actions doesn't excuse you for their consequences.

You sound as though you have a lot of unresolved Jedi anger, you should guard against temptation by the dark side.....

Is Yoda ignorant or incompetent, or is the story in the way it unfolded more a narrative way of demonstrating the power that Palpatine had achieved?...........the latter I think.

I mean, when you're a telepathic, precognitive master of an order whose stated purpose is to look out for the influence of evil, then I think there are some issues when you don't notice that someone took something out of the library. Generally, if someone heads up an organization and is ignorant of its shady goings-on, they're either incompetent or in on it. Just because Yoda had become overly relaxed with power doesn't make his behavior any better. And same for the jedi not being aware of how thuggish it is to brandish swords all the time. Not taking the time to think through your actions doesn't excuse you for their consequences.

You sound as though you have a lot of unresolved Jedi anger, you should guard against temptation by the dark side.....

Is Yoda ignorant or incompetent, or is the story in the way it unfolded more a narrative way of demonstrating the power that Palpatine had achieved?...........the latter I think.

I think Yoda is ignorant, but not in the way that word is often used as an insult. A threat that was last seen about a thousand years ago has returned and has the inherent power of interfering with the Jedi's foresight abilities, and they are betrayed from within by one of their highest-ranking members and Yoda's own apprentice (Dooku). Of course Yoda is ignorant and it's not really reasonable to condemn him for being less than omniscient, imo. Incompetent is a more complex question. Foolish, would be the better word, imo. I've just watched reached the series of episodes in the Clone Wars where Anakin proposes using terrorism on a planet that sided with the Seperatists. Yoda is against it, arguing that terror must never be used as a weapon and that this is not the Jedi way. Anakin manages to get approval though and I think Mace was supportive. Yoda accedes. He doesn't seem to me so much incompetent as an old teacher seeing things start to fall apart around him. He's what, 800 years old at this point? He probably expected to see out his years teaching young jedi and continuing the Jedi traditions. He might be ill-fitting for the position he finds himself in, but I don't think he deserves condemnation. Watching The Clone Wars, he actually seems something of a moderating influence.

So if not Yoda, who would have been the right person to lead the Jedi in this era and how would it have made a difference given what they were up against?

I've just watched reached the series of episodes in the Clone Wars where Anakin proposes using terrorism on a planet that sided with the Seperatists. Yoda is against it, arguing that terror must never be used as a weapon and that this is not the Jedi way. Anakin manages to get approval though and I think Mace was supportive.

I wouldn't call the Onderon freedom fighters "terrorists", they're all pretty cognizant of the potential negatives. If they're terrorists, then so was the Rebel Alliance, and pretty much anybody who doesn't roll over to the physically dominant.

I guess this is just an addendum really, but I've been watching some of the Clone Wars series. I've just got as far as Season 2, Episode 5, where the Republic forces invade Genosha (sp?).

In this, I learned that this was a planet they had previously already invaded, that the people there had managed to kick them off and so they were re-invading a second time to re-establish their control. Things that stood out to me - a Jedi Master had the troopers use flame-throwers on the native defenders (you get to see them burning as they roll around on the ground), Anakin and Asoka have a good-natured competition in how many of their enemy they kill (note, there are some droids in this one but most of the enemy seem to be living beings and the ones that the third Jedi master who wins the competition was fighting all were). Large parts of the defender's city are visibly destroyed including a massive tower at the centre of their city. Also the Jedi are "surprised" at the Genoshans (sp?) loyalty to Count Dooku.

Anyway, the episode ended with the Jedi comparing kill-tallies and Republic occupation of the planet re-established. I keep looking for subtext or self-awareness. I thought the third Jedi Master's comment about "so what do I win?" was going to be some sort of spiritual commentary on treating the deaths of others as sport, but it seemed not to be after all. Much more of this and you can sign me up for the Dark Side.

EDIT: Also, is it me or were the Genoshans in the caves unarmed? As far as I can see they were fighting bare-handed unlike the ones on the battlefield who mostly had guns bar the odd one swooping down. Does that means that the ones hiding in the caves away from the battle were just the civillans / evacuees? I mean they appeared to have no defences and the Jedi were only there because they got lost and had to take an unexpected path through the mountains. So there was no military purpose to the Genoshans being there - they seemed to be just hiding out until the Republic Forces blundered in.

As has been noted, that planet was invaded and occupied because it was producing munitions, and the Republic lost control of it for mysterious reasons (stated in the newsreel at the beginning). The unarmed Geonosians underground (and getting flamethrowered) were undead zombies controlled by the queen's worms, not any sort of alternate caste. The worms were also the "mysterious reason" behind the Republic's first loss of the planet.

I've just watched reached the series of episodes in the Clone Wars where Anakin proposes using terrorism on a planet that sided with the Seperatists. Yoda is against it, arguing that terror must never be used as a weapon and that this is not the Jedi way. Anakin manages to get approval though and I think Mace was supportive.

I wouldn't call the Onderon freedom fighters "terrorists", they're all pretty cognizant of the potential negatives. If they're terrorists, then so was the Rebel Alliance, and pretty much anybody who doesn't roll over to the physically dominant.

The Onderon rebels were pretty clearly not employing terrorist tactics. They were using guerrilla warfare, but they only targeted military targets, and went out of their way to protect civilians from getting into the line of fire. They were more in line with the French Resistance in Nazi-occupied France.

I've just watched reached the series of episodes in the Clone Wars where Anakin proposes using terrorism on a planet that sided with the Seperatists. Yoda is against it, arguing that terror must never be used as a weapon and that this is not the Jedi way. Anakin manages to get approval though and I think Mace was supportive.

I wouldn't call the Onderon freedom fighters "terrorists", they're all pretty cognizant of the potential negatives. If they're terrorists, then so was the Rebel Alliance, and pretty much anybody who doesn't roll over to the physically dominant.

Well "terrorism" was the word used by the Jedi Council (don't recall if it was Yoda or Obi Wan) when telling Anakin what they couldn't do. So I what I was just going off that, really. They were planting bombs in the city and certainly blurring the lines between Guerrilla Warfare and Terrorism. Groups in the Middle East have been called terrorist by US government spokespeople for engaging in similar such warfare. The Jedi council also say that they must not become involved in trying to overthrow a "legitimate" government, so even though the rebels regard the current king as not the legitimate one, it's clear that the Republic regards it as a legitimate authority. It's simply one that has sided with their enemy and where there is some active resistance on the ground that they can sponsor unlike on, say, Geonosis.

I guess this is just an addendum really, but I've been watching some of the Clone Wars series. I've just got as far as Season 2, Episode 5, where the Republic forces invade Genosha (sp?).

In this, I learned that this was a planet they had previously already invaded, that the people there had managed to kick them off and so they were re-invading a second time to re-establish their control. Things that stood out to me - a Jedi Master had the troopers use flame-throwers on the native defenders (you get to see them burning as they roll around on the ground), Anakin and Asoka have a good-natured competition in how many of their enemy they kill (note, there are some droids in this one but most of the enemy seem to be living beings and the ones that the third Jedi master who wins the competition was fighting all were). Large parts of the defender's city are visibly destroyed including a massive tower at the centre of their city. Also the Jedi are "surprised" at the Genoshans (sp?) loyalty to Count Dooku.

Anyway, the episode ended with the Jedi comparing kill-tallies and Republic occupation of the planet re-established. I keep looking for subtext or self-awareness. I thought the third Jedi Master's comment about "so what do I win?" was going to be some sort of spiritual commentary on treating the deaths of others as sport, but it seemed not to be after all. Much more of this and you can sign me up for the Dark Side.

EDIT: Also, is it me or were the Genoshans in the caves unarmed? As far as I can see they were fighting bare-handed unlike the ones on the battlefield who mostly had guns bar the odd one swooping down. Does that means that the ones hiding in the caves away from the battle were just the civillans / evacuees? I mean they appeared to have no defences and the Jedi were only there because they got lost and had to take an unexpected path through the mountains. So there was no military purpose to the Genoshans being there - they seemed to be just hiding out until the Republic Forces blundered in.

As has been noted, that planet was invaded and occupied because it was producing munitions, and the Republic lost control of it for mysterious reasons (stated in the newsreel at the beginning). The unarmed Geonosians underground (and getting flamethrowered) were undead zombies controlled by the queen's worms, not any sort of alternate caste. The worms were also the "mysterious reason" behind the Republic's first loss of the planet.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the zombie geonosins underneath the temple. I'm referring to the very much alive geonosians who were hiding in the caves in the mountains when the other Jedi and his clones got lost and had to cut through an unexpected route. They found a bunch of unarmed ones hiding in the caves (far from the battle) and burned them to death with flame-throwers.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the zombie geonosins underneath the temple. I'm referring to the very much alive geonosians who were hiding in the caves in the mountains when the other Jedi and his clones got lost and had to cut through an unexpected route. They found a bunch of unarmed ones hiding in the caves (far from the battle) and burned them to death with flame-throwers.

Ah, I just went back and looked (thanks, Netflix!) and you're right, those were not zombies. They were soldiers (the labor caste doesn't have wings, only the soldier and "elite" Geonosians do), and while they didn't have blasters, they have chitinous armored exoskeletons, talons and mandibles that can get through Clone Trooper armor, and they were using swarm tactics to overwhelm, carry and crush Clone Troopers. I'd say the squad was defending itself.

Well "terrorism" was the word used by the Jedi Council (don't recall if it was Yoda or Obi Wan) when telling Anakin what they couldn't do. So I what I was just going off that, really. They were planting bombs in the city and certainly blurring the lines between Guerrilla Warfare and Terrorism. Groups in the Middle East have been called terrorist by US government spokespeople for engaging in similar such warfare. The Jedi council also say that they must not become involved in trying to overthrow a "legitimate" government, so even though the rebels regard the current king as not the legitimate one, it's clear that the Republic regards it as a legitimate authority. It's simply one that has sided with their enemy and where there is some active resistance on the ground that they can sponsor unlike on, say, Geonosis.

I disagreed with the Council's terminology too. Not all resistance is terrorism. They did mostly stick to droid poppers and continually talked about not causing the populace to fear them, because they needed their support. It was clearly a grey-op from the Jedi standpoint as a separatist controlled planet with what appeared to be a legit government (it wasn't, as the legit leader had been replaced by a puppet and the planet's senator had been assassinated by Dooku), but from the POV of the Onderon natives, they were rebelling against a corrupt regime and an unwelcome occupying force.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. We again get back to what it means for the rebel alliance to be opposing the empire. I'm sure they're called terrorists by the empire. Hell, those WW2 resistance fighters were terrorists, and more than willing to kill civilians who got in their way.

Also, as for calling Yoda incompetent, if we had a president whose hand picked general was found out to be working for the enemy, do you really think that would be a competent president? If we had a pope whose hand picked cardinal went on to try destroying Catholicism, wouldn't that pope be pretty incompetent at his job? I know its disappointing to find out that Yoda pretty much sucked as a Jedi master, but that's what the films depict him as doing. Given that the dude is centuries old, and heads up an order whose stated goal is eradicating sith, he doesn't really get a pass for palpatine pulling the wool over his eyes. Is the dark side force from palpatine so powerful that it makes Yoda make actively bad decisions, or is it more likely that palpatine knew how to prey on the incompetence of the Jedi and the incompetence of the republic? When Yoda says that the dark side is clouding everything, that seems to imply that he's having to rely on his own instincts rather than force powers, and that his instincts are, frankly, terrible (remember he wanted to send Luke out to murder Vader and the emperor, not save Anakin).

To be clear, I think the Jedi Order of the Old Republic amounted to benevolent sociopaths in most cases, and their asceticism was a profound weakness, particularly because I think it made them incapable of absorbing their emotions, which meant that any crappy event in their lives pretty much turned them Dark Side. (See: Anakin, Aayla Secura, Quinlan Voss, Asajj Ventress, etc.) Luke Skywalker's New Jedi Order learned from their mistakes and forged a stronger Jedi Order that didn't deny their feelings.

Yoda (and the rest of the Order) definitely made some terrible decisions along the way, and as presented, I think it was best for everyone for the Jedi Order to fall. The Empire wasn't the answer, but clearly the Republic wasn't working.