They... They still attacked first.

That's the part that matters.

Paging Han Solo to this thread for a discussion on why shooting first is a smart idea.

Han Solo was threatened first. He didn't just start firing as soon as Greedo showed up. Plus, he knew who Greedo was and knew what he was likely to do. The same can't be said for those mining guild TIE pilots. They were sent after the pergil, saw a freighter, and started firing on them without even hailing them. Seems kind of stupid, really, because that could have been a potential customer for them...

as for the Mining Guild - most private military contractors in the employ of a tyrannical empire will operate on a "shoot first" policy because they will be targets for exactly what happened. Go see if a Blackwater facility in Iraq will let you wander in and buy oil or guns

I feel the need to clarify that when I said "But they fired first" I meant the mining guild.

Thus making it totally valid for our Rebels to shoot back, regardless of anything else.

I feel the need to clarify that when I said "But they fired first" I meant the mining guild.

Thus making it totally valid for our Rebels to shoot back, regardless of anything else.

I just want to mention, that the rebels wanted to blow up the facility anyway from the start as part of their given mission.

The argument, that the miners provoked aggressive retaliation by shooting first (to defend their property from unauthorized intruders in the first place) is - at best - moot...!

There are many logical explanations as to why did they open fire, chose whichever you like:

- the Ghost is a well known terrorist ship at this point

- they got a warning from the Empire that someone will try to steal the shipment

- the facility nas been a target of pirate raids recently

- this is a very remote place and every small private freighter is suspicious

- it was a mistake but the Ghost fired back instead od trying to communicate

- the miners are evil and kill everone on sight in order to take over the Galaxy

(I think it was a combination of the first four)

But c'mon, what are we talking about? If those TIEs didn't shot first, what'd happen? Rebels would buy the fuel or what?

Let's not forget that in Rebels , as well as in the original Star Wars trilogy, the viewpoint characters are terrorists. The plot of A New Hope could quite accurately be described like this:

A young man is groomed by an old wizard and falls in with criminals. They break into a government facility and set free a high ranking terrorist leader before escaping. The old man is killed by a government official. The boy, now fully radicalised by the death of the old man, becomes a terrorist fighter and participates in an attack on said facility (for most of the terrorists, it's a suicide attack as well...). He destroys it using magic powers and is rewarded by the terrorist leaders.

Rebels is broadly similar in that it focuses on a boy who falls in with a criminal terrorist group who continually attack the legitimate government.

One of the things I found interesting about The Force Awakens is that while it repeated a lot of ideas and tropes, it drastically changed that backdrop... but that's for another thread.

My point? The heroes of Rebels shooting first is the least of their crimes...

Ok. So in reality, who cares who shot first? If both sides declined to shoot first and no one shot, there wouldn't be any story. No star war to be the main focus of Star Wars. So be glad the miners shot at the Ghost for who-cares-what reason. It makes our beloved Star Wars possible.

the legitimate government.

(And I am quite certain I am going to regret posting this)

Let's not forget that in Rebels , as well as in the original Star Wars trilogy, the viewpoint characters are terrorists. The plot of A New Hope could quite accurately be described like this:

A young man is groomed by an old wizard and falls in with criminals. They break into a government facility and set free a high ranking terrorist leader before escaping. The old man is killed by a government official. The boy, now fully radicalised by the death of the old man, becomes a terrorist fighter and participates in an attack on said facility (for most of the terrorists, it's a suicide attack as well...). He destroys it using magic powers and is rewarded by the terrorist leaders.

Rebels is broadly similar in that it focuses on a boy who falls in with a criminal terrorist group who continually attack the legitimate government.

One of the things I found interesting about The Force Awakens is that while it repeated a lot of ideas and tropes, it drastically changed that backdrop... but that's for another thread.

My point? The heroes of Rebels shooting first is the least of their crimes...

Why do so many people have trouble understanding simple facts like the one that not every guerrilla fighter or rebel soldier is a terrorist?

The Empire is far more of a terrorist group then anything has ever shown the Rebel Alliance being. The whole point of building the Death Star and destroying Alderaan was to terrorize the galaxy into submission. If that isn't a terrorist action what is?

And please don't claim that governments, legitimate or otherwise, can't also be terrorist groups because that's total BS.

Let's not forget that in Rebels , as well as in the original Star Wars trilogy, the viewpoint characters are terrorists. The plot of A New Hope could quite accurately be described like this:

A young man is groomed by an old wizard and falls in with criminals. They break into a government facility and set free a high ranking terrorist leader before escaping. The old man is killed by a government official. The boy, now fully radicalised by the death of the old man, becomes a terrorist fighter and participates in an attack on said facility (for most of the terrorists, it's a suicide attack as well...). He destroys it using magic powers and is rewarded by the terrorist leaders.

Rebels is broadly similar in that it focuses on a boy who falls in with a criminal terrorist group who continually attack the legitimate government.

One of the things I found interesting about The Force Awakens is that while it repeated a lot of ideas and tropes, it drastically changed that backdrop... but that's for another thread.

My point? The heroes of Rebels shooting first is the least of their crimes...

Luke's Change - It was totally an inside job.

Let's not forget that in Rebels , as well as in the original Star Wars trilogy, the viewpoint characters are terrorists. The plot of A New Hope could quite accurately be described like this:

A young man is groomed by an old wizard and falls in with criminals. They break into a government facility and set free a high ranking terrorist leader before escaping. The old man is killed by a government official. The boy, now fully radicalised by the death of the old man, becomes a terrorist fighter and participates in an attack on said facility (for most of the terrorists, it's a suicide attack as well...). He destroys it using magic powers and is rewarded by the terrorist leaders.

Rebels is broadly similar in that it focuses on a boy who falls in with a criminal terrorist group who continually attack the legitimate government.

One of the things I found interesting about The Force Awakens is that while it repeated a lot of ideas and tropes, it drastically changed that backdrop... but that's for another thread.

My point? The heroes of Rebels shooting first is the least of their crimes...

Why do so many people have trouble understanding simple facts like the one that not every guerrilla fighter or rebel soldier is a terrorist?

The Empire is far more of a terrorist group then anything has ever shown the Rebel Alliance being. The whole point of building the Death Star and destroying Alderaan was to terrorize the galaxy into submission. If that isn't a terrorist action what is?

And please don't claim that governments, legitimate or otherwise, can't also be terrorist groups because that's total BS.

It's all in how you view it.

So, from a certain point of view, they were terrorists

Let's not forget that in Rebels , as well as in the original Star Wars trilogy, the viewpoint characters are terrorists. The plot of A New Hope could quite accurately be described like this:

A young man is groomed by an old wizard and falls in with criminals. They break into a government facility and set free a high ranking terrorist leader before escaping. The old man is killed by a government official. The boy, now fully radicalised by the death of the old man, becomes a terrorist fighter and participates in an attack on said facility (for most of the terrorists, it's a suicide attack as well...). He destroys it using magic powers and is rewarded by the terrorist leaders.

Rebels is broadly similar in that it focuses on a boy who falls in with a criminal terrorist group who continually attack the legitimate government.

One of the things I found interesting about The Force Awakens is that while it repeated a lot of ideas and tropes, it drastically changed that backdrop... but that's for another thread.

My point? The heroes of Rebels shooting first is the least of their crimes...

Why do so many people have trouble understanding simple facts like the one that not every guerrilla fighter or rebel soldier is a terrorist?

The Empire is far more of a terrorist group then anything has ever shown the Rebel Alliance being. The whole point of building the Death Star and destroying Alderaan was to terrorize the galaxy into submission. If that isn't a terrorist action what is?

And please don't claim that governments, legitimate or otherwise, can't also be terrorist groups because that's total BS.

One of the great things about Star Wars, like many other settings – Warhammer 40,000 and Battlestar Galactica spring immediately to mind - is that there's something to root for on every side.

Want to empathise with the Empire and view the Rebel scum as terrorists disrupting government operations? Go for it. Prefer to view the Aliiance as plucky freedom fighters battling tyranny? Sure, that sounds right. See them all as totally irrelevant 'cos you're just a bounty hunter doing what you do? More power to you.

is that there's something to root for on every side.

Expect that the Empire is unquestionably the bad guys in the stories. Feel free to twist it how ever you want, but the fact is that the Rebels not the Empire are in fact the good guys in this story.

I get some people for different reasons like the Empire and so like to look at it from a different PoV, but that doesn't change that the Empire is a tyrannical dictatorship and the rebels are trying to restore rule by the people.

is that there's something to root for on every side.

Expect that the Empire is unquestionably the bad guys in the stories. Feel free to twist it how ever you want, but the fact is that the Rebels not the Empire are in fact the good guys in this story.

I get some people for different reasons like the Empire and so like to look at it from a different PoV, but that doesn't change that the Empire is a tyrannical dictatorship and the rebels are trying to restore rule by the people.

But then you read novels like Choices of One or Allegiance by Timothy Zahn, or countless other novels that give us the perspective of actual good Imperials just trying to do their jobs and make a living, and you see that not every citizen or even Stormtrooper in Star Wars is evil. Heck, watch some of the deleted scenes from Episode VI and you'll see that there are good Imperials who disagree with the Emperor, but are just too terrified of him to challenge his commands.

I get some people for different reasons like the Empire and so like to look at it from a different PoV, but that doesn't change that the Empire is a tyrannical dictatorship and the rebels are trying to restore rule by the people.

And the Imperial propaganda for that is that rule of the people causes chaos, corruption and war, as it did with the senate. The tyrannical dictatorship offers peace and order throughout the galaxy.

But then you read novels like Choices of One or Allegiance by Timothy Zahn

You mean non-canon EU stuff? While it's true not every member of the Empire is evil, that doesn't change the fact that the Empire itself is evil. That may be a simplistic thing, but that is how the story was written.

Heck, watch some of the deleted scenes from Episode VI and you'll see that there are good Imperials who disagree with the Emperor, but are just too terrified of him to challenge his commands.

Anyone who stands by and watches evil done and says or does nothing is as guilty as the people doing it.

And the Imperial propaganda for that is that rule of the people causes chaos, corruption and war, as it did with the senate.

And it's just that propaganda. But we're dealing with a story here, not real life so what really matters is the opinion of the people telling it, and there is no question there. The Empire is the bad guys.

I'm not really sure what the argument here is? Yes, narratively speaking, the Empire are the antagonists.

Does that mean the Rebels aren't also terrorists? Not really.

Does that mean the Rebels aren't also terrorists? Not really.

Rebels do not operate as terrorists, it's the Empire that use terror as a weapon not the Rebels. Anytime the rebels are called terrorists it is propaganda used by an illegal and unjust government.

Rebels do not operate as terrorists, it's the Empire that use terror as a weapon not the Rebels. Anytime the rebels are called terrorists it is propaganda used by an illegal and unjust government.

Terrorism

noun

At least two of those apply to the Rebellion. Yes, the Empire could ALSO be called terrorists, but that doesn't make the Rebels NOT terrorists.

At least two of those apply to the Rebellion.

Point 1 may apply, but that would be true of every armed conflict ever and at that point the word loses all meaning. That's like calling anyone who disagrees with you for any reason at all a troll or racists or sexist.

Point 3 is equally bad for the same reason. Because that again means anyone who is involved in an armed conflict is a terrorist.

So if we go by that, then yes the Rebels are terrorists, but so is everyone else who's ever fired a weapon in an armed conflict, and so at that point the term means nothing, other than to be used in propaganda.

Point 1 may apply, but that would be true of every armed conflict ever and at that point the word loses all meaning.

Hmm, fair enough.

The Empire is depicted as evil because History is written by the victors. If the Empire had won, the Rebels would be a mere terrorist cell, with all heroic acts either distorted, mistold, or omitted and forgotten..

The Empire is depicted as evil because History is written by the victors.

No it's depicted as evil because the author decided they are evil.

Blowing up a whole planet just as an object lesson is an inherently evil thing, and who writes the history books doesn't actually change a thing.

I made a thread about this in the off-topic forum, but I think one semi-reasonable explanation to the way space works in SW, is that their space isn't complete vacuum like ours (yes, I know, it's not TOTAL vacuum, but still), but rather filled with a thin, invisible gassy substance, making sound travel, ships working like airplanes and all that.

It's been mentioned before that the Star Wars universe has different laws of physics than ours. A lot that goes on in the franchise would be simply impossible in reality, but the fabric of their's is woven differently.

Sure, it's a hand wave, but it's acceptable enough. In the multi-verse hypothesis, it has been proposed that the physical constants of other universes very well may be different than our own. It's still pretty much fringe science, sure, but it's something that can be used as an explanation if you're the type who really, really needs it.

As for the episode, they mentioned they were in the atmosphere of the planetoid. It has the gravitational pull to retain the gas being mined, so I think it's reasonable that it may have a thin atmosphere that some species can breath. As for the Ghost crew? I guess it's still too thin for humans and Lasaat to reasonably breath (or there's something toxic to both in the atmosphere), while Rodians and whatever the foreman's species can either handle thinner atmospheres or aren't susceptible to whatever toxin Zeb might've had to worry about.

Which is then a nice way of explaining why the guild members there are all Rodians and whatever the foreman is: yes, it was because there's budgetary reasons and copy/pasting a bunch of Rodians saves on cash, but in universe Rodians were used here because they're able to survive the conditions without equipment.

Does that mean the Rebels aren't also terrorists? Not really.

Rebels do not operate as terrorists, it's the Empire that use terror as a weapon not the Rebels. Anytime the rebels are called terrorists it is propaganda used by an illegal and unjust government.

The definition of terrorism is, " the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Which is exactly what governments do, use violence and intimidation to enforce its political views. When you use violence to enforce your political will, that's okay... if you're a government. If you're a citizen under such a government, and you use violence to enforce your political aims, then you're a terrorist.

Who's a terrorist and who's not depends on your point of view, definitely. If you perceive the government as having legitimacy, then anyone who takes up arms against it is a terrorist. If you perceive the government as illegitimate, then anyone who takes up arms against it is a rebel.

If you perceive the government as having legitimacy, then anyone who takes up arms against it is a terrorist. If you perceive the government as illegitimate, then anyone who takes up arms against it is a rebel.

I'll agree it's a matter of perspective. All rebellions are considered terrorists by the government they're fighting against.

But that again is such a broad definition that it loses meaning, and is typically used as propaganda to dismiss the group that's fighting against them. If the only thing you need to do to be considered a terrorist is to take up arms against a government regardless of how just it may or may not be then it is a meaningless term.