Jedi Council Forums - How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Author	Topic: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
Master_Starwalker Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 1/6 7:40pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire? - Date Edited: 1/6 7:43pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Master_Starwalker
	DarthApocalypse posted: Master_Starwalker posted: Which doesn't make their silence any less repugnant. All it takes for evil to win is for good to do nothing. Those officers could have done any number of things if they had an ethical issue with Vader's cruelty. Two examples off the top of my head are that they could have staged a coup akin to Operation Valkyrie or they could have defected to the Rebellion. Maybe you are correct and the officers should have started a coup. Or maybe they didn't think torturing known Rebels was that big of a deal. Or maybe they thought Vader knew what he was doing. Either way the fact the no officers said anything to Vader about his torture doesn't mean they agree or his actions were Imperial policy. It simply means they were smart enough to keep their mouth shut. It also means they were evil. They were in a position to easily prevent torture, and they didn't. DarthApocalypse posted: Master_Starwalker posted: Vader's actions are the only Imperial actions we see regularly and nothing indicates that they aren't the norm. Can you prove that torture wasn't standard Imperial procedure? Every source indicates that Vader is above the law and does what everyone the hell he wants. The onus is on you the prove why Vader's actions are standard procedure. Would you also claim that killing officers is also standard procedure? After all Vader does it all the time, so it must be official practice, despite no other officers doing so in any source I can think of. The burden of proof is on you to claim that Vader's use of to differs from the norm. Proving that it doesn't differ would require proving a negative. DarthApocalypse posted: Master_Starwalker posted: Of course, elections essentially serve that purpose given that they allow a bloodless transition of power. It's also worth pointing out that one side being evil doesn't necessarily mean the other side is good. One can view Bush's torture policies to be abhorrent while also viewing Al-Qaeda's means to be abhorrent. 1. The bloodless part is not true at all. Plenty of blood has been spilled during democratic elections. 2. I hesitate to use the labels good and evil, consider in war neither label applies. 1. True, but the norm (which appears to be taking place in the situation implicitly referenced) is that of a bloodless transition. 2. Which I think demonstrates that we're coming at this from two entirely different (and incompatible) perspectives. I'm coming from a moral one, while you're coming from an amoral one. -----signature----- "Imaginary is the future. Always now, even eternity will be." - Yoda "We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves." - The 14th Dalai Lama
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthApocalypse Registered: Apr '07	Date Posted: 1/6 8:12pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Master_Starwalker posted: It also means they were evil. They were in a position to easily prevent torture, and they didn't. How exactly were those officers supposed to prevent Vader from doing what he wanted? Fight him? That would be akin to committing suicide. Either way, even you believe their silence makes them evil, it isn't evidence they agreed with Vader's methods. Master_Starwalker posted: The burden of proof is on you to claim that Vader's use of to differs from the norm. Proving that it doesn't differ would require proving a negative. How about that fact that in every work involving the Empire I've ever read, Vader is the only person to employ torture. Ever. I've never seen Veers, Piett, Tarkin, Jerrijod, Tagge, Subner or Mara Jade use torture, only Vader. In fact, Tarkin, a man who has no problem with violence, didn't approve of torturing Leia. The torture of Han was done for completely personal reasons, as Vader wanted to lure in his son, so clearly that has nothing to do with Imperial law, but Vader's family issues. Again I ask you, do you believe that killing officers is an offical Imperial policy simply because Vader does so? Is a lightsaber the standard issue weapon just because Vader has one? How can the actions of one man represent the whole Imperial policy? Are Anakin's views on how the Jedi code should be interpreted correct simply because he is a Jedi? Master_Starwalker posted: 1. True, but the norm (which appears to be taking place in the situation implicitly referenced) is that of a bloodless transition. 2. Which I think demonstrates that we're coming at this from two entirely different (and incompatible) perspectives. I'm coming from a moral one, while you're coming from an amoral one. 1. That is the norm in the United States, yes. I just wanted to point out that a democracy is not immune from bloodshed. 2. Possibly. Morals are only good during peace time. Warfare has a completely different set of rules as both sides must get dirty if they expect to win. -----signature----- Don't take life too seriously. Nobody gets out alive.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_Starwalker Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 1/7 2:30am Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire? - Date Edited: 1/7 2:32am (1 edits total) Edited By: Master_Starwalker
	DarthApocalypse posted: Master_Starwalker posted: It also means they were evil. They were in a position to easily prevent torture, and they didn't. How exactly were those officers supposed to prevent Vader from doing what he wanted? Fight him? That would be akin to committing suicide. Either way, even you believe their silence makes them evil, it isn't evidence they agreed with Vader's methods. It's also not evidence that they disagreed. DarthApocalypse posted: Master_Starwalker posted: The burden of proof is on you to claim that Vader's use of to differs from the norm. Proving that it doesn't differ would require proving a negative. How about that fact that in every work involving the Empire I've ever read, Vader is the only person to employ torture. Ever. I've never seen Veers, Piett, Tarkin, Jerrijod, Tagge, Subner or Mara Jade use torture, only Vader. In fact, Tarkin, a man who has no problem with violence, didn't approve of torturing Leia. The torture of Han was done for completely personal reasons, as Vader wanted to lure in his son, so clearly that has nothing to do with Imperial law, but Vader's family issues. Again I ask you, do you believe that killing officers is an offical Imperial policy simply because Vader does so? Is a lightsaber the standard issue weapon just because Vader has one? How can the actions of one man represent the whole Imperial policy? Are Anakin's views on how the Jedi code should be interpreted correct simply because he is a Jedi? I feel it's worth pointing out that the fact the Empire has various kinds of droids which were specifically designed to torture implies that it's more than just Vader's personally favored means. Anyway, Vader's not the only one we see use torture. We've seen Imperial officers brand rebels, torture with electrocution, Isard tortured Corran Horn, Palpatine repeatedly tortured evel Lemelisk, Admiral Daala tortured frequently, Leonis Murthé tortured and experimented on his alien prisoners, Grand Admiral Pitta wandered around the Outer Rim Territories and tortured whomever his dungeon ships found, a number of Inquisitors such as Jerec have been shown torturing their captives, and of course Carnor Jax tortures Kir Kanos in Crimson Empire. In fact, the Empire had two government agencies created solely to torture. The Department of Punishment and the School of Torture. As for the points about the lightsaber and Anakin's view of the Code. No, because the films provide examples in those case which prove that he's not the norm. They never do for torture, and the EU (since you brought it up) only supports the idea that torture was common throughout the Empire. DarthApocalypse posted: Master_Starwalker posted: 1. True, but the norm (which appears to be taking place in the situation implicitly referenced) is that of a bloodless transition. 2. Which I think demonstrates that we're coming at this from two entirely different (and incompatible) perspectives. I'm coming from a moral one, while you're coming from an amoral one. 1. That is the norm in the United States, yes. I just wanted to point out that a democracy is not immune from bloodshed. 2. Possibly. Morals are only good during peace time. Warfare has a completely different set of rules as both sides must get dirty if they expect to win. 1. True, but the ideal is for it to be. 2. I think the fact that I (for the most part) disagree with that statement means we'll probably never really make any headway. -----signature----- "Imaginary is the future. Always now, even eternity will be." - Yoda "We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves." - The 14th Dalai Lama
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthApocalypse Registered: Apr '07	Date Posted: 1/7 8:52am Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Master_Starwalker posted: It's also not evidence that they disagreed. True. But like I asked earlier, how did you expect them to prevent Vader from torturing Han and Leia? Speaking up right then and there would get them killed and staging a coup as you suggested earlier would take a significant amount of time to plan and wouldn't have done anything for Han and Leia. Master_Starwalker posted: I feel it's worth pointing out that the fact the Empire has various kinds of droids which were specifically designed to torture implies that it's more than just Vader's personally favored means. Can you give me some examples? The only torture devices I remember seeing are the droid in ANH and the table is ESB. Master_Starwalker posted: Anyway, Vader's not the only one we see use torture. We've seen Imperial officers brand Rebels Ah. I didn't read Rebellion yet, so you may be correct on that one. Master_Starwalker posted: torture with electrocution I considered that just killing, not torture, since Force lighting doesn't kill instantly. Master_Starwalker posted: Isard tortured Corran Horn Isard is a warlord, no different them Thrawn, Daala, Zsinj, Shadowspawn and all the others who think they are the next Palpatine. Their actions in no way reflect Imperial procedure. It's akin to saying the Confederacy's actions represent the Republic since they were once one group. Master_Starwalker posted: Palpatine repeatedly tortured evel Lemelisk Really? I thought he just killed him and was done with it. Master_Starwalker posted: Admiral Daala tortured frequently, Leonis Murthé tortured and experimented on his alien prisoners, Grand Admiral Pitta wandered around the Outer Rim Territories and tortured whomever his dungeon ships found, a number of Inquisitors such as Jerec have been shown torturing their captives, and of course Carnor Jax tortures Kir Kanos in Crimson Empire. Again, all warlords who have no claim to being legitimate leaders of the Empire. Master_Starwalker posted: In fact, the Empire had two government agencies created solely to torture. The Department of Punishment and the School of Torture. As for the points about the lightsaber and Anakin's view of the Code. No, because the films provide examples in those case which prove that he's not the norm. They never do for torture, and the EU (since you brought it up) only supports the idea that torture was common throughout the Empire. Ah. I might have to concede the point, since I was ignorant of these two agencies. Master_Starwalker posted: 1. True, but the ideal is for it to be. 2. I think the fact that I (for the most part) disagree with that statement means we'll probably never really make any headway. Hey, its a new year, you're a now a mod and still we disagree. Some things never change. -----signature----- Don't take life too seriously. Nobody gets out alive.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
PMT99 Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 1/7 10:32am Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	halibut posted: Palpatine was legally and legitimately elected to Chancellor, and was legally and legitimately granted emergency powers. Then he was accepted as Emperor (with thunderous applause). So the Rebels are indeed terrorists. Palpatine rigged the entire election by incriminating Valorum, bribing the Trade Federation into holding the planet Naboo hostage, and conning Padme into kicking Valorum out of office so he can be Chancellor. Then he conspired with Count Dooku into forming a Seperatist Movement and creating a droid army so he could scare the Republic into granting him emergency powers. Finally, he falsified the reasons why the Jedi tried to kill him by using his mutilated face to frame them. That way, the Senate will approve of his Jedi massacre plot and reorganizing the Republic into the "first Galactic Empire". Palpatine is the real terrorist here and anyone who serves him are also terrorists. The Rebels are freedom fighters wanting to restore the galaxy to the way it was before PalpSidious took it over.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_Starwalker Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 1/7 1:36pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire? - Date Edited: 1/7 1:39pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Master_Starwalker
	DarthApocalypse posted: Master_Starwalker posted: It's also not evidence that they disagreed. True. But like I asked earlier, how did you expect them to prevent Vader from torturing Han and Leia? Speaking up right then and there would get them killed and staging a coup as you suggested earlier would take a significant amount of time to plan and wouldn't have done anything for Han and Leia. On the Death Star they could have simply gone to Tarkin if he objected to torture. He has equal or greater authority within the Empire and could have simply ordered Vader to stop torturing on his battlestation as he did for Vader to stop choking Motti. On Bespin it would have been more difficult, however they could have prevented later actions by staging a coup at later point. Han, Chewie, and Leia would still have suffered, but no one else would have to. DarthApocalypse posted: Master_Starwalker posted: I feel it's worth pointing out that the fact the Empire has various kinds of droids which were specifically designed to torture implies that it's more than just Vader's personally favored means. Can you give me some examples? The only torture devices I remember seeing are the droid in ANH and the table is ESB. There's the IT-O which you pointed out, however there's also this droid(though, I suppose that may be a one of a kind given that the series number is still unknown. DarthApocalypse posted: Ah. I didn't read Rebellion yet, so you may be correct on that one. I've only read the arc that this was from, but it was a good one. DarthApocalypse posted: I considered that just killing, not torture, since Force lighting doesn't kill instantly. I can see why, I suppose. My reason for viewing it as torture was that Palpatine (at least imo) seems to be slowly ramping up the 'voltage' until the final blast which was supposed to kill Luke. DarthApocalypse posted: Isard is a warlord, no different them Thrawn, Daala, Zsinj, Shadowspawn and all the others who think they are the next Palpatine. Their actions in no way reflect Imperial procedure. It's akin to saying the Confederacy's actions represent the Republic since they were once one group. I think the CIS comparison is flawed (given that the CIS never claimed to be the Republic as the Remnant does) but, I suppose that's a fair point. DarthApocalypse posted: Really? I thought he just killed him and was done with it. I'm just getting it from Wookieepedia on this one, but I remember hearing that he continuously killed and resurrected Lemelisk. The Wook says that one death was having him blinded and then eaten alive by Piranha beetles. Apparently, after his initial death, Palpatine killed him 6 more times during the production of the second DS, but I'm not sure on the details of how he died those 6 times. DarthApocalypse posted: Ah. I might have to concede the point, since I was ignorant of these two agencies. I have to admit, even I'm shocked the Empire was that brazen about it. I mean, the School of Torture? Really? [quote=DarthApocalypse]Hey, its a new year, you're a now a mod and still we disagree. Some things never change. [/quote] -----signature----- "Imaginary is the future. Always now, even eternity will be." - Yoda "We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves." - The 14th Dalai Lama
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Arawn_Fenn Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 1/7 3:41pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire? - Date Edited: 1/7 3:42pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Arawn_Fenn
	>>>I'm just getting it from Wookieepedia on this one, but I remember hearing that he continuously killed and resurrected Lemelisk. The Wook says that one death was having him blinded and then eaten alive by Piranha beetles. That's from the much-maligned Darksaber. -----signature----- "Just when you think the amount of fail cannot possibly increase, the Internet keeps on giving." - SalvorHardin "Let's see them argue with nature and persuade the nonexistent polar bears not to eat them." - crownarmourer
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Sublime_Skywalker_ Registered: May '04	Date Posted: 1/7 6:45pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Lemelisk actually states that Palpataine repeatedly killed him and ressurected him, always thinking of more creative and painful ways to kill him the next time he messed up. That's just Palpy having his fun, though. -----signature----- 'You don't know the Power of the Darkside!'-Darth Vader
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
skywalkerz Registered: Nov '05	Date Posted: 1/24 1:18pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Actually, let's get this straight. Palpatine's a Sith. He uses his power to cause fear and discomfort among the galaxy. There is a reason these "terrorists" planned to overthrow the Empire because they suspected he was using the Senate's emergency powers for himself, which he did. So if anyone's a terrorist, it's the whole Empire.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History