PT Defending Anakin and the Tusken

Yes League of Shadows justice and correct. Tuskens had committed acts of barbarity. These weren't innocent people. Admittedly a trial would have been more "civilised", but by whom? Corrupt bureaucrats of the Republic? They don't even exist out there. And Tatooine is a lawless planet, nominally controlled by the loathsome gangster Hutts. Even ROTJ describes Jabba the Hutt as "vile".

I am sure many a Tatooine citizen, if they heard about this incident, would cheer whoever the vigilante who did this on. And lay flowers when they passed Shmi's grave/memorial.

I concur. The corrupt Republic didn't exist out here. It didn't enforce the law. Tatooine was lawless, the people (whether human or other species) forced to suffer at the hands of bandits (such as this group of Tuskens), scum, criminals and gangsters like the Hutts. Even ROTJ's opening sequence points out that Jabba is "vile".

The Tuskens committed acts of barbarity. Think how the Tatooine people of these plains (again I am not just referring to humans, but any species including Twileks who lived here) would have felt. I concur that they would have reacted to rumours of a vigilante Jedi or otherwise, with joy. They would have laid flowers for Shmi, passing her memorial/grave.

They would have cheered on the application of justice. And it would have driven the fear of the Force into other gangsters and Tusken bandits. Note the only presence of some rule of law was established by the Galactic Empire, when unlike the corrupt apathetic Republic, the Imperial Stormtroopers patrol the streets and force such villainy and criminal scum out into the desert dunes and not operating in the open.

Slavery, abduction, poverty, all of this exists under the Republic's watch. Admittedly a trial would be better. But what Anakin did was dispense justice. I would imagine the Tuskens who attacked him resulted in the unfortunate passing of nearby bystanders.

But what was needed was a League of Shadows who enforced the law on a world dominated by vile gangsters. Think of the innocent people (and even Tuskens) who the bandits and bad guys harmed. So many families. I find it appalling people thinking of the criminals first and foremost.

And you cannot compare Tuskens to honourable Native Americans other civilised ancient cultures.

 

Sure you can. Most of our early settlers feared the "barbaric" Native Americans and would have cheered on an Anakin who "wiped them all out." There were no "honorable Native Americans" (or "civilized ones") to far to many settlers. Definitely a parallel there.

 

Governor John Ratcliffe would disagree with you on that one

 

Simply leave? Sure, great idea. So that same gang can kidnap and torture the next victim, maybe Beru that time? Or maybe gang-rape an even younger girl, a kid maybe?? Yeah, that would definitely have been the right choice. Who knows? That tribe of Tusken may even have attacked the Lars farm again, in greater numbers, simply out of revenge for Anakin invading their camp and freeing their prisoner! And then no one of the Lars family might have survived. I would certainly not put that past the Tusken.
You are only assuming anyone in that gang was innocent, but don't have any hard evidence. How innocent is someone who accepts the fact that an elderly woman is beaten brutally, maybe raped, and tied in an extremely painful way, before their own eyes, for a MONTH? You may argue the women and children had no knowledge, even less participated in the abuse. But how can you be sure? What makes you certain even the children were not encouraged by their elders to actively participate in the torture? Maybe that is an important part of Tusken "culture"? To teach cruelty and violence at any early age? For all we know this is what may actually be the case.

No. And I believe there are situations in which this standpoint is not valid. To quote the Punisher: "in certain extreme situations the law is inadequate....it becomes necessary to act outside the law, to seek natural justice". I can tell you don't like vigilantes very much, and I don't as a rule condone such behavior either. But here we do have an extreme situation and a place where there is no law. Besides, the only one who actually suffered was Shmi. The Tusken on the other hand were executed quickly and painlessly.

Pure speculation on your part. It would have been quite easy for him to find other camps and kill their inhabitants, but there is nothing to indicate that he did that.

Naturally, since ANH was the first SW movie. The Tusken are shown to be a threat in all 3 movies they appear in. I see no instance of them behaving reasonably or being benign in any scene they are in. So naturally the audience sees them in exactly that same way. Yes, SW is known to allude to certain Western elements, which does NOT mean we can legitimately come to the conclusion that Tusken are meant to be some kind of space Indians. SW is not Avatar!

Well, I don't bother with the EU either, I only base my opinion on what is shown in the movies or written in the novelizations. There is simply nothing to indicate they wanted Shmi for slave labor. What slave labor could an elderly woman possibly do?? Why not kidnap Owen instead? Sure, it's POSSIBLE they did not kidnap her only for torture, they might have had even more obscure or perverse (religious?) reasons. The simple fact is we are not told. Knowing how aggressive and violent the Tusken are however, it's entirely possible they only meant for her to suffer, or maybe "punish" her for some offense or imagined offense other settlers may have done. Or, like someone else wrote, they could have kept her as bait, to attract and kill her rescuers! Not at all a far-fetched concept!

There is no mention of that in the canon. Tatooine MAY be based on the Dune saga but that does not make it a carbon copy of Arrakis. After all they do have evaporators. The Tusken obviously have their own source of water, otherwise they would simply not have survived.

As another poster already explained very well, Anakin would certainly not have been regarded as "hero" among the Jedi or the "Coruscanti", but a LOCAL one among Tatooine (not only human) settlers AND other local species such as the Jawas, to whom the Tusken were a threat as well.

We ALL know what he did was "wrong" from OUR perspective. But we have already repeated this many times, His execution MAY have been seen as a heroic deed by the Tatooine LOCALS. "Women" or "females", only words, and probably used randomly, without much thought by Anakin. Humans in the real world tend to humanize animals as well. Ever heard a fanatic dog lover refer to her dog as "my girl" or "boy"? A female dog should be correctly called "bitch" but is often a "girl" instead. Elliot also says about E.T. "he's a BOY" when he should have said "it's male". Random humanization of non-humans out of habit, nothing more. Certainly I see no deeper meaning in Anakin's choice of words!

To be continued.... (no time to address all your comments right now)

 

Well then, in that case I could give you other examples in fiction where monsters are referred to as "men" while in fact still being monsters. The boogeyman? The Candyman from movie of same name? Why would the Tusken be called "monsters" or "demons"? Those terms have a superstitious or supernatural sound to them, especially "demon". A demon is an evil spirit from another world/plane of existence or whatever. It is not defined as simply someone who does evil deeds. Tusken definitely do not qualify as demons. And even "monster" can simply be something that has a "monstrous" appearance, regardless whether it actually does evil things or not. Those are just WORDS and often used randomly. Have you never heard Jeffrey Dahmer being called a "monster" in the media somewhere? Nevertheless he is without doubt a human being. So, as I said just words, often randomly used.

That would depend! We don't know enough about the Tusken to make exact comparisons with humans. Let's take another alien species from a movie saga, the "Aliens". While not human, are they exactly EVIL or more like animal predators? Do we know how intelligent they really are? Maybe they have feelings too? Sure, an extreme example, but just to show that such kinds of things especially in a sci-fi movies are not always clearly defined.

Frankly, YES! I really believe this was the first time anybody ever wiped out an entire Tusken camp.

Sure they might! But they might also take the massacre as a WARNING that makes them think twice about attacking settlers again, always assuming they can actually "think".

Actually we know no such thing! It is purely EU or fan speculation that the settlers have taken anything at all! That's the tired old "evil Europeans vs. Indians" argument again, which is valid in real life but has no relation to the SW universe. I have yet to hear Lucas himself say that the Tusken were in fact based on American Indians. As I said, NOTHING in the movies indicates that.

 

You assume guilt without any evidence. Guilt by association in other words.
I assume innocence until proven otherwise.

If Anakin had some goal to make an example of pacify the Sand people, kill the adult warriors, leave the rest.
But I doubt that was on his mind, he wanted blood and it didn't matter if the blood came from people that had anything to do with this or not.

Also, what is this with rape?
There is ZERO evidence of rape IN the films.
And you have made it very clear that you only care about the films.
And you totally reject any idea that Lucas might make any parallel with native Americans because that is not in the films. But you have no problem coming up more and more vile things the Sand People might have done, despite NO evidence.
Shmi was kidnapped and had been beaten and she died.
That is ALL we know.
And this is bad enough, I don't need to add rape to it.

The Punsiher, yeah great model to build a system of justice on.
Also, how do you know that the Sand People didn't suffer?
Anakin killed them all, we don't know exactly how in all instances.
If he inflicted a wound that would kill in 5 minutes, there will be suffering.
A child watching their mother cut down before them, that is not painless.

Really?
Tatooine is a PLANET, don't you realize how huge that is?
Let's say that the next camp is 500 miles away.
And Anakin has no idea where that is and has just his speeder bike.
He has no easy means at that time to find other camps.
He killed any and all Sand People he could find, then took his mother back to the homestead.
By that time, he had calmed down enough to not be kill-crazy and I think he realized that what he did was wrong.

The point was that Lucas didn't create the Sand People with the idea that they had this culture based on torture, rape and were 100% evil and should all get wiped out.
They were hostile and aggressive, like Native Americans sometimes were in Western films.

And yet no have no trouble assuming rape or even more vile things.
And it makes more sense to kidnap a person and waste precious food and water on that person to get something useful out of them.
Watto had Shmi as a slave so she was obviously valuable to him.
She could cook, sew, mend things, there is a number of things she could have done.
They are NOT nice and slavery is plenty vile too.
As for why her and not a man? Well maybe they figure that a man is more likely to fight, resist or try to run away and so too much bother.

It is a DESERT planet! Of course water is precious.
Owen makes a living on MOISTURE farming.
So the amount of moisture that he can get from the air, which would not be much because again, desert planet. That is what Owen sells.
Sorry, water is clearly very precious.
Yes the Sand People must have some water source and again, they are less advanced tech wise, so their sources are more limited than the settlers.
So they have enough to live.
Does it make much sense to waste water to keep a person alive for a month just to that you can torture them?
No.
If they wanted just to torture her, she would have been dead after 1-2 days.
That she wasn't indicates that they had other uses for her.

And again, Tarkin might have been regarded as a "Hero" by the imperials if he had destroyed the rebel base.
As for the Jawas, Luke commented that Sand People attacking a Jawa crawler was unheard of.
And they had infact not done it, it was the Empire. Using the Sand People as convenient scapegoats.

And this of course assumes that this made things better and not worse. That the Sand People were outraged and stepped up their attacks in response.

In a Universe with alien lifeforms, using human terms is very significant.
And Lucas is the one who wrote the line for Anakin to say he made sure to use human terms.
And he made sure Padme said "To be angry is to be HUMAN."
Ignore it if you want but I think he did that for a reason.
As was his choice to call them Sand PEOPLE.

To quote Ellen Ripley;

Also, you didn't answer the question.
Had Anakin killed a HUMAN group of raiders, even the women and children.
Would you view that differently?

Really?
How long have settlers been on Tatooine?
Say 100 years.
And the Sand People, being this evil race of monsters that can't be reasoned with and only ever attacks and kills.
And in all that time, not once has a camp been destroyed?
Again, consider the tech disparity.
The settlers have space ships, air-crafts, blasters, sensors.
The Sand People have at best 18th century tech.
The settlers can just FLY over the desert, locate camps and simply drop bombs on them.
Sorry, I really doubt this was the first or last time this happened.

Take the conflict in Northern Ireland, there were groups on both sides that committed murder and other horrible things.
One side shoots down six people in a Pub, the other responds by planting a bomb.
And the cycle of violence continues.
And what put an end to it, not killing one side. It was talking, negotiations actual diplomacy.
Same thing with the Israel/Palestine conflict. Lots of bad blood on both sides. And one side kills some people and the other retaliates.
Sadly there, peace looks very far away.

Again you assume, with no evidence, that this made the Sand People reconsider.

[/QUOTE]

Again, since the Sand People have far less advanced tech, they must be from Tatooine as they could not have gotten there on their own.
And as far as the films go, this is the only planet they live on.
Humans however live on many planets.
So that they came to Tatooine some time in the past and built cities, farms etc.
That is clear from a very basic reading of the film.

And what does it matter what Lucas says?
If he did say that he did create the Sand People as some parallel to Native Americans, would that change anything for you?
Would the Sand People suddenly not be this evil race who rape and torture and that what Anakin did might actually be wrong?
You put no value on Lucas having Anakin use human terms when talking about women and children.
You dismiss the clear homages to the Searchers.

In closing, my view is simple, "Two wrongs don't make a right."
That is all.

Bye.
The Guarding Dark

 

I merely brought this up as a possibility. I never claimed rape was necessarily involved. While there is zero evidence, as you said, we cannot 100% exclude it either. We do know how ruthless and cruel sand people are. Again, I reject the idea with the American Indians because that would be counterproductive to the whole message of the SW saga and actually make Lucas look racist. If Lucas wanted to make parallels with Indians wouldn't he be saying "look, I approve of how Indians are portrayed in those old Westerns, because they actually ARE cruel and evil. So I'll make a movie with space Indians and make them look even worse than actual Indians"? WHY would he want to do that? He goes to great lengths to promote tolerance and equality of all species in the saga, and I fail to see anything that indicates Lucas being racist. Sure, some species happen to be more aggressive and dangerous than others. So again, what would be the point of comparing the worst and most cruel of them all to a real-life culture, other than making a racist statement? I see absolutely no reason for Lucas wanting to do that.

I was merely giving an example in other fiction of where an individual takes revenge because the legal system has failed. That is exactly the case on Tatooine. The only "law" is that fat worm, while the Republic doesn't give a rat's ass what goes on there. My whole point was that a character such as the Punisher was never meant to be a hero, but a human being with flaws, just like Anakin. When I said "hero" I meant only he might be cheered in the Tatooine non-Tusken community for making their lives (possibly!) just one tiny bit safer. Anakin ever since the Tusken scene has progressed to an anti-hero, and will in the next movie progress further to villain. That's the whole point of the prequels, a good guy turning into a villain, and the reasons behind that. You seem to condemn such anti-heros automatically, while I at least try to present some sort of justification. That's why the prequels work for me. The main character is not black-or-white but grayish.

As I said many times, there are LOTS of things we aren't told directly, and much is open to speculation. Judging from that first lightsaber strike we see I'm assuming that Anakin is a fast and efficient killer, like I'm assuming that death by lighsaber is relatively quick and painless. Also, I dare say Anakin at that point is not the type of person who enjoys making people suffer. He was more interested in disposing of his enemies in a quick and efficient way. This is MY PERSONAL IMPRESSION, nothing more.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that Tatooine is a planet, but again I make an "educated guess" when I assume Tusken camps were not spread over the entire planet but limited to a (maybe modest?) geographical area. Since you enjoy bringing up Indians so much, why not find a parallel in this case? Just like ethnic groups on Earth were originally located in certain geographical areas, that would be the case on Tatooine. We are not told about Tatooine's geography, so we have no idea how far Anakin traveled to find the Tusken. Nor do we know how far Mos Eisley is from the Lars farm, or how far Mos Espa is from there. For all we know all the locations we see in the movies could be within an area the size of a medium-sized country on Earth. I seriously doubt either the Tusken or the human settlers or the Jawas or the Hutt empire are spread out planet-wide. Similarly I don't think the Ewoks populate the entire Endor moon, or the Wampas entire Hoth, the Fremen entire Arrakis etc.
Also, let's not forget Anakin is a Jedi and native of Tatooine. I'm sure he had his ways of finding other camps if he really wanted to.
This is all I have time for for now.

 

Well, then even if we assume they don't have much water they would still only have given her a minimum, just enough to stay alive. And let's suppose they had reasons other than torture, I already gave you another theory, that they kept Shmi as bait. They might have hoped more settlers would come rescue her, whom of course they would have killed as well, meaning a reduced number of men guarding the farms, making it easier for the Tusken to attack them, steal weapons, water or whatever other resources. Good enough reason?

This is a totally different matter. The Empire is already known to be evil. So Tarkin and Vader were probably already "heroes" for other Imperial officials. So what? From an Imperial standpoint blowing up Alderaan was also a good thing. We just have to accept the fact that the saga is told the way it is, it's very black-and-white, the Empire are the bad guys and the Rebels the good guys. Never once in the OT are we ever given a reason to question that. This is not a matter of opinion but fact. It's Lucas' story, and if he says the Empire is evil then it is so. It's HIS universe, so he is the one who makes the rules for it. Nothing the Rebels do is meant to be anything other than for the good of the galaxy. This can not be said about the Tusken, period. What good have they done? Who did they want to free? How do they try to save anyone from slavery and oppression? Sorry, comparing the Tusken to the Alliance simply doesn't work, not in the world created by Lucas.

Maybe the Tusken simply had nothing to gain from attacking a sand crawler? Maybe they simply had no use for droids?
And the Empire certainly doesn't need scapegoats. They pretty much do whatever they want, because they are powerful enough. If those Jawas didn't cooperate with the stormtroopers they simply blew them and their vehicle up. Who was there to judge them? They blow up a planet simply for intimidation and show of power. Why the hell would they try to hide killing a group of desert scavengers?

Yes I might! I know that humans are quite capable of being good, as well as evil. We know no such thing about the Tusken. We ONLY know them to do evil. Since you already quote Ripley, in fact her statement actually supports my point. The xenomorphs are simply not advanced or intelligent enough to deliberately do evil things. They are pure predators who only care about procreating their species, incapable of planning beyond that, also quite incapable of doing good deeds. Ripley is simply acknowledging that fact. Still she is 100% for wiping out the Aliens. Did she ever suggest humans should be wiped out just because Burke and his Company were selfish? No way! Since it was you who brought up Ripley, do you think there was anyone in the audience who didn't cheer when she burned those eggs with the flamethrower? Did anyone care that she was slaughtering "babies"? I don't think so!
For all we know the Tusken are no different. They simply may lack the capacity for empathy or helping others. There was no way the Aliens could be "trained" to not kill every other species. Maybe the same is true for the Tusken? Who knows?
Yes, the Tusken are sometimes called sand "people" by some. So what? That doesn't make them less evil or more human. Also Anakin says "they are ANIMALS", Cliegg calls them "mindless monsters". Where in SW canon are we ever given a different opinion?
At the very least a wise old Jedi who has lived close to the Tusken for 20 years would have formed a more unbiased opinion, don't you think? But we don't hear Ben say a single word in their defense.

Since it's HIS story I dare say it matters 100% what Lucas says. Yes, if he went as far as suggesting that parallel it would indeed make a difference to me. I repeat, SW is HIS story alone, so in the GFFA HE is god.

I simply interpret his words differently. Anakin at that point was VERY confused, upset and emotionally unstable, so I don't put all that much weight in what he says. He says "women and children", and right after that "animals". So which is it? I felt he was very much trying to vent, getting some of his guilt off his chest. His talk to Padmé was a little like a Catholic confession. Say everything, omit nothing. Also I see a lot of self-criticism, even self-hate in him in that scene. He could have left out the women and children but he wanted Padmé to see the full scale of his deeds, "Look what they made me do! Look how bad I had to become! Look what happened when the Jedi haven't helped me!"
As for The Searchers, I'm not "dismissing" it, simply have not seen the movie. My guess is that most people who grew up with the PT, or even the OT, have not either. I admit I'm not a big enough fan of SW to seek out every single movie it pays homage to, and I'm not a big fan of the Western genre. As for why Lucas chose The Searchers, my guess is for visual reasons, not to make a statement. See my previous comment on racism.

 

The Sandpeople's technology, and ability to use it, seems too advanced to call them "animals" or "mindless". They can shoot guns. Very accurately (regardless of Ben's comment about stormtroopers being even more accurate). They can domesticate and ride banthas. They build huts out of hides and bones - which (given that hides rot unless tanned) may suggest knowledge of tanning. And so forth.

They want to keep the fact that they are Hunting For The Death Star Plans secret - so that Rebels and rebel sympathisers don't realise what they are doing, and get ahead of them.

As Ben said of the fake Sandpeople attack "They didn't - but we are meant to think they did".

Ben knows his stuff, mostly.

 

Well, "animal" is used in a different context here. What Anakin meant was they do inhuman cruel things, he wasn't talking about level of intelligence. We also have to consider that the SW universe has a wide range of species with different levels of intelligence. It's not like Earth, where we have no intermediate levels. There are humans and there are animals, not really much in between. SW is different. There are lots of semi-intelligent species. So "animal" in that universe would have a different implication than on Earth.
OK, in this respect you are right. The stormtroopers did want to keep the search for the DS plans "secret", or maybe better "low-profile". So they may have tried to cover up that attack on the Jawas (only, Ben saw they didn't try very hard!). But in general the Empire isn't that concerned about popularity. It pretty much does as it likes.

 

Even on Earth, some animals are argued as being "intelligent enough that more respect and better treatment of them is appropriate".

Chimps, elephants, dolphins, etc.

And Tusken are way, way ahead of those. Even assuming they cannot build some of their things, only steal and use them (rifles for example) they're comfortably into "human-level".

 

Yes, that's what I meant. Tusken are one of those species that are on an intermediate level of intelligence. Though I personally find them to be way below human (I mean other humans in the GFFA) level on that scale. But all this is not really the point Anakin and Cliegg were making. No matter how well they can build things etc., their actions prove them to be inferior, not because they aren't human but because they aren't humane. As I said they may entirely lack empathy, which is different from mere intelligence. We all know that intelligence alone is no measure for morality, even empathy. The most evil character in the whole saga is probably also one of the most intelligent. While the Tusken in no way match Palpatine in pure "evil-ness", they are clever enough to do a lot of damage, but not quite clever enough to also do good things. Those are entirely different scales of "evil", one is very smart and plans ahead for decades, the other is only interested in the survival of its own species, much like the xenomorphs, who are not "evil" but are still a huge threat. Humans on the other hand can choose to be good or evil. Humans at least are capable of being good. However we simply don't know that about the Tusken! The important thing here isn't really how intelligent sand people are but they are generally known to be a threat, and that's what counts. For that alone they are feared and hated. They kill, they steal, they torture... Does it really matter if they do that on purpose or because they can't help it? Does it matter in the Alien saga? Clearly not. Something that is dangerous needs to be fought, evil or not.

 

According to the AOTC novelization, when he was young, Anakin bandaged a badly wounded Tusken Raider and when other Tusken appeared to the scene they let him go.

 

I think that was the TPM novelization actually. Indeed they did let him go. On some level I believe they realized Anakin had just saved one of their own, so they left him alone, "this one time", or "pardoned" him or whatever. Had they seen him again the next day they probably would have killed him. Just like the Alien queen let Ripley go. That was just a momentary "truce", not really peace. It may have been something like a dog not biting the hand that feeds it. That same dog may attack you once you have no food left to give.
But it does make Anakin's anger even more understandable! Anakin did a good thing as a kid. And what did he get for it? That the same species kidnapped his mother years later. Wouldn't that have upset you as well? This only shows that Anakin wasn't biased against the Tusken to begin with, on the contrary he empathized with one of them. Only when they attacked his family did he start to hate.

 

Given how inhumane humans can be - I figure that bad behaviour on the Tusken part, cannot safely be put down to "inherent lack of empathy" or anything like that.


The way I see it, Tuskens should be assumed to "have the same capabilities as humans unless we are explicitly shown otherwise."

Similarly, Tusken children should be assumed innocent till proven guilty.

 

Again, we can only judge by what we are shown in the movies. With humans we are shown both sides, extremely evil to good. There is Sidious but there is also Luke. Like you said, "unless we are explicitly shown otherwise". We are not shown the Tusken as having a good side or human capabilities. So we can't safely assume anything. Lucas chose to exclusively show them as doing bad things, so it's logical to assume they are meant to be that way. Why should we invent qualities for them when we have no evidence for them to exist?
And why is it so hard to accept that in a fictional universe there is a fictional species that simply has no redeeming qualities, that is entirely selfish and cruel? Why do we accept it in Alien or Predator but not in Star Wars?

 

With this in mind are we to asume that all Hutts are law breakers and criminals and all Neimodians are sleazy businessmen/women?

 

Hard to say! I would say we would have to ask George what he really wanted the species to be. I honestly haven't read enough background material about the Neimoidians or Hutts to have come to a conclusion. But at least with the Hutts I'd say it's safe to say they probably are criminals. But I should clarify. Do we regard them as a clan or species? That one Hutt clan on Tatooine is presumably meant as an organized criminal clan. Are there other Hutts that are different? Possible. Are there other Tusken clans that are not aggressive? Again, possibly. But what we can say is that one particular camp was very much guilty. I repeat that I am NOT talking about the children. They could very well have been innocent but POSSIBLY weren't. What do we know about the species? Nothing. Do they necessarily have to be absolutely the same as human children? Maybe they mature at a completely different age or height? Again, we don't know much about them.

 

I got the impression that most people didn't see Aliens as "entirely cruel" but just as oversized social insects.

Similarly with Predators - that they were aggressive hunters, but not all evil - hence movies like Aliens vs Predator where the Predators ally with the humans.

 

Regarding Aliens, I agree, and I said as much. No, they are definitely NOT evil but they ARE very dangerous and a threat. Therefore the human protagonists are justified in wiping them out, no? At least I never once heard anyone anywhere criticizing them for that. We are all supposed to cheer for Ripley, Hicks and everyone else fighting the aliens. But we are absolutely not allowed to even sympathize a little bit with Anakin? I find that very strange.
As for Predator, those are a very intelligent species. They hunt for sport, right? Not to survive but for fun? How are we supposed to sympathize with them??

 

Generally, it's when they're hunting Aliens that they're at their most sympathetic, and when they're hunting humans a la The Most Dangerous Game, that they're at their least sympathetic.

 

Well, personally I don't take any of the AVP movies seriously, nor are they either Alien or Predator canon. It's one of those recent phenomena where they have to mix every thinkable franchise and make a "versus". I enjoyed the originals, but stopped liking them when they had to mix them up. Why does Jason have to fight Freddy? Why Batman Superman etc.? In the original Predator they clearly were the bad guys and we were supposed to cheer Arnie for kicking its ass. Am I wrong?

 

The second Predator movie shows an Alien skull on their ship before they take off.

This is where the AVP comics and computer games (and much later, movies) got the idea that Predators hunt Aliens as well as humans from, in the first place.

It also established the idea that Predators only hunt armed humans, never unarmed ones.

 

Oh yes, this is true. Well, I guess I didn't mind that single alien skull. It was a little like that R2 and 3PO hieroglyphics in Raiders, or Yoda's Theme in E.T., just a very minor homage, something you would hardly notice. But when they mixed the franchises up I think they took it too far. But maybe that's just me? I wouldn't be surprised if they made "Leatherface vs. The Joker" or something one day.
One more thing regarding "children". Does anyone realize that even in the present day on this planet we don't have a clear definition what a "child" is? People even in the same culture don't seem to agree, much less between cultures or different eras. What should the legal marrying age be? Beginning at what age should a child be held responsible for a crime? Again, absolutely no agreement there! So how can we even begin to define what a child is in a different species, especially a fictional one??? Only Anakin says he killed "children". But did he even know? Can we trust his words? And what if a 12-year old with a gun shot down your own mother? Would he be regarded as a "child" and not punished? We see a few Tusken that are smaller than the rest. But do we have any idea at all how old they were? Or if age is even a factor? There is a lot of moralizing going on about Anakin, the Tusken, the Jedi etc. But the simple fact is there is absolutely no agreement among us humans when it comes to such things even in our world.
For every moral judgment you make you are very likely to have someone in the world, no, even your neighborhood, disagreeing. The big question is, whose standards are the right ones?

 

Hence erring, if at all, on the side of caution - a being half the height of an adult being is presumed to be a child unless proven otherwise.

Anakin judges his own actions harshly for good reason.