~~Official Expanded Universe Discussion Thread~~ Current Topic: Backlashes against EU characters

Jabba's organization tells a far different story than that. It was large, thriving and criminal. They were decidedly not in league with the rebels.

The Empire didn't dismantle Black Sun. Not Palpatine's Empire, at any rate. Recall, in Shadows, that Xizor was close indeed to Palpatine. Close enough to see Vader as a rival. That doesn't look like not tolerating crime to me. Looks like using criminals when they're convenient.

Destroying the Death Star was an act of pure self defense. If you'll recall, it was about to FIRE on Yavin IV when it went boom.

 

The only reason Black Sun was allowed to be that close to the Empire is so that the Empire could dismantle it from within. Read Tales of the Empire: A Side Trip by Timothy Zahn and Michael A. Stackpole. Also, the only part of Black Sun the Empire ever used was Xizor's Transports, a completely legitimate business.

 

As far as slavery goes... what about the noghri? When they realized what had been done to them, they were eternally grateful to Leia. As for palpatine, he was the most twisted individual who has ever existed who not only accepted people like tarkin, he encouraged it. he is, after all, a sith lord. and what is it that sith lords promote? evil. and all that evil pertains to : i.e. slavery, destruction of worlds, oppression as a general rule because someone may just become too strong to "disappear" easily.

 

It's still a massive loss of life. It doesn't matter what the purpose was.

As often touted by Rebels, the ends do not justify the means.

The Rebels should've evacuated. They had time.

Wait, how do we know they would have had time to evacuate? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering how you know.

Anyway, I disagree. By destroying the Death Star when they did, the Rebels prevented future calamaties, which would have resulted in even more loss of life (as if Alderaan wasn't bad enough). They saw a chance and they took it. They should not have evacuated, they should have a taken a stand while they had the chance, which they, thankfully, did. When the odds are against you and you have very limited resources, you simply have to take every chance you can get.

 

Well put, NaboosPrincess.

--Adm. Nick

 

Aside from that, the death star was, in essence a military base. anyone on a military installation during a time of war can expect to be annihialated at any time. those are the dangers of living in such an environment. civilians are aware of this matter. And the fact that they aren't enlisted in the imperial navy means they can come and go as they please, they are not under orders to stand that particular post. so they put their own lives in jeapordy to live/work there.

 

No, by taking a stand, they destroyed a weapon that the Empire would have used again. They wouldn't have built the thing if they didn't intend to USE it.

Since apparently Infinities sources can be brought into the argument, check out some of the unsuccesful endings of the ANH Choose You Own Adventure. These feature the Empire with multiple Death Stars using them willy nilly because no one stopped the first one while they had the chance.

 

No, by taking a stand, they destroyed a weapon that the Empire would have used again. They wouldn't have built the thing if they didn't intend to USE it.

Incorrect. The very essence of the Tarkin doctrine was that "Fear of Force was more effective than Force itself."

This is in fact, one of the chief examples of the Palpatine Empire's inherit benevolence. The Death Star was a symbol, a shadow of what might happen should the citizenry or indeed, whole worlds ever threaten the peace, order and freedom of the Empire and those citizenry who prosper within it's structured culture.

The Death Star was designed by Imperial Scientists as a tool to get at natural minerals and valuable ores: resources that would then be processed and refined through industry, creating jobs, infrastructure, and stablility to a galactic economy that was beset with strife during the Republic era and the ensuing Clone Wars instigated by the outlaw Jedi and their rogue activities.

The shadow of Alderaan's fate would of indeed been enough to fuel the Tarkin doctrine, and the Death Star would be able to be used for it's designed purpose without again firing on a world, unless a world deemed it neccessary to threaten the peace with open rebellion.

Alderaan chose the path of terrorism, a path that had a hefty price. The Empire had no onus placed upon it to molly coddly the flame of civil unrest as the corrupt republic did, and in the end it led to what is described as a "Golden Era" (by citizenry and military alike) of the galaxy.

Many cultural institutions flourished, art works were transported to many key core worlds and the elegance and refinement of the Imperial Court became a goal of many worlds who in attempting to emulate it brought strong, rich and golden culture to their people and cities.

Science was undoubtedly reaching a peak not seen for eons of a Republic, in which according to most canonical sources had not really seen a breakthrough since before it's inception. During the Empire we saw technology rise at a rapid rate, we saw Imperial Scientists manage to grasp at the core of sentinent planets (Galaxy of Fear), create space stations as big as moons, missiles capable of causing supernovae(Jedi Search), some of the finest military hardware in civilised history (When the Desert wind turns), Techniques to alter the very matter of life (Galaxy of Fear) and many similar advances in the private sector. (See, HRDs etc)

All this, and with peace and propserity for al HuMankind throughout the territories, the Rebel Alliance still saw fit to brand the Empire as evil, slurring the great civilisation as "corrupt", "oppressive", "genocidal": ironically, all labels more fittingly attached to the Old Republic that the Rebellion so nostalgically clung to throughout their terrifying trepidations.

Imperial Shipping was disrupted, not only killing innocent citizens in the name of a "war effort" (a misnomer the rebels often applied to their terrorism), but disrupting commerce and thus affecting jobs, families, and vital infrastructure. Every Imperial pilot or shipman who died in defense of his home and family has his or her blood spilt firmly down the dirtied tunic of the rebel alliance.

Their disruptions to normal governance cannot be seen as heroism, but far what it truly is: debased and evil actions, made by terrorists, in worship of an old, decayed, outdated and corrupt institution of government and the rogue magicians who protected such instablity for so long.

Since apparently Infinities sources can be brought into the argument, check out some of the unsuccesful endings of the ANH Choose You Own Adventure. These feature the Empire with multiple Death Stars using them willy nilly because no one stopped the first one while they had the chance.

In this case, I'm going to have to bring some GODV quotes into my next post. Await in anticipation, all ye who think you can further in destroying the credibility of canon than I.

 

Very well put, PoT *stares in silent awe*. That's my point of view aswell, so I'll stop posting now, PoT basically said it all. *Imperial salute*

 

*applause* Charmingly done, PoT. Ve-ry nice indeed. I look forward to seeing more of this. *copies Pelly's salute*

 

Furthermore, building on what PoT was stating about the benevolence of the Empire, we actually have insight into what the Emperor's true motivations were, and his thoughts about having to use tools such as the Death Star.

He hated them, and every technological "terror" which had to be constructed to realize his ultimate dream - reigning over an eternal pan-galactic utopian dynasty based not on technology, but on the Force itself.

The reason for their existence was singular in purpose - to allow him the power at a time when he needed it - to rid the galaxy of the Jedi Knights. This much is alluded to in the Dark Empire source material:
"And his Dark Side powers, combined with the most sophisticated military technology ever known, gave him the strength to vanquish his most dangerous opponents: the thousands of Jedi Knights... throughout the galaxy" (Dark Empire)

And we also have the final bombshell given in the Dark Empire source material for exactly what the Emperor's dreams were and how he viewed the technological terrors he was forced to create:
"It is on Byss that the Emperor is establishing his model for the Galaxy-wide society of the far future, when the Dark Side of the Force will rule all without the need for weapons" (Dark Empire)

Palpatine was a pacifist at heart and in vision. Weapons did not figure into his long-term plans for his vision of an eternal dynasty. It was to his discomfort that the Empire had to resort to them for a period of time until Palpatine could rule all in a weaponless society with the Force itself.

The fact that the Empire had to create/use any weapons at all was specifically because of organizations like the Rebel Alliance and the Jedi Knights: para-military guerrillas and crazy cultists interested in kid-napping children (something Palpatine himself wasn't immune from. Maybe he was a Jedi at heart!).

 

Protege of Thrawn, you forget that fear of Force is a doctrine that is fundamentally flawed, because in order for there to be fear of force there must be demonstration of force, which defeats the purpose. Hence, Alderaan. And while you use that example as a show of the Empire's benevolence, they fully intended to use the Death Star more than once. It was not a deterrant-it was judge, jury, and definetely executioner. Don't take the Empire's side just to be different.

 

Actually, wasn't Mon Calamari next on the Death Star's target list?

And yes, I know it was a rebel planet. I'm just pointing out that it was intended to be used after Yavin IV. That's all.

 

Protege of Thrawn, you forget that fear of Force is a doctrine that is fundamentally flawed, because in order for there to be fear of force there must be demonstration of force, which defeats the purpose.

It in no way defeats the purpose.

Consider, that the primary role of this doctrine or any doctrine that may take it's place, is to maintain order within society thus protecting the citizenry from rogue elements within or without who may threaten the peace.

Now, many alternative "humane" doctrines suggest that Force should be the last option taken up, and that a governing body should first pursue diplomatic, economic or social avenues of compromise before forcing the issue via military means. Historic examples show this to be a woefully inadequate system inasmuch as you'll always have interest groups on either side pushing the issue as far as they can to benefit themselves maximally at the resolution of the conflict.

In the process, many people can be needlessly harmed or killed, strife and uncertainty rain, and the very cogs of society lock up, the fabric of community is knotted up with fear or what may come from the shadows in their own home. What lurks in the corner waiting to spring upon them and their loved ones.

The Tarkin Doctrine knows this, and acts accordingly. By taking the initiative and declaring a clear and defined consequence to the negative actions of any criminal elements within the society "house" as it were, the fear acts as a powerful deterrant to keep the house in order. After time people may forget the lesson, and turn again to criminal means of rebellion. Another such example may then prove neccessary, but the interium will have yeilded years upon years of true peace and freedom from the oppression of the UNKNOWN fear.

The clear and defined fear of Force counter-acts this, dismissing the shadows, defining the corners of each room, erasing ambiguity. No room for doubt, no margins for groups to push at, no leeway is allowed. You stuff about with the peace, boom, you learn the hard way.

A molly coddled society is a disruptive, inefficent, and ultimately self-destructive one. Call this "freedom" if you want; champion the ideals set forth by the Rebellion and the corrupt Republic they idolise if you see fit, but do not mistake it for anything than what it is. An inferior, if easier, path to tread.

And isn't it indeed, the republic's own subversive Jedi - despite my being at loathe to credit any of their doctrines - who urged their followers not to take the easy, path of temptation?

In this at least, Palpatine has heeded their call, and his New Order makes the hard, short-term sacrifices for the greater, collective, long-term gain.

No doctrine can have an ordered society free of some sacrifice. At least with the Tarkin Doctrine it is the criminals who shoulder the burden of maintaining order and not the innocent citizenry caught in the middle of civil strife they had no part in creating.


Hence, Alderaan. And while you use that example as a show of the Empire's benevolence, they fully intended to use the Death Star more than once.

Only if the initial use was not enough to maintain order. I don't draw a distinction between destroying one criminal planet or five, as long as it is a)the criminal elements paying the price and that b)the price paid ensures that no other potential hotspots get the bright idea of entertaining notions of rebellion or civil strife. For the safety of the community, for the freedom and peace of the innocent, Justice must prevail. The Death Star gave the oldest and perhaps most effective form of justice to those who most deserved it.

And inasmuch, it was used effectively.

It was not a deterrant-it was judge, jury, and definetely executioner. Don't take the Empire's side just to be different.

Just to be different? Oh my, I wasn't aware I was a part of some grand popularity contest.

This is a discussion, where all points of view are aired and talked over. Don't dismiss my opinions as less important than yours

 

Hey everyone. Tonight at 4:21 board time (approximately) there will be a new discussion topic. So tie up all your loose ends.



Next Topic to be announced...

 

Greetings I have just became a member on the message boards here. I have some sympathy for the Rebels but not much. I think that they are fighting for their freedom from the Empire for good reasons, but the Empire maintains order throughout the Galaxy. I also think that the Rebels became separatists when the Empire took root in the galaxy. The Empire is just a better "Republic" in terms.

 

By taking the initiative and declaring a clear and defined consequence to the negative actions of any criminal elements within the society "house" as it were, the fear acts as a powerful deterrant to keep the house in order. After time people may forget the lesson, and turn again to criminal means of rebellion.

This begs the question of why disorder is present in the "house" to begin with. People do not generally rebel without a reason. Something must occur, or some problem must exist in society, which eventually forces them to take action.

Now, if I understand your above interpetation of the Doctrine correctly, it does nothing but prolong the conflict. Say a group demands the resolution of a conflict, so the government develops a source of fear to curb the dissent. The dissent continues, so the threat is acted upon. As a result, the dissent is momentarily curbed. But it will eventually rise again, threats will once again be made, and we never have resolution. So while this "solution" may work in the short term and prevent further conflicts, in the long term it probably causes more destruction, because it doesn't get to the root of the problem.

The rebels may have taken criminal actions in their quest to subvert the Empire, but one must consider their reasoning for doing so. To answer an early question of this debate: did they use terror tactics? I think we've seen enough to evidence to say that yes, they did. Does that make them terrorists? I suppose if we are to go by the black and white dictionary definition, then yes. But I believe this is one of those times where the dictionary definition just doesn't cut it. We need to consider their motivations and the circumstances that forced them to take the "criminal" path. We should look at the problems inherent in society under the Empire (and how the Empire ignored many of them) to understand why the rebels decided the only solution was violent dissent.

The line between freedom fighters and terrorists is rarely clear. I don't even think it's too much of a stretch to say that all freedom fighters are terrorists, but not all terrorists are freedom fighters. In the end it all comes down to their cause. I think we have enough evidence to legitimate the rebellion's and declare them freedom fighters concerned for society rather than terrorists.