What makes Bail so trusting?

That is not really the point.
It was a Padawan, not a youngling, and it does not matter how deadly he was - the point is, Bail saw the truth.
The Jedi were not rebelling, the Clones were invading the temple.

When the Emperor spoke of an elabourate plot to usurp power, I doubt this description involved the Jedi uprising being localised entirely around their own temple!
The Clones were the invasive force here - the Padawan was clearly trying to escape, not start a revolution.

If Bail had chanced upon flanks of Jedi surrounding the Senate building and a lone Clone Trooper running out of the building gunning down Jedi before being put out of his misery, I'm sure his take on the situation might have been quite different.

It's not just what he saw, it was what he saw and where.
The army of the Republic had taken the fight to the Jedi, that is not what the Senate were led to believe.

 

exactly GIG


the jedi temple was under attack, it was the jedi who were being killed by clones, they were the defeders, and the clones were the agressors. obviously, the order to attack had to of come down from on high, and bail knows the truth, though not the whole truth at the time.

 

That is not really the point.
It was a Padawan, not a youngling, and it does not matter how deadly he was - the point is, Bail saw the truth.
The Jedi were not rebelling, the Clones were invading the temple.


That also serves my point! And that doesnt prove that the clones were attacking the Jedi to Bail. What if the Jedi did rebel and the Clones put down the rebellion??? The same thing would've happened! The 'rebel Padawan' would still come out and cut up the Clone troopers, theres no difference the outcomes could still be the same whether the Clones attacked or the Jedi rebelled

 

bail doesnt believe its in the character of the jedi to plan rebellion, and belives, correctly, i might add, that the jedi are being framed.

 

Yet you cant decipher that from what Bail saw. Bail saw the clones controlling the Jedi temple(Which also would happen if the Jedi did rebel), then a Young Padawan comes out and starts cutting up clones, why would that not happen if the Jedi did rebel?????

Bail just saw a fight, he did not see the clones come up to the temple and start slaughtering jedi and younglings

 

Yeah since we know the movie well we as an audience know that, but from Bails point of view at the temple, its basically just a fight, he doesnt see the clones attacking Jedi and he also doesnt see a Jedi rebellion, its up to him to decide what he saw

 

Well, you tell me what Bail's reaction was.
Something tells me he was not yelling "Noooo!" because of the Clones the Padawan had just sliced up...

Whichever way you stack it - Bail saw a child get killed.
When there is a political coup, you don't send your army down to the local drill hall to start bumping off teenage army cadets.
What Bail saw was just plain wrong - and his reaction says it all.

 

He's an idiot.

 

Whichever way you stack it - Bail saw a child get killed.
When there is a political coup, you don't send your army down to the local town hall to start bumping off teenage army cadets.


Bail saw a child get killed while cutting up clones, he did not see clones attacking an unarmed child

Why wouldnt the clones try to kill Teenage Cadets who are also trying to kill them???? Its kill or be killed

 

and he saw a youngling being killed.


he knew in his heart the jedi werent rebelling, because of his history with the noble order. he knew it was a lie, or at the very least, a misunderstandng. it isnt till he meets up with yoda and obi wan that he learns the truth...but by then, he was already on their side, and against palpatine.

 

and he saw a youngling being killed.


Ok Im not arguing what Bail didnt see, im arguing what he saw. Yes Bail saw a Younglin being killed, but the Youngling was also killing clones. If a kid was trying to kill you with a lethal weapon are you going to let him kill you because hes young???

 

If I didn't "KNOW" Bail Organa and just had episodes 2 and 3 to base my opinions on, I wouldn't trust HIM. I would think him to be a slimy back-stabbing politician. He goes LOOKING for the Jedi, even though troopers TOLD him there'd been a rebellion! Why didn't he believe them?

I would have believed that he went looking for the Jedi because he KNEW there was going to be a Jedi rebellion and he was trying to SUCK-Up for lack of a better term!

 

did you just ignore everything else i typed and pick out only what you disagree with?

bail knows its not in the character of the jedi to be agressors. hence if a jedi kills, its because he is being attacked. hence the jedi are the ones being over-run.

he trusts the jedi too much to actually believe the line..."there has been a rebellion sir"

 

I would have believed that he went looking for the Jedi because he KNEW there was going to be a Jedi rebellion and he was trying to SUCK-Up for lack of a better term

even though he screams "NO!" when a youngling is killed?

eve when he says "maybe we can intercept a few jedi before they walk into this catastrophe"?

 

But where did he get all this trust??? what if he was wrong and the Jedi did rebel?? Technically the Jedi did rebel against Palpatine's rule by trying to assassinate him and take power

 

Look, Bail sees the temple in flames.
It is a scene of carnage, it is obviously not "containment" - the Temple is under attack.
He lands to investigate.
He is ordered back; he remains inqusitive, clearly sensing there is more to it than the "rebellion" story he is being told - he then has a gun pointed at him and is politely (hah) aked to leave.
His response - "And so it is!" - is basically saying "well, how can I refuse with a gun aimed at my head?!"
He then sees exactly what the troops were trying to prevent him from seeing - Jedi being forced to fight their way out of their own Temple and children, no less, being gunned down in cold blood.

Bail yells "Noooo!" at this sight, for obvious reasons, and then the guards point their blasters at him - at least one shot is fired directly towards him after Zett has been killed.

I will, however, conceed that this has been intentionally toned down.
In the shooting script, the Commander actually commands the Clones to open fire on Bail.
Now that dialogue is cut and the scene edited (shots are still clearly seen as Bail yells) but the Clones no longer fire on his speeder as he departs, instead they "let him go."

Toned down - but the intention of the scene remains clear to me.

 

He was part of the Loyalist Committee in AOTC.
He was opposed to the adoption of the Clone Army, the war, and the granting of emergency powers to Palpatine.

 

SithOWNtheJedi,
I think it's clear you're simply playing devil's advocate here. You know as well as the rest of us how one develops trust. But, for kicks, let's look at a corresponding question for the other senators:

Why are the other senators so trusting of Palpatine?

The most likely answer, I think, is that they aren't trusting of Palpatine. However, Palpatine has offered them security and other benefits that basically amount to BRIBES.

As Bail sits on the high council or whatever (assumption based on the final scene in AOTC - Palps is surrounded by just a few people, including Bail), it's logical to assume Palpatine offered Bail the same "benefits." But Bail is smart, so he saw these as bribes -

and he instantly realized the corruption of the Republic.

One of the great ironies of the PT: it's PALPS, not Valorum, who was corrupt. Of course!

Thus, Bail weighed his personal experiences with the Chancellor against his experiences with the Jedi, and voila, trust develops.

 

I thought Bail trusted the Jedi because he was a friend of Padme, and he knew how much the Jedi had helped and influenced her life.

 

One of the great ironies of the PT: it's PALPS, not Valorum, who was corrupt. Of course!

Speaking of Valorum...wasnt he supposed to be the one who started the rebellion, but Terrance Stamp refused to come back and revise the character?

 

what a wonderful rumor...i wish it had been true though.


but again, it was always bail and mon mothma who start the rebellion

 

IMO, Bail was one of a handful of Senators that could see past the BS of Palps. I don't know if he just wasn't weak minded or what, but he definitely wasn't under the same spell that we see with other Senators. He had no reason not to trust the Jedi and he didn't feel the need to get under Palps wings of security and be a "yes" man.

 

Rumors. Never been substantuated. Bail and Mon were always involved in the Allaince, since 1982. Bail was there in the early drafts, but his role wasn't solidfied until 1976. Mon was added in 1981, when ROTJ was in the writing stage.

 

"The Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice for over a thousand generations". Bail Organa had profound respect for them. Plus he could clearly see where the Republic was heading when he watched the Republic Assault Cruisers launch from Coruscant in AOTC. Plus he knows the Jedi are committed to the Republic, not its leader. Now, without them, he knows that it will be the fight of the people to Restore the Republic ie the Rebellion. When he gets the Death Star plans, he knows only General Kenobi can help them make good use of it. This is what makes Bail so trusting.

 

I have a question regarding this. The clones opened fire on Bail, probably because they thought he had seen to much. But why wasn't he arrested latter on?