Freedom Fighters or Terrorists: Rouge One

[Lautrec-]

A terrorist is someone who deliberately tries to instill terror on others. A freedom fighter is a someone who fights for freedom.

The Rebels in SW are freedom fighters. Their actions and plans aren't based on terrorizing others and their main goal is to get rid of the authoritarian Galactic Empire, which restricts freedoms.

For the Rebels to be terrorists, they would have to do things that would make others afraid of them on purpose. Which they don't afaik.

What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? They both use violence to achieve their goals and they're attacking a sovereign government's military, their government. If that happened in the US, they would still be considered terrorists.

The difference is in their goals

Terrorists do what they do because they want to terrorize people. Their actions are based on making others afraid of them. Freedom fighters do what they do because they believe there isn't enough freedom. Their action are based on eliminating the things that restrict their freedoms.

Terrorist attacks IRL don't achieve anything related to freedom. They are being done to make the rest of us afraid and to attract as much attention as possible.

[Populi-Terrae]

What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? They both use violence to achieve their goals and they're attacking a sovereign government's military, their government. If that happened in the US, they would still be considered terrorists.

Freedom fighter fights for independence, for freedom. Like the American Revolutionaries, the Indonesian war of Independence.

Terrorists terrorize people for their own gains. Religious, political, or even racial gains.

Yeah, but get off your black and white high horse for a minute. If you were a civilian in Star Wars, living under the Empire and you heard about the Rebels attacking Imperial convoys and blowing up factories, you would consider them terrorists. There is a reason why the saying "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", exists. It's all about perspective.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

Freedom fighter fights for independence, for freedom. Like the American Revolutionaries, the Indonesian war of Independence.

Terrorists terrorize people for their own gains. Religious, political, or even racial gains.

Yeah, but get off your black and white high horse for a minute. If you were a civilian in Star Wars, living under the Empire and you heard about the Rebels attacking Imperial convoys and blowing up factories, you would consider them terrorists. There is a reason why the saying "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", exists. It's all about perspective.

That is also entirely depending on that "if you were a civilian" situation. If you are sympathizing with the Rebels, you would see it differently.

[Populi-Terrae]

Yeah, but get off your black and white high horse for a minute. If you were a civilian in Star Wars, living under the Empire and you heard about the Rebels attacking Imperial convoys and blowing up factories, you would consider them terrorists. There is a reason why the saying "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", exists. It's all about perspective.

That is also entirely depending on that "if you were a civilian" situation. If you are sympathizing with the Rebels, you would see it differently.

That brings up another thing. From the Empire's perspective, if I was sympathizing with the Rebels, I would be considered a terrorist sympathizer. That happens in the real world when it comes to sympathizers to terrorist organizations such as ISIL or the IRA.

[USHALLNOTPASS]

What's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? They both use violence to achieve their goals and they're attacking a sovereign government's military, their government. If that happened in the US, they would still be considered terrorists.

Freedom fighter fights for independence, for freedom. Like the American Revolutionaries, the Indonesian war of Independence.

Terrorists terrorize people for their own gains. Religious, political, or even racial gains.

Well, freedom fighters can be terrorists; they're not mutually exclusive.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

That is also entirely depending on that "if you were a civilian" situation. If you are sympathizing with the Rebels, you would see it differently.

That brings up another thing. From the Empire's perspective, if I was sympathizing with the Rebels, I would be considered a terrorist sympathizer. That happens in the real world when it comes to sympathizers to terrorist organizations such as ISIL or the IRA.

Can't a one person aspires to join the faction they sympathized with?

[Populi-Terrae]

That brings up another thing. From the Empire's perspective, if I was sympathizing with the Rebels, I would be considered a terrorist sympathizer. That happens in the real world when it comes to sympathizers to terrorist organizations such as ISIL or the IRA.

Can't a one person aspires to join the faction they sympathized with?

If it is a terrorist organization, probably not.

[Alvecia]

As I recall the Empire took inspiration from the British Empire and Nazi Germany, so asking if the Rebels were terrorists is a bit like asking if the Dambusters were terrorists or if the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist attack.

True, from a certain point of view

[Populi-Terrae]

As I recall the Empire took inspiration from the British Empire and Nazi Germany, so asking if the Rebels were terrorists is a bit like asking if the Dambusters were terrorists or if the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist attack.

True, from a certain point of view

Wrong. The Dambusters were a military unit from a foreign country. They don't fit the definition of a terrorist. The Boston Tea Party would be considered vandalism and destruction of property at best, not terrorism.

[Wansul]

When Gavrilo Princip shot the Archduke of Austria, that was the debate as well. It was fresh in people minds to be a terrorist attack. Then Germany wanted Austria to declare war quick, but they didn't. And then Serbians, and other people from the Balkans convinced them that it was a Freedom Fighter. That squared up the alliances. Was this justified?
Same thing in Star Wars.
Propoganda wwould have shown the Rebel Alliance as terrorists, but as the Rebel Alliance won more planets, then the people across the galaxy would start thinking of them as freedom fighters.

[Alvecia]

As I recall the Empire took inspiration from the British Empire and Nazi Germany, so asking if the Rebels were terrorists is a bit like asking if the Dambusters were terrorists or if the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist attack.

True, from a certain point of view

Wrong. The Dambusters were a military unit from a foreign country. They don't fit the definition of a terrorist. The Boston Tea Party would be considered vandalism and destruction of property at best, not terrorism.

It...was a.....meme reference.
*sigh*

I more brought it up as a different perspective tbh.

[Risottia]

I have no idea of what Rouge One is,

It's a movie about the first lipstick.

[Infected Mushroom]

You mean in World War II?

The Allies were the good guys, so no one on their team could be terrorists.

You make it sounds like the Allies were the perfect good guys.

They were. Germany, Japan, and Italy tried to take dominate the world (or at least a large part of it). The USA, Great Britain, and others fought to stop them. Something like that.

At least that's what I was told.

[Arcturus Novus]

You mean in World War II?

The Allies were the good guys, so no one on their team could be terrorists.

You make it sounds like the Allies were the perfect good guys.

Compared to the fascist, racial-supremacist, and imperialist nations of the Axis, they were.

[Thermodolia]

If you are a good guy but blow some things up, you are not a terrorist. If you are a bad guy and blow some things up, you are a terrorist.

The qualifier is that governments cannot be terrorists.

That's extremely subjective. As the empire thought that the rebels where the bad guys. Also state sponsored terrorism is a thing

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Who, the Alliance to Restore the Republic?
Terrorist freedom fighters.

[Infected Mushroom]

If you are a good guy but blow some things up, you are not a terrorist. If you are a bad guy and blow some things up, you are a terrorist.

The qualifier is that governments cannot be terrorists.

That's extremely subjective. As the empire thought that the rebels where the bad guys. Also state sponsored terrorism is a thing

The Rebels ARE the bad guys though.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

That's extremely subjective. As the empire thought that the rebels where the bad guys. Also state sponsored terrorism is a thing

The Rebels ARE the bad guys though.

According to whom? There is no objective "bad".

[Alvecia]

That's extremely subjective. As the empire thought that the rebels where the bad guys. Also state sponsored terrorism is a thing

The Rebels ARE the bad guys though.

Depends on your point of view. From the storytelling perspective, they're the good guys.

[Thermodolia]

That's extremely subjective. As the empire thought that the rebels where the bad guys. Also state sponsored terrorism is a thing

The Rebels ARE the bad guys though.

According only to you and the empire. To everyone else they are freedom fighters

[Infected Mushroom]

The Rebels ARE the bad guys though.

According only to you and the empire. To everyone else they are freedom fighters

Some star systems supported the Empire.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

According only to you and the empire. To everyone else they are freedom fighters

Some star systems supported the Empire.

Yes, they're called the Galactic Empire and there's about a million of 'em.
Still don't see how their opinion changes much.

[Thermodolia]

Some star systems supported the Empire.

Yes, they're called the Galactic Empire and there's about a million of 'em.
Still don't see how their opinion changes much.

Imagine that! A Galactic Empire is actually galactic

[Alvecia]

Yes, they're called the Galactic Empire and there's about a million of 'em.
Still don't see how their opinion changes much.

Imagine that! A Galactic Empire is actually galactic

Well.....not completely Galactic

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Yes, they're called the Galactic Empire and there's about a million of 'em.
Still don't see how their opinion changes much.

Imagine that! A Galactic Empire is actually galactic

Better than being a fake based on a website!