Freedom Fighters or Terrorists: Rouge One

[Vaderinian Sith Renaissance]

I seen the Rouge One movie and decided it was very good. But it got me thinking: How can we tell between a freedom fighter and a terrorist ? The Alliance used tactics that are very close to terrorism. Thet assassinated people, even the builder of the Death Star. in fact, he probably has been doing it for a long, long time ( He said he joined the Alliance at 6 years old).

So tell, how can you tell a terrorist from a freedom fighter ? does it depends on yourself and what point of view you take ? If you were a Russian, the attack on out nation would seem to be a brilliant thing to do. But we as Americans denounce. Who is right ? Who is wrong ? Do the lines between fighting for liberty and terrorist actions blur ? Is there a lot of gray eras, where we can't decide whether it was moral or immoral ?
Tell me what you think.

[Maroza]

Grey area, it depends on who is attacking who and what you think of the participants.

Remember that the rebel alliance seemed rather desperate in rogue one and probably had a lot of really bad people backing them just so they could fuck the empire to make their lives easier. Mobsters, smugglers and people who are waiting for the opportunity to seize power for themselves when the empire looses it's grip in their home system are all probably giving weapons and money to the alliance. It probably mattered very little to the empire that the insurgents on Jedha had been disowned by the rebel alliance for abducting executing civilians related to imperial personnel.

[Rusozak]

I think freedom fighter is more subjective while terrorist is easier to define. They can be both, as freedom fighter is more of motive and terrorism being a means to accomplishing said motive.

[Vaderinian Sith Renaissance]

Grey area, it depends on who is attacking who and what you think of the participants.

Remember that the rebel alliance seemed rather desperate in rogue one and probably had a lot of really bad people backing them just so they could fuck the empire to make their lives easier. Mobsters, smugglers and people who are waiting for the opportunity to seize power for themselves when the empire looses it's grip in their home system are all probably giving weapons and money to the alliance. It probably mattered very little to the empire that the insurgents on Jedha had been disowned by the rebel alliance for abducting executing civilians related to imperial personnel.

True. But it makes deciding a hard thing. How, then, can we call the people doing terrorism "terrorist" ? If, for instance, a person tool over our nation and was very authoritarian, I would do the same. To outsiders that don't understand, *I* would be the terrorist ? Do we *really* understand what is going on in the Middle East, for instance ? Are we aware of there concerns, or are we talking out of bias ? I don't know...

[Empire of Cats]

I don't like the Rebels. But I'd hardly call them terrorists. I'd say it's a grey area, and that their name says it all really: the Alliance to Restore the Republic, or the Rebel alliance, and later the New Republic.

[The East Marches II]

The Rebels were clearly bandits who needed to be brought to justice. They were unlawfully rebelling against a rightful authority.

t. Not Stormtrooper sympathizer

[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.

[-Fahrong-]

The rebels are not a uniform movement, even if the leadership has good intentions, most are going to be bandits, extremists, general criminals, and in some cases plain secessionists. Just like in the real world, no movement is pure and 'freedom' fighters in desperation committing terrorism is nothing new.

[Chestaan]

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.

Yeah but the problem is good and bad is relative. Also, if governments can't be terrorists, does that preclude IS forces from being terrorists? Because they are the de facto government of a large area of Iraq and Syria.

[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.

Yeah but the problem is good and bad is relative. Also, if governments can't be terrorists, does that preclude IS forces from being terrorists? Because they are the de facto government of a large area of Iraq and Syria.

the government does have to be recognised by the good guys

Since the UN and the USA (usually the good guys) don't recognise ISIS, I think that settles it.

Good and bad just depends on who's making the movies. Right now, the USA is quite powerful in this aspect.

[-Fahrong-]

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.

You do realize that Terrorism came into use specifically to refer to the Revolutionary French government right?

[Saint Upidtown Eastern Church]

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.

You do realize that Terrorism came into use specifically to refer to the Revolutionary French government right?

Tell me about it. Asymmetrical warfare is a small group going against a big group. Terrorism, which seeks to strike at soft targets, *IS* asymmetrical warfare. Ultimately, I feel that if we can pass worldwide Classical Liberalism, people wouldn't want to fight so much.
Also, we need to get off this Earth.

[San Marlindo]

I have no idea of what Rouge One is, but the way I look at it is that terrorists kill innocent civilians. Especially if they kill the very people they're supposed to be liberating, that's not freedom fighters.

Unfortunately many people who believe the cause of the terrorists is just and for a greater good will often seek to exonerate them for their own personal moral reasons. That is a folly, and why many terrorists get called freedom fighters.

Notice how the US media called the Taliban freedom fighters when Afganistan was still occupied by the Soviets. After 2001, though, they were only called terrorists. Shows just how fickle the use of the term really is.

[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.

You do realize that Terrorism came into use specifically to refer to the Revolutionary French government right?

You mean in World War II?

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

[Saint Upidtown Eastern Church]

I have no idea of what Rouge One is, but the way I look at it is that terrorists kill innocent civilians. Especially if they kill the very people they're supposed to be liberating, that's not freedom fighters.

Unfortunately many people who believe the cause of the terrorists is just and for a greater good will often seek to exonerate them for their own personal moral reasons. That is a folly, and why many terrorists get called freedom fighters.

Notice how the US media called the Taliban freedom fighters when Afganistan was still occupied by the Soviets. After 2001, though, they were only called terrorists. Shows just how fickle the use of the term really is.

It's a Star Wars movie. Go see it-it's great.

I wonder if we really understand right vs. wrong . The way I see things, there is a broad area of grey. I wonder if what we believe is wrong is because we haven't been put in a position where you have to do things just to survive.

[Chestaan]

You do realize that Terrorism came into use specifically to refer to the Revolutionary French government right?

You mean in World War II?

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

I believe he means waaay before that in French Revolution France.

[Infected Mushroom]

You mean in World War II?

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

I believe he means waaay before that in French Revolution France.

Well for the standards of the day, since kings were the default (and hence the good guys), the French rebels would be terrorists.

[Maroza]

Just because I'm a StarWars fan I'm gonna post this here. It's the rebels ambushing the stormtroopers on Jedah, they are the one's who were disowned by the alliance for kidnapping and executing civilians. I definitely got Iraq war vibes, the Storm troopers would obviously be the Americans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVpUggGXPVc

The movie even made the rebel alliance (the good guys from the original movies) get it's hands dirty out of desperation. Not so clearly good now.

I wonder if we really understand right vs. wrong . The way I see things, there is a broad area of grey. I wonder if what we believe is wrong is because we haven't been put in a position where you have to do things just to survive.

Desperation probably turns most people into criminals and monsters. I think when the cards are all on the table and survival is at stake most people will do whatever it takes to survive. "Freedom Fighters" included.

[Frank Zipper]

Rouge is a kind of make up. You mean rogue.

[Ancient Pluto]

Rogue One's folks really weren't all that different from the usual affair of Star Wars protags. Just more snarky and wore darker clothing.

[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.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

You do realize that Terrorism came into use specifically to refer to the Revolutionary French government right?

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.

[Populi-Terrae]

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.

[USHALLNOTPASS]

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.

Well, SW is told from the Rebels' perspective (or largely so), so it would be biased towards them.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

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.

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.