An Alternate View of the Story of Star Wars

Sometimes we think that we’ve made up our minds about certain things, but that’s only because we refuse to look at events from a different perspective.

What happens when you apply that principle to Star Wars? The brave rebels are now dangerous terrorists, and the Imperials are hapless victims. Add in a touch of conspiracy, and you have yourselves a full on 9/11 allegory.

This just the first piece above, and the story continues in full below.

Similar Posts

24 Comments

  1. Schiapu you open a VERY interesting discussion. For example, lets look at the bombing of the US Marine Barrack in Beirut (I apologize if I am going to far back). Basically an armed grouped used a truck as a massive suicide bomb to kill 241 US military personnel. To us Americans, we would view this as obviously terrorism, akin to the Oklahoma City bombing. However, to the Shia groups fighting in Lebanon against the government, which our troops and other peace keeping forces were viewed as propping up a corrupt regime, it was a justified act of war.

    And we could move forward to say the USS Cole bombing which basically was Al Qaeda’s opening salvo against the US for having bases in Saudi Arabia, supporting that country and supporting Israel. They view not only our military as an invasion force, but also our culture and our institutions. To the hardline Wahhabi sect the mere notion of democracy is blasphemy to their faith (it invites the notion that social issues are open to debate, ergo threatening their religion). To them, the World Trade Center was a very valid military target.

    Please in no way take my little ramblings of support for Al Qaeda or terrorism (I actually served multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan for the USN). I am just pointing out that the terms “terrorism” and “warfare” are relatively knew in our lexicon and have very fluid definitions depending on the perspective of the individual.

    And Star Wars sucked…I’m sorry…I do not get how people go nuts for it, especially with George pissing all over his legacy and those who actually made him successful.

  2. well yeah, but before they showed that it all kinda made sense if you were to look at Star Wars from the empires POV. But once it showed Palpatine reading to kids (and to a lesser extent the Allah Jedi Akbar,) it broke off and made it about 9/11 and President Bush. If you look back at history you can always make claims of one side being “terrorists”. The British viewed the Americans as terrorists back in the day.

  3. I wouldn’t say Star Wars sucked Diablo. If you didn’t like it that’s fine but overall it’s an incredibly important film that has managed to ace the test of time by finding fans generations after the first one was released. I think it has a great good v. evil story with some of the most memorable characters in film history. Additionally, it has another special place in movie history alongside Indiana Jones and Jaws and their ilk as films that revolutionized how blockbusters are made, specifically in regard to special effects and the kind of action involved because those things had never been done before. For me personally, I’m always tickled by the fact that A New Hope is essentially Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress meets Flash Gordan. I will agree that George Lucas is an ass though for milking his own series to death.

  4. @Diablo: I am not actually from the USA, but I agree with you in the fact that the concept and diference between “Terrorism” and “Warfare” is a rather new subject. They are both really tied together concepts. Warfare, or War is defined as armed conflict between two or more nations; and Terrorism is defined as the use of violence for the purpose of intimidation. Can an act of War be considered as terrorism? In the same way that the 9/11 attacks were a horrible thing, isn’t it also the invasion of another country? In my opinion, if a state of war is declared, the only targets affected should be either military or pollitical, but that’s an Utopia, and there are no rules in war.

    Maybe the bombing of Baghdad should be considered as terrorism as well? As I said, it’s a really complicated matter.

    And the prequels sucked. The Idea of Star Wars is what’s awesome!

  5. Well Schiapu, we can go deeper into this. Obviously the Pearl Harbor attacks were clearly an act of war, with the goal of destroying the US surface fleet based there. Civilians were not targeted solely. While it would be argued that it inspired terror, terror itself was not the sole goal with clear differences between civilian and military targets.

    If we look into a ground invasion however, there are clear indications that many times in world history, there was a systematic use of terror to brutalize a civilian population. For example, the Japanese actions in Nanjing which cannot be justified in any way shape or form. We are talking about organized rapes and murders on a monstrous level. To be clear, the Japanese were far from the only forces committing barbaric acts, but the shear extent that occurred there is utterly frightening.

    Naturally this leads to a discussion involving the Atomic Bombings. Looking back now, it appears that they were unnecessary and unfairly targeted civilians. I disagree with this perception mainly due to the fact that internal Japanese documents leading to the planned US invasion show that military leaders there were planning on 12 million Japanese casualities before beginning negotiations with the US. This is frightening because at the time, Japanese military personnel were around 2.5 million. Basically the Japanese High Command were going to force civilians to bleed the US dry to drag out negotiations. Imagine if the Germans force French civilians down to the beaches during Normandy. It would have been a bloodbath. The US was planning on about 1.5 million US casualties…obvious one of the two forces would have broken first. I do not make this claim off the cuff, but to me at least, it is clear that the US atomic bombings not only saved a lot of US lives, but also Japanese lives. But to the people that lived through those horrific blasts, I doubt they would view them as viable military tactics. A great book detailing both US and Japanese internal documents leading into the planned US invasion of the Japanese Islands is “Hell to Pay”. Lots of interesting stuff in that.

    But back to Star Wars…no one argues that the original three are head an shoulders above the last three. But my issue is that by Return of the Jedi, George no longer had people preventing him from doing stupid things…like Ewoks defeating a galaxy spanning military force. The dialogue starts taking a huge down turn, and pretty much if you go back with a critical eye, you can really see how its a downward spiral once George assumes full creative control. I find a lot of Star War fans I know seem to love the films inspite of them almost. I can’t be the only one who played KOTOR and thought “Damn it…why isn’t this one of the prequels?”

    But hey, even I got to admit its a cultural phenomenon considering the conversations it starts.

  6. @ Diablo – I really hate that we are currently entrenched in a culture where even a veteran like yourself has to qualify their statements with:

    “Please in no way take my little ramblings of support for Al Qaeda or terrorism (I actually served multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan for the USN). I am just pointing out that the terms “terrorism” and “warfare” are relatively knew in our lexicon and have very fluid definitions depending on the perspective of the individual. ”

    It’s sad that any attempt to rationalize or understand terrorist behaviour is so often met with accusations of support for those groups. If only these critics had taken the time to get even a few pages into The Art of War, they’d encounter one of the most important tenets therein:

    “It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

    There’s such a drastic difference between trying to understand the motivations of the people who join terrorist groups (which I’d argue is of the utmost importance if you’re trying to get them NOT to join); and actually supporting or sympathizing with them.

    Anyway, thanks for your service, and thanks for being reasonable.

  7. Bert…when I came back from my first deployment, I got back to my apartment and my roommate’s girlfriend was watching “Sweet 16” on MTV. I had never seen that show before.

    I realized then and there I didn’t really recognize US culture anymore. Understanding suicide bombers…easy. They have a goal they place above not only their life, but the lives of the innocents around them. Getting into the heads of parents that dress their toddlers up like whores for beauty contests? That’s a dark place I ain’t going.

  8. @Trish: That is actually completely false. In the modern universe that we see in the films, this is somewhat true. There was Plagieus-Sidious, Sidious-Maul, Sidious-Tyranus, and Sidious-Vader. But there was also Vader-Starkiller (and some clones) as well as Sidious-Luke and Sidious-Mara Jade and a few others (that were never Sith, but Dark Jedi. In the end though, close enough).

    But the Sith were originally a species of sorts that had an entire planet to themselves. The upcoming video game “Old Republic” occurs a few millennia before the prequels and features thousands of Sith masters and apprentices. Not to mention that Sith masters would often have multiple apprentices, or at least take on a new apprentice as their current one was nearing the end of training.

    Star Wars may be remembered for the films, and it should, but I stand firm in the belief that the expanded universe, the comics and books, are truly canon law.

    And I believe I have out-nerded myself again with that comment. Cool.

  9. @ Josh- I wouldnt say my comment is completely false. You are right tho about the planet of Sith. However, in short, Darth Bane brought the Sith order back to the way it should have been, only two ( according to Darth Raven). The Sith brought themselves to destruction because they couldn’t keep themselves from being power hungry. Therefore, by the time eps. 4 came out, the Sith were under the rule of two and Sidious wouldn’t have been reading to little sith children.

    Can’t wait to play Old Republic!

  10. The Emperor reading to children during the attack – hilarious!

    Obviously the destruction of the Death Star was inside job by the secret galatic rulers who are playing the Emperor and his forces against the Rebels (those who control the Galatic Reverse). This should’ve been obvious when the Death Star had a fatal weakness yet the Rebels could get access the plans and conveniently be one step ahead of Empire. One secret agent of the true rulers was the guy who order the gunner not to shoot the escape pod with the droids in them. The greater conspiracy should’ve been extremely obvious when the Death Star 2 had a weak spot so large the Rebels could fly whole fighters in there.

  11. BRILLIANT! I have wanted to write a sci-fi story based from the point of view of a citizen of the Empire that get just exactly this side of the story & joins the army to fight against those evil Jedi and their attempts to destroy civilization under the Empire. Not as farce but a serious attempt to see the other side as it sees itself.

    This makes me see the potential for how good that story could be.

  12. ewrerdf: From Al Qaeda’s perspective the WTC did destroy entire countries. Not physically blowing them up, but through invading them with unwanted social and economic interference. Just because the invasion wasn’t a military one doesn’t make it any less damaging.

    Diablo: The atomic bombings of Japan are the clearest example of terrorism I can think of in all of history. They are also a good example of how terrorism is intended to work. The objective of terrorism is to make your enemy so terrified of you that they will stop doing what they were doing. In the USA’s case that meant stopping Japan from waging military war on the nations of the pacific, (including the USA itself.) In Al Qaeda’s case it means stopping the USA from interfering with how the middle-eastern countries are run, (both politically and economically.) The biggest difference between the USA and Al Qaeda’s terrorist efforts was Al Qaeda just pissed the USA off where as the USA truly terrified Japan.

    As Diablo mentioned, the atomic bombings probably saved a lot of lives. Terrorism is just another tool to be used in a war. Like any tool it isn’t inherently good or evil. What is done with it, why, and who wins will determine how history views it.

    I’m not supporting either the USA or Al Qaeda’s side in the current conflict. Personally I think both sides are wrong but that’s the leader’s fault on both sides, not the people doing the actual fighting; whether you call them “soldiers”, “freedom fighters”, “invading infidels”, or “terrorists” is just up to who’s side you are on.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.