Fair enough. I still think wasting an entire planet of people makes you evil. It'd be like if the U.S. nuked the Middle East just to get rid of the terrorists. Keep in mind, Princess Leia said, "No, you can't! Alderaan is peaceful! We have no weapons!" Now, if you assume she's lying, then that argument is invalid. If she's telling the truth, Alderaan wasn't a hotbed. It simply disagreed with the way the Empire was running things.J03bot said:Fine. When the original trilogy was first in production, and thus before the expanded universe had been delved in toSniper Team 4 said:Read the books. That's all I will say. Also, if they're willing to blow up an entire planet of civilians just to make a point--keep in mind that many Imperials had family they, Tycho being one of them--then that should give you an idea of their policies.J03bot said:Until the prequel trilogy, it was never made clear why there even was a rebellion. The empire didn't seem overtly evil in anything other than the destruction of Alderaan (and yeah, the fact that Palpatine popped up and said 'I'm evil!').
I want to see a selection of empire policies that made rebelling a necessity. I want proof that the people of the empire were sufficiently subjugated that removing the emperor was in their best interests. How do we know that the rebels weren't just entitled douchebags looking to replace the current fascist state with a pseudo-republic of their own control?
I'm on the side of the rebels all the way. I want to be part of Rogue Squadron if I can't be a Jedi.
Who's to say (at that point) that the rebellion weren't a major problem for the Empire, and that Alderaan wasn't a hotbed of sedition, and thus suitable to be made an example of?