Quiet commie!
Poll: Honk if you support the Maquis!!
- Thread starter asdf1
- Start date
Quiet commie!
Well, I think that in many cases, the same group of people can be variously referred to as 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters', depending upon who is doing the talking.
As you said, to the British, the American colonists were terrorists. To each other and to the other colonists, those involved in the rebellion were freedom fighters.
I think the same can be said of the Maquis.
In DS9, this issue was addressed not only with the Maquis, but also through the relationship between the Cardassians and the Bajorans during Cardassia's occupation of Bajor...and at the very end of the series, between the Cardassians and the Dominion during the Dominion's occupation of Cardassia.
Observing a situation in which the oppressors become the oppressed was quite interesting, if one was paying attention.
The line between terrorist and freedom fighter is amazingly thin.
Because Azetbur was right, as its presented in Star Trek, the Federation basically always represented as Homo-sapiens Only Club.
As in, its ok in TV Star Trek land for a Captain to blow a ship full of evil doers, but when it's a ship full of human beings it stands out a lot
I do support the Maquis for the various reasons as have been posted above. I believe Eddington said it best himself
"Why is the Federation so obsessed about the Maquis? We've never harmed you. And yet we're constantly arrested and charged with terrorism... Starships chase us through the Badlands... and our supporters are harassed and ridiculed. Why?
Because we've left the Federation, and that's the one thing you can't accept. Nobody leaves paradise. Everybody should want to be in the Federation. Hell, you even want the Cardassians to join. The only reason you're sending them replicators is so that one day they can take their rightful place on the Federation Council. In some ways, you're worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious: you assimilate people, and they don't even know it."
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Only if those Starships are just flying around keeping to themselves. The Starships however were already hunting the Macquis down and were going to either capture and imprison or kill them. In that case, it is the STARSHIPS that were doing the act of war, the Macquis simply defended themselves.
Aplogies in advance if I'm wrong to make this comparison but can we compare what the Maquis do against the Cardassians to what the Rebels do against the Empire in Star Wars? I mean in SW the Rebels are the Good Guys (the Maquis) who are acting out against the oppresion of the Empire (Cardassians) becuase no one seems to stand upto them, I suppose in this case as there's no third party in SW like the Federation we could say that the General population, the ones who accept the Empire, are like the Federation, they just sit back and live with what they've got.
What makes the Rebel Alliance different from the Maquis?
What makes the Rebel Alliance different from the Maquis?
I guess that, as you say, the role of the Federation would have to make a difference. The Maquis, despite Eddington's premature bragging, never quite seceded from the Federation ("Blaze of Glory" has Eddington confirm that they were merely planning such a move). So essentially the Maquis are practicing vigilantism from within the relative safety of a benevolent umbrella organization.
Hence the Maquis might perhaps best be compared with the bounty hunters Vader enlists in SW:ESB, while the Cardassians play the part of the Rebels. The mother society would not completely condone the actions of the faction, and might indeed engage in criminal prosecution, but they do look the other way when the faction's aggression is directed at a clear-cut external enemy, one common to both the mother society and the faction.
As for the definition of terrorism, one typically attempts to pin it down as violence specifically targeted at the innocent bystanders. But that's not a very good definition, as any combat group fighting from an underdog position has to strike the enemy at where he is the weakest - even if it's the enemy's babies and cute puppies. People like Chakotay apparently tried to direct their strikes at "military" targets, to the point of ridiculousness (see "Dreadnought" where a planet-busting missile is aimed at things like fuel and munitions depots), while people like Eddington preferred soft targets like Cardassian colonies (as in "For the Uniform"). That's the difference between those who drive explosive-laden trucks at USMC barracks or explosive-laden boats at USN ships and those who fly aircraft at US civilian buildings - but that's not the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist.
Timo Saloniemi
Hence the Maquis might perhaps best be compared with the bounty hunters Vader enlists in SW:ESB, while the Cardassians play the part of the Rebels. The mother society would not completely condone the actions of the faction, and might indeed engage in criminal prosecution, but they do look the other way when the faction's aggression is directed at a clear-cut external enemy, one common to both the mother society and the faction.
As for the definition of terrorism, one typically attempts to pin it down as violence specifically targeted at the innocent bystanders. But that's not a very good definition, as any combat group fighting from an underdog position has to strike the enemy at where he is the weakest - even if it's the enemy's babies and cute puppies. People like Chakotay apparently tried to direct their strikes at "military" targets, to the point of ridiculousness (see "Dreadnought" where a planet-busting missile is aimed at things like fuel and munitions depots), while people like Eddington preferred soft targets like Cardassian colonies (as in "For the Uniform"). That's the difference between those who drive explosive-laden trucks at USMC barracks or explosive-laden boats at USN ships and those who fly aircraft at US civilian buildings - but that's not the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist.
Timo Saloniemi
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. As I see it, that's the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.
A freedom fighter strikes against military targets and targets important for the enemies abilities to continue with the war and/or opression. He can also strike against targets which are of economic importance for the enemies.
Such attacks weakens the enemies military strength and his economical potential. It may also cause doubts among the enemies themselves about the possibilities to win the war or continue with the opression.
A terrorist strikes against everything, sometimes military and economic targets but most of all against civilian targets in order to create fear.
However, history has showed us that terrorism never achieve any victories. Look at WWII where the allied bombing of the German industires combined with attacks on the German army and air force led to victory while the terror bombing against civilians rather strengthened the German will to resistance and prolonged the war. Hitler's terror bombing against Great Britain didn't achieve anything either, it only strengthened the British resistance.
And look at ETA in Spain. They have slaughtered innocent civilians for decades now and what have they achieved? Nothing.
Not even the Basque population (which they claim that they want to liberate) want to have anything to do with them.
As for Star Trek, I can see a clear difference between the Maquis who fought for a just cause with mostly honorable methods and the Ansata (TNG "Higher Ground") who acted like terrorists and obviously didn't even know what they were fighting for anymore.
I don't really see how a freedom fighter could ever afford the luxury of only hitting military targets. If he were that powerful, he would be free already, and wouldn't need to fight for it.
And even if he only concentrates on military targets, his best bet are those soldiers who are as unprotected as possible. Which is why it is a good idea to use mines and roadside bombs against unarmored transports such as buses - not simply to eliminate enemy manpower, but to instill fear in that manpower. If one can hit the families of the soldiers as well (as judged both tactically and politically), the deterrent is multiplied. That's how IRA fought against British occupation - and that's how the American rebels fought against British occupation, too, by striking at troop movements, logistics caravans, and accommodations, and by terrorizing collaborators.
As for the effects of WWII bombing, not only were raids against populations inefficient, so were raids against industries. Basically, thousands of planes and crews were wasted on the futile bombing of German factories or powerplants which could be rebuilt in a matter of weeks. The only strategic bombings of any acknowledged effect were the strikes against railroads and fuel supplies in Europe - and the terror bombings of the populations of Japanese cities in the Pacific.
If anything, the WWII example proves that for the past few centuries, there has not existed a combat force that did not practice terrorism, if it is defined as aiming for fear and demoralization through striking at civilians. The approach persists in all combat, including the invasion of Iraq where a flashbang-style aerial bombing/propaganda campaign was considered key to collapsing the Iraqi resistance - justly so.
Timo Saloniemi
And even if he only concentrates on military targets, his best bet are those soldiers who are as unprotected as possible. Which is why it is a good idea to use mines and roadside bombs against unarmored transports such as buses - not simply to eliminate enemy manpower, but to instill fear in that manpower. If one can hit the families of the soldiers as well (as judged both tactically and politically), the deterrent is multiplied. That's how IRA fought against British occupation - and that's how the American rebels fought against British occupation, too, by striking at troop movements, logistics caravans, and accommodations, and by terrorizing collaborators.
As for the effects of WWII bombing, not only were raids against populations inefficient, so were raids against industries. Basically, thousands of planes and crews were wasted on the futile bombing of German factories or powerplants which could be rebuilt in a matter of weeks. The only strategic bombings of any acknowledged effect were the strikes against railroads and fuel supplies in Europe - and the terror bombings of the populations of Japanese cities in the Pacific.
If anything, the WWII example proves that for the past few centuries, there has not existed a combat force that did not practice terrorism, if it is defined as aiming for fear and demoralization through striking at civilians. The approach persists in all combat, including the invasion of Iraq where a flashbang-style aerial bombing/propaganda campaign was considered key to collapsing the Iraqi resistance - justly so.
Timo Saloniemi
^^
Sorry, but I still have to disagree on some points.
I do see a clear difference between the methods used by IRA and the methods used by the American rebels.
The American rebels did, as you point out, did strike against troop movements, logistics caravans, and accommodations, and by terrorizing collaborators. But there were never that blind violence against ALL civilians (of course, Britain itself was too far away), only against collaborators while IRA didn't only stike against the British soldiers and possible collaborators but committed terror attacks against civilians in England as well.
I can see a clear difference between freedom fighting and terrorism there.
Sorry, but I still have to disagree on some points.
I do see a clear difference between the methods used by IRA and the methods used by the American rebels.
The American rebels did, as you point out, did strike against troop movements, logistics caravans, and accommodations, and by terrorizing collaborators. But there were never that blind violence against ALL civilians (of course, Britain itself was too far away), only against collaborators while IRA didn't only stike against the British soldiers and possible collaborators but committed terror attacks against civilians in England as well.
I can see a clear difference between freedom fighting and terrorism there.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Oh, please. The IRA mostly bombed civilian targets, and that made them terrorists. They're whole goal was to incite enough terror into civilians so Northern Ireland would be given to Ireland. And did succeed? Nope.
Which would all be military targets, NOT civilian targets, and thus they were not terrorists.
Oh, please. The targets struck in Iraq were all military targets, not civilian ones. And if they did, it is not justly so, because so how much effect it has on the resistance: namely nothing.
Nope I don't support a terriorst origanization.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
But they weren't under any such umbrella, the colonists were allowed to remain on the planet but the planet was now located in Cardassian space, it was stated in ep that protection and security of the colonys was provided by the Cardassians. The colonists rose up against the Cardassians because the Cardassians were regulary beating people up and even sometimes killing people on the streets at night, they weren't even able to go out at night for fear of their lives, then there's the fact they were supplying weapons and ships to the Cardassian colonists who then went on to attack the Federation colonists.
Didn't anyone actually take note of everything that went on in the episodes and what was said in all the Maquis episodes? or did people just assume the Maquis were evil because they were branded terrorists by the writers?
The episodes "The Maquis", pt I and II, revolved around the Federation acting as a protective umbrella: Sisko and his crew ended the flow of weapons from Cardassian Central Command to those Cardassian colonists involved in the hostilities.
All subsequent episodes involving the Maquis dealt with Maquis aggression, there being no evidence of corresponding Cardassian aggression. That is, right until the Jem'Hadar came and wiped out the Maquis.
Timo Saloniemi
All subsequent episodes involving the Maquis dealt with Maquis aggression, there being no evidence of corresponding Cardassian aggression. That is, right until the Jem'Hadar came and wiped out the Maquis.
Timo Saloniemi
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
It doesn't matter at what point or in what episodes we were made aware of the whole situation, the Maquis storyline at it's conclusion makes it clear the Maquis were defending themselves against Cardassian attacks and aggression and the Federation were unwilling to do anything about it until a friend of Sisko's decided to take the side of the Maquis, at that point the federation even decided to act as the aggressors and hunt down the Maquis. The federation were willing to take the side of the Cardassians just to prevent another war and went then as far as providing the cardassians with industrial replicators, how do you think the Maquis would feel about that? it was only when the Federation started supplying the cardassians with aid that the Maquis decided to steal the replicators and if you remember the only reason eddington fired on the Defiant was because it came after them, eddington made it clear to Sisko not to follow him and to leave them alone but Sisko didn't listen.
The Maquis were the good guys.
Actually, in the conclusion in "Blaze of Glory", Eddington speaks solely about the grand victories he, uh, the Maquis won over the Cardassians, having them on the run and so forth. There's zero indication that the Cardassians were doing similar things in return, either here or in the preceding "For the Uniform" which also describes unilateral Maquis aggression, without a hint of Cardassian wrongdoing.
The Cardassian aggressions in "The Maquis" appear to have been but a pretext for a few psychopaths to wage their very own war of conquest, for no good reason and no tangible gain.
Good guys indeed... The last good Maquis were seen at the end of "The Maquis pt II", and we hear from Eddington that Cal Hudson later died. We don't hear how much later, or in which circumstances - is this "skirmish with Cardassians" a valid self-defense operation or yet another of the crazy and meaningless acts of Maquis aggression? I sort of wish the former.
Timo Saloniemi
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
The episode where Sisko's friend switches to the Maquis we're made aware of everything the Cardassians have been getting up to and we're even made aware that the Cardassians have been supplying their colonys frieghters with Photon Torpedos.
Watch them again.
Watch them again.
I think we are talking a bit past each other. The episode where this happened was the very one I was speaking of, "The Maquis", parts I and II. The very first DS9 Maquis episode. The whole problem was sorted out there and then, with Gul Dukat using his influence to stop the Central Command activities.
After that first episode, the Maquis had no proper reason for acting like the assholes they were. It was all aggression for aggression's sake, with all sorts of idiocy like the people originally evicted from Cardassian territory choosing to remain "refugees" because Eddington was telling them that they could one day return to their so-called homes.
Anybody who puts a piece of easily replaceable turf ahead of the lives of their loved ones deserves nothing but contempt. And perhaps the standard six months in corrective therapy.
Timo Saloniemi
After that first episode, the Maquis had no proper reason for acting like the assholes they were. It was all aggression for aggression's sake, with all sorts of idiocy like the people originally evicted from Cardassian territory choosing to remain "refugees" because Eddington was telling them that they could one day return to their so-called homes.
Anybody who puts a piece of easily replaceable turf ahead of the lives of their loved ones deserves nothing but contempt. And perhaps the standard six months in corrective therapy.
Timo Saloniemi
3D Master
Rear Admiral
You actually think he succeeded? Mister "The Obsidian Order and much of the Central Command hate me, enough they don't let me in on their machinations?"
Please, the Central Command happily continued doing what it did. And even if they didn't, what they did before was enough, as Cardassian colonists they did arm, were still armed.
Bullshit. The Cardassians that were armed before, and new ones still being armed after, trust me on that, continued to attack Federation colonists. Eventually there simply came a straw, and rightly so, where the Maquis said it was time to get rid of all the nearby Cardassian settlers because it's the only way to properly end their attacks.
I must disagree with your statement. It's not about a "piece of turf", it's about the homeland, the place where you live, eat, work, was born and interact with your friends, neighbors, relatives and such.
Without going into details, I have always had my sympathies for those who have been forced to move from their homes because of the actions of a brutal, aggressive occupant. Not to mention my dislike when those who could prevent the aggression are licking the aggressor's boots for some economical or tactical reason.
As for this particular issue, I think that the Federation made a shameful deal with an aggressive power and sold out their own citizens in order to get "peace in our time" just as when England and France sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
Similar threads
