@@K11-s1i he was kind of backed into that shitstorm and he stood up to the generals when they wanted to send the troops in and towards the end he was moving towards a rapprochement with Castro’s Cuba, see the Jean Daniel peace mission. “I believe that there is no country in the world, including all the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime.… I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.”
As far as a US president in the 1960's could go, JFK was alright. This is partially why he caught a buller -- not even going into conspiracy stuff, the shooter was a conservative who was very angry at JFK's reforms and general acceptance of progressive groups. PS.: Quickly going into conspiracy stuff, there's a lot pf evidence that the CIA killed (or backed the killing) pf JFK for those same reasons.
Yeah, another problem along those lines is in the more episodic shows like TNG or Voyager is that certain events are rarely brought up later even though they are very impactful for the characters. Like when Troi was impregnated by an alien and lived an accelerated lifetime and died as a child because it was harming the ship. She was devastated but was smiling on the bridge at the end of the episode and was never mentioned again.
"The High Ground" was banned in the UK on first broadcast, because of Data's reference to a unified Ireland. At the time the Troubles in Northern Ireland had been going on for years, a fight that could be traced back through the decades to before Irish independence. Yet eight years after broadcast, the Good Friday Agreement was signed and there were the beginnings of a peace. Nowhere near done, of course. But hopefully eight years from now our seemingly-eternal problems will be a mere memory.
The quote that always resonates with me is (paraphrased) "War is the rich person's terrorism. Terrorism is the poor person's war." I've always taken that to mean that violence, whether used by the state or against it, is used to demoralize and defeat the receiver of the violence and the only real difference between the two words is the might and wealth of the group using the violence. If there are times when war is justified then there are axiomatically times when terrorism is justified. Now whether or not war is ever justified is another thing but I think separating the two is a false dichotomy created by the powerful to demonize those who fight against them.
@@andrewfox368 You don't think the obvious riposte to that argument is that outside states funding terrorism is a cheaper option than outside states funding a war or sending their own troops in to support the terrorists openly?
@@andrewfox368 When you look at the amount of resources oppressive states used to "Beat down" on oppressed populations, the funding question isn't even close. Take, as an example the many, many genocides carried out by the "moral exemplars" known as the British Empire. They aren't "Terrorists". They are just Vicious Evil conquerors, plundering the Planet, because they want to. Or, if you want a US example, consider the many, many examples of the genocides of Indigenous Americans, simply because European invaders wanted their land and the resources underneath them. Should they just lie down and die? Or should they fight back and kill Every Single White Invader, who BENEFITED from the genocides?! In other words, are you a conqueror, or are you the VICTIM of immoral conquerors?!!!
I don't think it's quite so easily broken down. I believe that there are certain specific tactics, that regardless of the nobility of the cause, can be labelled 'terrorism' as a separate and more reprehensible action than simple warfare, symmetric or otherwise. To me, a group who uses torture, or rape, as part of their process of defeating their enemies, is a terrorist organization, even if they're an elected government. Note: I'm specifically referring to groups whose high command has chosen to condone such activities--unfortunately, war brings out the worst in a portion of humanity, so yes, some soldiers will cross those lines. How the government or organization addresses such transgressions is what determines, in my view, whether they are a terrorist organization or state.
No, you are conflating guerilla warfare or revolution (poor/less powerful) with terrorism. Terrorism is a method of tactics where non-combatants are *intentionally* targeted as the *primary targets* of attack, the purpose being to cause terror among civilians. I see why it can appear as you say, but the size/power difference (when it's actually true and not masking ) is an independent variable. Also states will sometimes mislabel things as terrorism that are not, which can confuse people. For example, guerilla warfare is not neccessarily terrorism, but the state will always call it that. And states create proxy terrorist arms. (1). War has rules (they may or may not be perfectly ethical or appropriate). Its the same reason why the FBI are traditionally "good guys" vs cartels are "bad guys". The "good guys" *play by a clear set of rules*. That's what traditionally made them "good". That's why it's considered so bad when these rules are broken. Granted, some of the rules may be imperfect, even unfair, maybe needing reform. But they provide *some* check against pure malevolence. Terrorism has no rules. (2). War does not *target* civilians, though there can be varying degrees of "collateral damage" depending how careful the soldiers are, or whether there are any rigue elements. Even at its worst, at the very least war does not make killing civilians a primary target. If they do it is a War Crime (going back to rules). Killing and maiming civilians *is the entire purpose of terrorism as a method*. Civilians are the *primary* targets of terrorism; civilian terror is the purpose. It's all in the name.
11:47, Chilling how that line, "I had a son too. *He died in detention when he was thirteen"* is surprisingly relevant today considering in America, we still have children cages.
It's always been relevant, like how many innocent people have been killed by the US military in the Middle East. It can apply to a many modern conflicts and actions
Well, no, because the whole Xindi arc on Enterprise Series 3 was much more nuanced than that. There were good Xindi characters and bad ones in that arc, and the audience was encouraged to see the conflict from their side too even though that whole arc began with a clear 9/11 reference that killed Trip's sister. Which I think is pretty brave coming in a series just a couple of years after that attack.
Terrorism against nazis: good job! Terrorism against us: they're all evil! Terrorism in which we aren't directly involved, or against nazis but in ways which drag us into it: it's complicated...
@@seanyoung247 So... The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria isn't a terrorist organisation? They weren't recognised as a state but aside from that they pretty much were one at a point. Are they then a state that consideres themself at war? Or were they a state that considered themself at war until they lost influence and devolved into a terrorist organisation? Or is everything that made them a terrorist organisation that they were not recognised as a state? I think it's not relevant if it's a single person, a group, nation, planet or federation of planets (basically all just subgroups of "group" anyway...)... If they use violence to instill fear for a political reason, that seems to be terrorism.
What I love about your content is its thoroughness. The way you argue your cases is sensible, masterful and wise. Another wise UA-camr, Autistamatic, recommended you and I am grateful for the all too few people who create truly grown-up content. Ngā mihi nui, from aotearoa (AKA, New Zealand).
It is weird watching DS9 as there are times when Kira calls herself a former terrorist, feels what she did was necessary and seemed to enjoy turning Cardassian soldiers into terrorsists. DS9 portrayed terrorism as sometimes necessary.
Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare by another name. And like any other form of warfare it is only as good or as evil as its objectives, and the means employed to achieve them.
I did wish that show gave a little more focus on the fact she helped kill civilians, that kinda got pushed under the rug a little but it was an interesting arc with her
@@ergob3907 I mean it came up when she was giving advice to Damar: she mentions that if he refuses to ever cause Cardassian deaths, the Dominion will just start putting a few Cardassian civillians at every single site Damar might want to strike. It's ugly but there is a logic to "sometimes you just can't avoid civillian deaths in your asymmetric warfare, the best you can do is try to kill no more than you have to".
@@drewgehringer7813 The caterers - on - The - Deathstar problem. Military ethics usually justifies it under the doctrine of double effect. The civilians aren't targeted, they just happen to be in the wrong place. I presume the Cardassians would have used Bajoran hostages to discourage attacks.
@@alanpennie8013 She refers to hostages or shields during the Cardassian campaign against the Dominion. Her answer: you have to be prepared to kill them too.
Star Trek doesn’t glorify terrorism but it does EXPLORE it and that often gets confused. The difference between The High Ground in TNG and the Bajoran/Cardassian ongoing conflict is that the former was authoritarianism and latter was colonialism, which is a popular trope in science fiction. It is never specified whether Cardassia is post-scarcity or not but if that is the case, then appropriating inhabited planets when there are uninhabited ones in space is particularly egregious. It is ambiguous where the line is between terrorism and self-defense but Star Trek allows to look at it or for it objectively.
Star trek is a science fiction version at times of the of a living allegory of the Bible if you look at it closely and it's philosophy and it's debates on The human condition Believe it or not when people think of cancel culture and people shutting others down in conversation maybe they are having something that they don't even want to see about themselves or other people cuz they're living in a total fear of something they do not understand or no one can understand but when they read it and see it come to pass they begin to wonder if the Bible is real and they begin to question if they need to answer for something higher when they look down upon others why do they do that simple there's certain allegory messages with inside Star trek that remind me a lot of several pathages in the book of Revelation I'm like no thanks I'm shutting your asses down again you're not getting what you want goodbye huh right to work not doing it ma they want me to go back to work not happening that's socialism.
As I understand it, they were resource poor at the time of the occupation. They needed resources for their war with the Federation as well as just keeping themselves afloat. Expand or Die mind sets.
This is actually very correct. ST:D says the Vulcans and Klingons were able to form a peace treaty because the Vulcans would shoot the Klingons out of the sky at first site.
Asking because I am genuinely unsure... Were Kirk and Spock attempting to incite terror in the Klingons or just removing an enemy asset in an attempt to, as the mistakenly surmised, level the playing field for the Organians? Is that the sort if nuance that keeps the debates going?
Wow, Steve! You volunteered to take on a difficult, multithreaded, gnarly, intractable subject and clarify terms. So much food for thought here! Puts much-needed perspective on the whole Isreali-Palastinian conflict, and I never knew that the Maqui were named for a resistance group in German-occupied France! I especially love your ending, encapsulating Rosdenberru's vision of a post-war world. Stellar work throughout here. Thank you.
Kira is my favourite character in all of Star Trek. Partly because of the exact things you covered here in this video, but for so many other reasons as well. I love the depth of her character, her series-long arc (several different ones, perhaps), her multi-facetedness. She was so well written and so well portrayed.
I love how you started this video by calling most of the characters of Star Trek as Status Quo Warriors. I love it. It is true. I also imagine some conservative Star Trek fans, who probably are just hate watching your Trek Actually videos now, if they are still watching them, will leave an angry comment. I am looking forward to that. 😀
To be fair, to both the Status Quo Warriors and conservative Trek fans, they are each highly likely to be among the most privileged of their respective post-whatever civilization and as such benefit greatly form their respective status quo.
If you feel the status quo serves the needs of the people, then you defend the status quo. Also, the Organians call the hell out of Kirk's terrorist tactics.
@@255ad , Fully agreed with you there. If the Status Quo is completely awesome for all involved and in the surrounding areas, and pleases everyone, th😀e Status Quo is awesome and should maintain. Thus in Fully Luxury Automatic Gay Space Anarcho-Communism, it is good to be a Status Quo Warrior.
Steve you are the man! I'm posting in comments for the first time, but I have watched the majority of what you have posted. Your takes are always insightful, and I hope you can continue to do what you do. I really appreciate it. Star Trek is my ideal future and hearing contrary positions is always important and great to truly build a world and an ideal. PS I love that UA-cam's CC translates Cardassian to Kardashian because it shows how different my world is than the world of pop culture
I like that you raised how problematic defining 'terrorism' is. It's sort of like the legal definition of 'porn': "I know it when I see it". There are certainly egregious or archetypal examples, but there are also more subtle or problematic examples. In general the word is a dangerous piece of political rhetoric that's been thrown around way too freely since the Bush years and I think we're seeing the harvest of those seeds of paranoia and division in our current political context.
@@emsleywyatt3400 So... most things then? @philadeos I agree, it's a worthless term because of that. Better to use more concrete terms. E.g. 9/11 was mass murder committed against civilians, a war crime, to say Al-Qaeda are terrorists is almost meaningless now.
Basic notion that terrorism consists of criminal acts intended to provoke fear in order agenda is the most dictionary definitions of terrorism describe it in similar terms what is controversial is a what kind of ass deserve to be labeled as terrorism and be what defines religious overtones and what defiance cancel culture shutting people down making them react harshly like a Marxist would do fix the AI capture there Google you suck at this job. Uploads eq data to ai deep learning server after that video REM sleep recording for smartphone medical tricorder.
You hear it said often: one person's terrorist, is another person's Washington. This maybe true in an academic sense. However, in the end, it's only time and a change of public perspective which allows villains to become heroes. Yasser Arafat may one day, 100 years from now, be hearld a true world hero. Fighting Goliath with but a sling. Maybe, time+perspective=HERO. Or, as Hamilton has shown viewers recently -- Villains (Jefferson). Within Star Trek, Captain Sisko was a war crimes candidate before the outbreak of the Dominion War. His actions during the war, and the events in the Fire Cave made him a hero. 100 years forward, Captain Sisko's Bajoran statues could be removed. Terrorist and Heroes are always seen from a certain point of view (Jedi were Evil). Great topic, great channel. Thanks.
Star Trek’s perception of terrorism is a mirror of the US’s view of it at the time. Prior to 9/11, it was a thing that happened elsewhere. It was a thing that at most involved US citizens as unfortunate bystanders caught in it. And so while the methods can be considered problematic, it can also be seen through the US’s narrative that as close as damnit deifies the US Revolutionaries. Especially in the 90’s, when terrorism was almost entirely associated with the Troubles in Ireland, where the target of said terrorism was the same enemy of the revolution: Britain. After 9/11, America had been the target of terrorism. The narrative of terrorism in the US changed. And so the presentation of terrorism in Star Trek changed in lockstep.
First of all: DS9 is the best Star Trek Show ever. Second of all: Worf is a lot smarter than most people give him credit for. Thirdly: A law is only binding if it is just, and fighting against the enforcement of a void law - an unjust law - is not a crime, so if violence is enacted as a defense against enforcers of an unjust law, it isn't terrorism, because it's not a crime. It's [extended] self defense
@@dennisthemenace3695 You don't think you should *ever* use violence? So slaves don't have the moral authority to revolt? Partisans should have instead peacefully protested nazi occupiers? I think you can find plenty of historical scenarios where violence can be justified ethically. At which point the discussion turns to the efficacy of said violence. I'm not saying that once we cross some moral event horizon that the "good guys" have carte blanche for any violent act, but it is a tool in a toolbox.
One thing I find interesting about your conclusion is that you ignore the time the Federation itself explicitly condones and backs terrorism. In DS9's final season. When the Federation sends Commander Kira to Cardassia to support Damar's resistance movement, it's not because things on Cardassia are nearly as bad as they were on Bajor (yet), it's because ensuring Damar's group knows how to be terrorists is good for the overall war effort. While not Trek, I also think this discussion would benefit from discussing the New Caprica arc on Moore's version of BSG. An arc which aired during the height of the insurgency in Iraq and shows that Moore's attitudes on the subject don't appear to have changed much between DS9 and BSG.
Isn't that more like providing support and training to a resistance movement attacking a hostile power? The Allies did this in Yugoslavia (or whatever it was called then) back during WWII, and many other places. They provided support to Tito, including aircraft and naval forces, but not tanks. He really wanted tanks, and kept asking for them, until they took him to a tank repair facility and showed how many men and resources it took to keep a relatively small number of tanks going, then he stopped asking for them. Honestly I don't know if that was the same, because they were uniformed soldiers, and I don't think Damar's resistance movement was. That said, they were still effectively occupied and under the grip of a foreign power that certainly didn't represent the best interests of the citizens, so while it's not *as bad* as the Cardassian occupation, it was a war where unconventional tactics were being used (I mean, the replacement of many leaders by changelings is pretty huge, is that not terrorism? Just the thought that anyone could be the enemy is horrifying.) and total war at that (by both sides) so they weren't holding back. That doesn't justify it, but I don't think they were glorifying it, either. I think the main reason for that arc was to be able to show the cardassians rising up against the dominion, and the federation helping them, so that they could have better relations post-war, not so much a focus on terrorism.
I think they sent her to set up a counter insurgency, not a terror campaign. Maybe it's a semantic argument, but the tactics are almost identical. Also, it's kind of hard to terrorize Jem'Hadar, who don't feel fear.
Love the way you summarised this video Steve, I think all fans star trek feel the same way, we may not be destined to explore the stars with warp drives but we all hope to see our world become the best version of itself
Here just to say, FIRST!! Seriously, though. Thank you, Steve, for this timely edition of Trek Actually. So many think that stability is more important than addressing any injustice. Sadly, sometimes injustice can only be addressed by increasingly extreme measures, until it is rectified. It is certainly my hope that we can solve and reach the ideals of Star Trek before end up in some of the darkest chapters of Trek lore.
Its a bit of a clumsy saying, though. Some groups are objectively more of one than the other. Do we honestly place the French Resistance alongside the Khmer Rouge? Of course not.
I had an Afghanistan vet tell me that in basic training. I suspect that people who have fought actual terrorists have a much deeper understanding of this than the politicians who send them to the fight.
"Terrorists? That's what the big army calls the little army." - Wolverine to Captain America (talking about Magneto's actions against nations, fifteen years before the movies)
It is worth remembering, that in the 19th and early 20th century the nature of terrorism was considerably different. It focused mainly on attacking military targets and political leaders and was more akin to what we would call guerrila tactics today. Terrorist attacks on large gatherings of civilians generally came a bit later.
I don't see how Errand of Mercy qualifies as terrorism. The goal wasn't to "create terror in the general population" or whatever, that cache was a valid military target of an opposing occupying force. A state of war, acknowledged or not by the Organians, existed between all three parties.
It's basically the same situation as Bajor. If Kira was a terrorist for blowing up Cardassian targets, then the same goes for Kirk and Spock. In both instances, they were targeting an occupying force.
Random point, on the topic of glorifying terrorism. I have, in my head, a grand total of one superhero character. Said superhero starts out doing the vigilante thing and knocking out common criminals and delivering them to the police. Eventually, though, she starts talking to them instead. Trying to understand why they're doing what they're doing, and coming to understand that crime's more a byproduct of more prevailing societal ills. Changes course, goes supervillain, starts threatening and murdering corrupt CEO's who are all but untouchable by the law. Straight up off with their heads business. Very public and brutal. Gives them a week to at least start trying to undo the damage that they're doing, and if they don't, they get thrown out of the fiftieth floor window with a steel wire noose around their neck which goes taut at the twenty fifth. .... Curious as to if that would behead a man. Eventually pulls this ultimatum on her own father, expecting to be able to reason him into not throwing his life away. Fails in doing so. Reasons that she's hurt others like herself in the past with her terrorist acts, and refuses to be a hypocrite. I feel like any decent superhero would be villified to hell and back by the mainstream politicians and press. Like Spiderman, but if J Jonah wasn't just a loon.
"Curious as to if that would behead a man." Yes, it absolutely would. As I understand it, one of the practical difficulties with hanging people as a means of execution is that the general idea is to break the person's neck immediately following the drop. Unfortunately, you have to get the length of the drop just right to avoid either beheading them if the drop is too long, or slowly strangling them if the drop is too short. That's part of the reason states were interested in things like the electric chair because it was billed as a more humane and more idiot proof means of execution than hanging.
So in other words, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security." Makes sense to me.
The Torys thought the Patriots terrorists for sure. And by most definitions they were. Many Torys got tarred and feathered, run out of their homes, or murdered. But that is the cost of revolution.
Yea Spock is pretty funny at times. In Galileo Seven, he takes every step not to kill the giant spear throwing creatures which were trying to kill them after they crashed on the planet due to being a "pacifist" and having respect for other life forms. Yet, in "Patterns Of Force" he literally holds a gun to the Daras' head until they explained that she was an underground Ekosian working against Melakon.
Kirk and Spock attack a purely military target in time of presumed war. They are also trying to inspire (albeit futilely), rather than terrifying the Organians into action. Laaaarge stretch to accuse them of terrorism.
Trekspertise just did a two parter about this, though they came at it from a slightly different angle. They do a more in depth analysis about how Trek's attitude towards terrorism changed as time went on, especially after 9/11. It was a really good couple episodes, I recommend it.
@@belg4mit Might be worth discussing BSG too. After 9/11 but the treatment of terrorism was very similar to 90s Trek. Will The Orville go there? They did have the heroes massacre the entire complement of a starship (though they did try to save the children) because it was about to attack a Terran colony.
I was a little surprised you left out the part where the one guy explicitly compares himself to George Washington, claiming that the line between terrorists and freedom fighters can depend on one's perspective.
I love your insistence on considering nuance in social justice. Definitely a huge part of why Star Trek has meant so much to me since childhood, as I've developed my ethics considering difficult questions raised
I still remember Weyoun calling Rom a 'terrorist' as if The Federation and The Dominion are not at war and Rom wasn't a member of the Federation fighting the Dominion- if you remember how self-centric the Dominion's and Founders' view of conflict is, it's the epitome of 'when we do it, we're _always_ justified- when they do it, it's _never_ justified'.
In "For The Uniform", the glorified Benjamin Lafayette Sisko went full George W. and fought terror with terror and poisoned an entire planet. His only justification for it was to capture Eddington because he betrayed the uniform. As far as I'm aware, Sisko never faced repercussions for this act of terror. While this may not glorify terrorism, it certainly does not condemn it. Star Fleet, like most major political powers tend to look the other way when they themselves commit a terroristic act. By not reprimanding Sisko, Star Fleet silently approved of his actions. Also, "In The Pale Moonlight", the actions and plan that starfleet supported lead to an act of terrorism by Garak in murdering Senator Vreenak. While only two people truly know what happened Sisko can live with it. Again while this may not glorify terrorism, it still points in the direction of if it's beneficial, it's all good.
I think I've now watched perhaps 40-50 of your videos, Steve. None were finer than this one. You took an extremely nuanced and important topic, and covered it with intelligence and perspective. I've resisted subscribing before, but this is the one that has gotten me to push that button. (Oh, one last thought: Is there a moral difference between terrorism and war?)
I think this is your best video Steve. Just brilliant. I was thinking about Kira the other day and how she never flinches from what she's done but regrets the necessity of it.
Great video! I'm definitely eager for your next video. It's always been my opinion that the reason we see so many problems of technology in Star Trek is that fundamentally, it isn't about technology solving all problems. Rather, it's about the fundamental morality which underpins the Federation, and this is proven by the fact that when technology conflicts with that, the morality wins out in the end. That said, there's a good argument that Roddenberry was a believer in technology solving everything, but that Trek has grown since his death.
An interesting point about that scene with Data & Picard in High Ground is that it was banned in the UK and Ireland due to it mentioning Irish unification, the episode with wasn't shown or edited to have it removed. The Sky station didn't show it unedited until 2006 and the BBC until 2007, and even then it was only after midnight
I define Terrorism as the politically motivated use of violence and murder against non-combatants in order to frighten, intimidate, or provoke. It's important to note that terrorism isn't just something done by rebels but is done by governments as well. The United States government for instance commits terrorism by double tapping Drone Targets.
@DoctorBabylon: I was not familiar with the concept of "double tapping drone targets" before reading your comment. I Googled it, and it's horrific, clearly terrorism, or at least, completely immoral.
In the High Ground there is that great point Finn makes to Beverly when he compares himself to George Washington, and then tells her that it’s so easy for her to judge him now that her society has reach this higher level of morality, a level only attained by reaping the benefits of “terrorist” from their past.
I do wish that conversation had gone a little deeper though. Something to the effect of: "Washington was a military general, not a terrorist. He confined the Continental Army to attacking British military targets" "Really? Why don't you ask the Iroquois who called him 'Town Destroyer' how scrupulous he was when it came to attacking military targets?"
The Bajoran resistance and the Shakaar resistance cell members in specific is one of my favorite parts of DS9. It's a brilliantly nuanced look at occupation, terrorism and the aftermath. It never treats it as something good, simple or easy and it never pretends that it didn't have a massive cost for the people who did it. And what makes it best is the end of DS9 in which (spoilers) Kira is sent to Cardassia to help them create their own resistance. Allowing her to both confront Damar in one of the best scenes in the show, but also to remind the audience that the terrorists and the people they are fighting might not be as different as they may seem. It is their circumstances that are different and if both sides could just see things from the point of view of the other, if you have a leader who can understand that the people on the other side are human (so to speak) then you can avoid the situations that lead to the need for terrorism.
I think you nailed it on the head. There comes a time when there is no other option left. Even the founding fathers knew this. Jefferson wrote very eloquently on this. The thing is, our election system is designed to prevent things from getting that bad here. But thats being subverted. I hope we don't see it escalate here.
A timely video 3 years later. Person A: Where'd all these terrorists come from? How dare they! Person B: have you considered the systematic horrible conditions put on these people? What other options did they have? Person A: did they try X? That's the way to fix it! Person B: yep, didn't work Person A: what about YZ? Those should work if X fails Person B: they tried that too, didn't fix it Person A: well I don't care it's not the right way to go about things Person B: what would you do in their place? Person A: is this that empathy I've heard so much about? Why does it hurt?
Thank you Steve! I really enjoy your videos and attention to details. I agree with the vast majority of your well worded and thought out observations of Trek in its entirety! Kira is one of the best characters...🖖💖
Great video Steve, though I would like to point out that you did miss at least one terrorist group in ds9, and that was the Terran resistance that Kira and Bashir started in the mirror universe. I would also like to say that classifying terrorism is a tricky thing as it also depends on what side of the fight you are on and what the ultimate outcome of the actions are. The tail of Robin Hood can be classified as a terrorist action as can the revolutionary war. The biggest problem with the world that we are currently living in is the in many ways, and because of the actions of certain leaders ("cough"trump) who uses the term so loosely is that it has been skewed and does not have the same meaning as it did before.
Ds9 was just brilliant at addressing issues and philosophies in deep and meaningful ways. Occasionally we sensed how deep in space the crew was, but the real depth alluded in the title was the new way it approached characters and stories
I am not sure I think all political violence is the same as terrorism. I've always understood terrorism was when civilians where specifically and deliberately targeted to influence change. one trouble with all political violence terrorism or not is it often gives the powers that be the justification they need to crack down and consolidate their own power. In spite of what Star Trek says its more often the political elite crush Opposition and increase their own power. Something to keep in mind whenever contemplating political violence.
Have you heard of state terrorism? It exists, and for me it is much more inexcusable than the other kind, since they have other ways of pursuing their goals, and deliberately choose violence.
Unfortunately as a childhood abuse survivor I can understand and relate to Kira on a very deep level, I know exactly what it feels like to seek help when none is available and become so desperate you're forced to try actions you can't truly justify. I find her portrayal to be beautifully done, how over time she backed away from the burn-it-all-down mentality and grew as an individual. I 100% support her actions as, yes a terrorist, but more importantly a freedom fighter. She always gave me the impression she was pushed and pushed into violence and that she would never have grew into that type of person on her own. I love Kira and she has no reason to apologize, in my mind. I also love your channel, Steve. I truly enjoy your views on everything. Thank you for providing good entertainment. :-)
"A man's called a traitor, or liberator A rich man's a thief, or philanthropist Is one a crusader, or ruthless invader? It's all in which label is able to persist. There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities; so we act as though they don't exist."
I won't be the only one to say this but "The High Ground" was frequently not shown in the UK and Ireland with the BBC censoring the episode by removing mention of a United Ireland won through violence in 2024. It is now a handy meme as we get closer to the date... Similarly, Sky would frequently skip it in syndication. It was occasionally aired in Ireland, but late in the early am hours...
No marketable skills? Well, I don't know about marketable, but your comedian skills are over the top! Keep it up, Steve, and thanks for letting me start my weekend (watching this on Friday afternoon) with a laugh, I appreciate it! 🖖 P.S. The maquis did not just fight against the nazis in France, they also fought against fascists in Spain... and failed to succeed, I'm sorry to say.
Great piece! A subject I've often pondered and even discussed. KInda wish you had mentioned other contemporary examples, such as the Palestinian resistance, the Troubles, and others similar groupns I'm obviiously forgetting here. Irregardless, the current protests is a great example that is right in our faces. Keep up the great work!
PS - one episode that I think should be essential viewing on this topic is DS9's "Duet," with Kira's interrogations of the Cardassian prisoner who may be Gul Darheel, the Butcher of Gallitep... or a former file clerk. One of the very greatest hours Trek ever made.
Steve, "Bones" is a favorite of mine. Talking about terrorism reminded me of my favorite episode of that series. For a very special hour of television, I recommend season 8, episode 6, "The Patriot in Purgatory".
A very balanced and intelligent discussion of the issues involved. What was left out was the view that a true definition of terrorism has to include many actions carried out by governments, military, and civil authorities, both in Star Trek and in the real world. The crucial aspect is seeking to use harm, especially to civilians, as a way of achieving political ends. That is done in the real world by governments on a far greater scale than by dissident elements.
Thanks for this interesting analysis of how science fiction, especially Star Trek, handles such a complex issue. As someone that studies the history of resistance movements to fascist governments, people which would technically be "terrorists", I really enjoyed this video. The Bajorans and Maquis are the prime examples of this, and the Bajorans themselves reflect aspects of a number of anti-fascist movements. Grey zones, indeed.
Have always subscribed to the notion that suggests one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The Nazis considered the French underground to be terrorists. Also worth noting that terrorism is always reactionary.
It would be interesting if you and the Trekspertise folks got together to talk about this subject, since both channels have recently put out videos about terrorism in Trek.
"But aren't terrorists always supposed to be the bad guys?" Ask any nation that has overthrown an oppressive and abusive regime what they think of that question. The answers will certainly be enlightening.
While I haven't watched any Original Series Star Trek in absolutely forever, from your description I would not consider Spock and Kirk's actions to be "terrorism" as such, as a weapons cache would, in my eyes, be a legitimate target - and let's face it, any Klingons on this planet would be serving in the Klingon military, and not "civilians"... the term I would instead use is "guerrilla warfare". Whether or not Kirk and Spock's actions were LEGITIMATE, as Starfleet officers, would be for Starfleet to decide...
There are two attitudes towards terrorism in Trek, and there is one event that changed everything: 9-11. Pre 9-11 Trek was pro freedom-fighter. The TNG episode was banned in the UK due to it's sympathy towards the IRA. Hell DS9 was constantly pro-terrorist, even showing Kira using it to help liberate Cardassia. Modern trek is much more anti-terrorist and it's a reflection of the way attitudes towards it have changed post 9-11.
I enjoy your analysis of Star Trek and tend to come back and rewatch them from time to time. I think one piece that is missing from your analysis was reflecting on how Star Trek treated the topic of terrorism before and after 9/11. Star Trek really seems to lose its ambiguity after 2001. While I’ve not seen much of the newer Trek shows based on your examples I gather there are no additional episodes that encourage people to reflect on the plight of the people pushed into acts of terror.
I can't help but notice that the trek episodes and arcs that say "terrorism is bad but the terrorists might have a point" were mostly made before 9/11. After 9/11, it becomes more "terrorism is bad punch terrorists in the face."
Much of the former sentiment occurred on DS9 when anti-government sentiment was popular during the 90’s especially in sci fi with Independence Day and the X Files.
I've heard a podcast by an attorny working as defendants to people accused of terrorism. He said that terrorism was a propagandist label used to terminate thought. His thinking on that is that all the acts that are labeled as terrorism are illegal already, so the label is redundant (the terrorists could be condemned for murder, destruction of property, conspiracy, etc...). it'legally unhelpful, especially since there is no clear definition (can a state enact terror? is an accomplice loosely affiliated to a non combat arm of a group label as terrorist a terrorist themselves? is it terror if only property is destroyed? etc...). but when the term is employed, we condemn the act before examining if the grievances are legitimate, if the violence is proportionate, and maybe more importantly if the defendant's rights are respected.
Just a note, but the groups in the areas given to the Cardassians WERE consulted. The issue is, ultimately, their homes were given away anyway in the name of peace. Whether that is better or worse, being asked and ignored vs never being asked, is another question that I don't have a good answer for.
I think looking at Star Trek's views on war as a whole can be revealing of its views on terrorism. In City on the Edge of Forever, Edith Keeler starts a pacifist movement dedicated to non-violent solutions to Nazi opposition, and in the process, causes the Nazis to win the war. The episode portrays Keeler as a good person, but also says that violence and oppression cannot be stopped by refusing to fight back. In the tragic end, Edith must die, causing her movement to never be formed, the violent solutions to be allowed to continue, and the Nazis to be stopped. While the creation of the atomic bomb is controversial and seemingly objectively wrong in its slaughter of millions at once, the episode takes the stance that without it, a far more oppressive, genocidal, murderous, unjust society would be formed. This isn't exactly terrorism, as it is incited by the government, but the goal of inciting terror to cause political change is there. In A Taste of Armageddon, the crew of the Enterprise lands on Eminiar VII, who is in the midst of a 500 year long war, only to be told that they have been destroyed. It turns out that this war has been fought digitally for centuries, and victims simply commit suicide when they are "killed" to avoid unnecessary destruction of property. In the end, Kirk destroys the computer that "fights" the war and tells them that he's "given them back the horrors of war" and that they can either "wage it with real weapons" or "consider an alternative. Make peace." The moral of this story is not that war or violence are good, but that a war without a reason to be disgusted, a reason to end it, will never end. The only way to end the killing is to make it ugly, make people afraid of it. To quote Hamilton, "Make it impossible to justify the cost of the fight." The episodes stance is not that war is necessary, but that the reality of war is the best argument against itself. This isn't terrorism either, but the stance on violence is relevant to the discussion. Basically, you were right, Steve. Good job, nerd.
Steve, I'm a retired Navy officer. In Errand of Mercy, I would describe what Kirk and Spock did as guerilla warfare against legitimate military targets, not terroriam. They were clearly focused on attacking military targets and not the civilian population whom they were trying to protect in their minds.
@@hashiramacells9845 Clearly it's terrorism, because the U.S is the country equivalent of Football(or Soccer) players screaming for the other player to get red carded, because they got scratches trying to stab the other player to death.
That scene between Picard and Data got the episode barred from British and Irish TV because it states that in the Trekverse the IRA successfully united Ireland in 2024. It aired on satellite TV a couple of years later as THE EPISODE TOO DANGEROUS FOR THE BBC, but with the Ireland line snipped out of the scene. Later repeats on satellite/cable TV - generally after the peace process had lead to the Good Friday agreement would sometimes leave the line in but it was inconsistent. Home video releases of the episode were uncut. The High Ground eventually aired uncut on the BBC in 2007. It never aired on RTÉ before they let their rights to the show lapse.
To add to the conversation, our recent two-parter series covers terrorism in the Star Trek franchise: Terrorism In Star Trek Part One: bit.ly/2X9imCX Terrorism In Star Trek Part Two: bit.ly/2PaDRPA
I'd say that DS9 has another terrorist in its main cast: Sisko. He attacks a civilian population, driving them from their homes in order to drive the surrender of one of the Maquis. Sisko was actually lucky that his quarry was very concerned about the plight of civilians in Sisko's attacks, as well as trusting that Sisko would stop after he was caught. Kira and the rest of the Bajoran resistance certainly never trusted Dukat to do the same if they turned themselves in. If you're going to single out people out of power using terror tactics, but leave the people in power unquestioned, that seems like more like the question is tailored to whether it is right to resist at all when outside of power. One of the reasons to refuse to attack civilians is because once one side of a conflict starts committing war crimes, the other side will feel justified in acting the same in retribution.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” - JFK
@@K11-s1i he was kind of backed into that shitstorm and he stood up to the generals when they wanted to send the troops in and towards the end he was moving towards a rapprochement with Castro’s Cuba, see the Jean Daniel peace mission.
“I believe that there is no country in the world, including all the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime.… I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.”
As far as a US president in the 1960's could go, JFK was alright. This is partially why he caught a buller -- not even going into conspiracy stuff, the shooter was a conservative who was very angry at JFK's reforms and general acceptance of progressive groups.
PS.: Quickly going into conspiracy stuff, there's a lot pf evidence that the CIA killed (or backed the killing) pf JFK for those same reasons.
Like Roosevelt with Japan since 1931
"And they all lived happily ever after! Or not! Who cares? We never see this planet again!"
My biggest problem with Trek in a nutshell.
One I expect Lower Decks will at least side-eye.
Humour-filled though the Ensign's Logs are, they address this every episode, more or less. :)
@@Seal0626 "I can't believe you people went back to worshipping Landru!"
Yup.
Yeah, another problem along those lines is in the more episodic shows like TNG or Voyager is that certain events are rarely brought up later even though they are very impactful for the characters. Like when Troi was impregnated by an alien and lived an accelerated lifetime and died as a child because it was harming the ship. She was devastated but was smiling on the bridge at the end of the episode and was never mentioned again.
ST Lower Decks is following up now.
"The High Ground" was banned in the UK on first broadcast, because of Data's reference to a unified Ireland. At the time the Troubles in Northern Ireland had been going on for years, a fight that could be traced back through the decades to before Irish independence. Yet eight years after broadcast, the Good Friday Agreement was signed and there were the beginnings of a peace. Nowhere near done, of course. But hopefully eight years from now our seemingly-eternal problems will be a mere memory.
Even after the Agreement, that episode can only be broadcast on UK TV with the reference to Irish unification removed.
I could see the Irish Reunification of 2024 actually happening around that time.
@@wratchedlore5015 it's on UK Netflix uncensored.
@@spaldron That's why I said "broadcast".
WIth Brexit 1000's of UK citizens are applying for Irish passports and citizenship. Hows that for irony?
The quote that always resonates with me is (paraphrased) "War is the rich person's terrorism. Terrorism is the poor person's war." I've always taken that to mean that violence, whether used by the state or against it, is used to demoralize and defeat the receiver of the violence and the only real difference between the two words is the might and wealth of the group using the violence. If there are times when war is justified then there are axiomatically times when terrorism is justified. Now whether or not war is ever justified is another thing but I think separating the two is a false dichotomy created by the powerful to demonize those who fight against them.
Guerilla warfare isn't necessarily terrorism, but terrorism probably is guerrilla warfare etc
@@andrewfox368 You don't think the obvious riposte to that argument is that outside states funding terrorism is a cheaper option than outside states funding a war or sending their own troops in to support the terrorists openly?
@@andrewfox368 When you look at the amount of resources oppressive states used to "Beat down" on oppressed populations, the funding question isn't even close.
Take, as an example the many, many genocides carried out by the "moral exemplars" known as the British Empire. They aren't "Terrorists". They are just Vicious Evil conquerors, plundering the Planet, because they want to.
Or, if you want a US example, consider the many, many examples of the genocides of Indigenous Americans, simply because European invaders wanted their land and the resources underneath them. Should they just lie down and die? Or should they fight back and kill Every Single White Invader, who BENEFITED from the genocides?!
In other words, are you a conqueror, or are you the VICTIM of immoral conquerors?!!!
I don't think it's quite so easily broken down. I believe that there are certain specific tactics, that regardless of the nobility of the cause, can be labelled 'terrorism' as a separate and more reprehensible action than simple warfare, symmetric or otherwise. To me, a group who uses torture, or rape, as part of their process of defeating their enemies, is a terrorist organization, even if they're an elected government.
Note: I'm specifically referring to groups whose high command has chosen to condone such activities--unfortunately, war brings out the worst in a portion of humanity, so yes, some soldiers will cross those lines. How the government or organization addresses such transgressions is what determines, in my view, whether they are a terrorist organization or state.
No, you are conflating guerilla warfare or revolution (poor/less powerful) with terrorism. Terrorism is a method of tactics where non-combatants are *intentionally* targeted as the *primary targets* of attack, the purpose being to cause terror among civilians.
I see why it can appear as you say, but the size/power difference (when it's actually true and not masking ) is an independent variable.
Also states will sometimes mislabel things as terrorism that are not, which can confuse people. For example, guerilla warfare is not neccessarily terrorism, but the state will always call it that.
And states create proxy terrorist arms.
(1). War has rules (they may or may not be perfectly ethical or appropriate). Its the same reason why the FBI are traditionally "good guys" vs cartels are "bad guys". The "good guys" *play by a clear set of rules*. That's what traditionally made them "good". That's why it's considered so bad when these rules are broken. Granted, some of the rules may be imperfect, even unfair, maybe needing reform. But they provide *some* check against pure malevolence.
Terrorism has no rules.
(2). War does not *target* civilians, though there can be varying degrees of "collateral damage" depending how careful the soldiers are, or whether there are any rigue elements. Even at its worst, at the very least war does not make killing civilians a primary target. If they do it is a War Crime (going back to rules).
Killing and maiming civilians *is the entire purpose of terrorism as a method*. Civilians are the *primary* targets of terrorism; civilian terror is the purpose. It's all in the name.
11:47, Chilling how that line, "I had a son too. *He died in detention when he was thirteen"* is surprisingly relevant today considering in America, we still have children cages.
It's always been relevant, like how many innocent people have been killed by the US military in the Middle East. It can apply to a many modern conflicts and actions
and many of those kids will grow up... and remember
so there's that 😥
Time for Gabriel Bell, less than 4 years to go.
I love your videos, and how well you break down the social commentary that was always at the heart of Star Trek.
Don’t you meant the MARXIST SJW ILLUMINATI CONSPIRACY?!
WAAAAAAKE UP SHEEPUL!!1!!!1!
Terrorism in Star Trek pre 9/11: It's complicated.
Terrorism in Star Trek post 9/11: They're all evil.
Well, no, because the whole Xindi arc on Enterprise Series 3 was much more nuanced than that. There were good Xindi characters and bad ones in that arc, and the audience was encouraged to see the conflict from their side too even though that whole arc began with a clear 9/11 reference that killed Trip's sister. Which I think is pretty brave coming in a series just a couple of years after that attack.
Terrorism against nazis: good job!
Terrorism against us: they're all evil!
Terrorism in which we aren't directly involved, or against nazis but in ways which drag us into it: it's complicated...
@@paulhammond6978 Xindi weren't terrorists. They were a state the considered themselves at war with Earth.
@@seanyoung247you’re right, but their attack was also intended as a direct 9/11 allegory
@@seanyoung247 So... The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria isn't a terrorist organisation? They weren't recognised as a state but aside from that they pretty much were one at a point. Are they then a state that consideres themself at war? Or were they a state that considered themself at war until they lost influence and devolved into a terrorist organisation? Or is everything that made them a terrorist organisation that they were not recognised as a state?
I think it's not relevant if it's a single person, a group, nation, planet or federation of planets (basically all just subgroups of "group" anyway...)... If they use violence to instill fear for a political reason, that seems to be terrorism.
Warfare is terrorism that we approve of. Terrorism is warfare that we disapprove of.
What I love about your content is its thoroughness. The way you argue your cases is sensible, masterful and wise. Another wise UA-camr, Autistamatic, recommended you and I am grateful for the all too few people who create truly grown-up content. Ngā mihi nui, from aotearoa (AKA, New Zealand).
It is weird watching DS9 as there are times when Kira calls herself a former terrorist, feels what she did was necessary and seemed to enjoy turning Cardassian soldiers into terrorsists.
DS9 portrayed terrorism as sometimes necessary.
Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare by another name. And like any other form of warfare it is only as good or as evil as its objectives, and the means employed to achieve them.
I did wish that show gave a little more focus on the fact she helped kill civilians, that kinda got pushed under the rug a little but it was an interesting arc with her
@@ergob3907 I mean it came up when she was giving advice to Damar: she mentions that if he refuses to ever cause Cardassian deaths, the Dominion will just start putting a few Cardassian civillians at every single site Damar might want to strike. It's ugly but there is a logic to "sometimes you just can't avoid civillian deaths in your asymmetric warfare, the best you can do is try to kill no more than you have to".
@@drewgehringer7813
The caterers - on - The - Deathstar problem.
Military ethics usually justifies it under the doctrine of double effect.
The civilians aren't targeted, they just happen to be in the wrong place.
I presume the Cardassians would have used Bajoran hostages to discourage attacks.
@@alanpennie8013 She refers to hostages or shields during the Cardassian campaign against the Dominion. Her answer: you have to be prepared to kill them too.
Star Trek doesn’t glorify terrorism but it does EXPLORE it and that often gets confused. The difference between The High Ground in TNG and the Bajoran/Cardassian ongoing conflict is that the former was authoritarianism and latter was colonialism, which is a popular trope in science fiction. It is never specified whether Cardassia is post-scarcity or not but if that is the case, then appropriating inhabited planets when there are uninhabited ones in space is particularly egregious. It is ambiguous where the line is between terrorism and self-defense but Star Trek allows to look at it or for it objectively.
Various lines from Cardassians heavily imply that Cardassia is not post-scarcity, or at least it isn't for the general public.
Star trek is a science fiction version at times of the of a living allegory of the Bible if you look at it closely and it's philosophy and it's debates on The human condition Believe it or not when people think of cancel culture and people shutting others down in conversation maybe they are having something that they don't even want to see about themselves or other people cuz they're living in a total fear of something they do not understand or no one can understand but when they read it and see it come to pass they begin to wonder if the Bible is real and they begin to question if they need to answer for something higher when they look down upon others why do they do that simple there's certain allegory messages with inside Star trek that remind me a lot of several pathages in the book of Revelation I'm like no thanks I'm shutting your asses down again you're not getting what you want goodbye huh right to work not doing it ma they want me to go back to work not happening that's socialism.
As I understand it, they were resource poor at the time of the occupation. They needed resources for their war with the Federation as well as just keeping themselves afloat. Expand or Die mind sets.
Spock isn't a terrorist because he attacked first by throwing a grenade at the Klingons, that's just his people's way of saying hello to Klingons.
If he was reciting poetry instead he'd been metoo'd and cancel cultured.
This is actually very correct. ST:D says the Vulcans and Klingons were able to form a peace treaty because the Vulcans would shoot the Klingons out of the sky at first site.
Ah the 'Vulcan hello'
with unstable allies like Klingons who needs enemies?
Asking because I am genuinely unsure... Were Kirk and Spock attempting to incite terror in the Klingons or just removing an enemy asset in an attempt to, as the mistakenly surmised, level the playing field for the Organians?
Is that the sort if nuance that keeps the debates going?
Wow, Steve! You volunteered to take on a difficult, multithreaded, gnarly, intractable subject and clarify terms. So much food for thought here! Puts much-needed perspective on the whole Isreali-Palastinian conflict, and I never knew that the Maqui were named for a resistance group in German-occupied France! I especially love your ending, encapsulating Rosdenberru's vision of a post-war world. Stellar work throughout here. Thank you.
@BlackOpMercyGaming Or get worse.
Hamas are bad, and a response was justified. But Bibi and the IDF have now become the murderous occupiers.
Kira is my favourite character in all of Star Trek. Partly because of the exact things you covered here in this video, but for so many other reasons as well. I love the depth of her character, her series-long arc (several different ones, perhaps), her multi-facetedness. She was so well written and so well portrayed.
I love how you started this video by calling most of the characters of Star Trek as Status Quo Warriors. I love it. It is true. I also imagine some conservative Star Trek fans, who probably are just hate watching your Trek Actually videos now, if they are still watching them, will leave an angry comment. I am looking forward to that. 😀
I think it's good to be a Status Quo Warrior if you're living under luxury gay space communism
To be fair, to both the Status Quo Warriors and conservative Trek fans, they are each highly likely to be among the most privileged of their respective post-whatever civilization and as such benefit greatly form their respective status quo.
If you feel the status quo serves the needs of the people, then you defend the status quo.
Also, the Organians call the hell out of Kirk's terrorist tactics.
@@255ad , Fully agreed with you there. If the Status Quo is completely awesome for all involved and in the surrounding areas, and pleases everyone, th😀e Status Quo is awesome and should maintain. Thus in Fully Luxury Automatic Gay Space Anarcho-Communism, it is good to be a Status Quo Warrior.
@@SomeRandomG33k
Why does the system keep spawning Evil Admirals though?
There must be something rotten somewhere.
Steve you are the man! I'm posting in comments for the first time, but I have watched the majority of what you have posted.
Your takes are always insightful, and I hope you can continue to do what you do. I really appreciate it.
Star Trek is my ideal future and hearing contrary positions is always important and great to truly build a world and an ideal.
PS I love that UA-cam's CC translates Cardassian to Kardashian because it shows how different my world is than the world of pop culture
I found your channel a few weeks ago and am both intellectually stimulated and entertained. Please keep doing what you're doing. You're great at it. 👍
I like that you raised how problematic defining 'terrorism' is. It's sort of like the legal definition of 'porn': "I know it when I see it". There are certainly egregious or archetypal examples, but there are also more subtle or problematic examples. In general the word is a dangerous piece of political rhetoric that's been thrown around way too freely since the Bush years and I think we're seeing the harvest of those seeds of paranoia and division in our current political context.
@@emsleywyatt3400 So... most things then?
@philadeos I agree, it's a worthless term because of that. Better to use more concrete terms. E.g. 9/11 was mass murder committed against civilians, a war crime, to say Al-Qaeda are terrorists is almost meaningless now.
The problem with these definition is they have zero objectivity. I.e., "Terrorism is terrorism when *I* want to define something as bad."
I love how you always go that extra level of depth and thought. Great video as always!
“The Darkness and the Light” is such a good episode
The villain is so so interestingly-written, and I really wanted to see more of him.
Basic notion that terrorism consists of criminal acts intended to provoke fear in order agenda is the most dictionary definitions of terrorism describe it in similar terms what is controversial is a what kind of ass deserve to be labeled as terrorism and be what defines religious overtones and what defiance cancel culture shutting people down making them react harshly like a Marxist would do fix the AI capture there Google you suck at this job. Uploads eq data to ai deep learning server after that video REM sleep recording for smartphone medical tricorder.
You hear it said often: one person's terrorist, is another person's Washington. This maybe true in an academic sense. However, in the end, it's only time and a change of public perspective which allows villains to become heroes. Yasser Arafat may one day, 100 years from now, be hearld a true world hero. Fighting Goliath with but a sling. Maybe, time+perspective=HERO. Or, as Hamilton has shown viewers recently -- Villains (Jefferson).
Within Star Trek, Captain Sisko was a war crimes candidate before the outbreak of the Dominion War. His actions during the war, and the events in the Fire Cave made him a hero. 100 years forward, Captain Sisko's Bajoran statues could be removed. Terrorist and Heroes are always seen from a certain point of view (Jedi were Evil).
Great topic, great channel. Thanks.
i agree. It depensds heavily on the point of view od the judging person
Star Trek’s perception of terrorism is a mirror of the US’s view of it at the time. Prior to 9/11, it was a thing that happened elsewhere. It was a thing that at most involved US citizens as unfortunate bystanders caught in it. And so while the methods can be considered problematic, it can also be seen through the US’s narrative that as close as damnit deifies the US Revolutionaries. Especially in the 90’s, when terrorism was almost entirely associated with the Troubles in Ireland, where the target of said terrorism was the same enemy of the revolution: Britain.
After 9/11, America had been the target of terrorism. The narrative of terrorism in the US changed. And so the presentation of terrorism in Star Trek changed in lockstep.
This is a neat story but it ain't true.
At least not if you call BSG a Trek off shoot.
First of all: DS9 is the best Star Trek Show ever. Second of all: Worf is a lot smarter than most people give him credit for. Thirdly: A law is only binding if it is just, and fighting against the enforcement of a void law - an unjust law - is not a crime, so if violence is enacted as a defense against enforcers of an unjust law, it isn't terrorism, because it's not a crime. It's [extended] self defense
@@dennisthemenace3695 You don't think you should *ever* use violence? So slaves don't have the moral authority to revolt? Partisans should have instead peacefully protested nazi occupiers? I think you can find plenty of historical scenarios where violence can be justified ethically. At which point the discussion turns to the efficacy of said violence.
I'm not saying that once we cross some moral event horizon that the "good guys" have carte blanche for any violent act, but it is a tool in a toolbox.
If think Q would beg to differ with worf being smart! Haha
One thing I find interesting about your conclusion is that you ignore the time the Federation itself explicitly condones and backs terrorism. In DS9's final season. When the Federation sends Commander Kira to Cardassia to support Damar's resistance movement, it's not because things on Cardassia are nearly as bad as they were on Bajor (yet), it's because ensuring Damar's group knows how to be terrorists is good for the overall war effort.
While not Trek, I also think this discussion would benefit from discussing the New Caprica arc on Moore's version of BSG. An arc which aired during the height of the insurgency in Iraq and shows that Moore's attitudes on the subject don't appear to have changed much between DS9 and BSG.
Isn't that more like providing support and training to a resistance movement attacking a hostile power? The Allies did this in Yugoslavia (or whatever it was called then) back during WWII, and many other places. They provided support to Tito, including aircraft and naval forces, but not tanks. He really wanted tanks, and kept asking for them, until they took him to a tank repair facility and showed how many men and resources it took to keep a relatively small number of tanks going, then he stopped asking for them.
Honestly I don't know if that was the same, because they were uniformed soldiers, and I don't think Damar's resistance movement was.
That said, they were still effectively occupied and under the grip of a foreign power that certainly didn't represent the best interests of the citizens, so while it's not *as bad* as the Cardassian occupation, it was a war where unconventional tactics were being used (I mean, the replacement of many leaders by changelings is pretty huge, is that not terrorism? Just the thought that anyone could be the enemy is horrifying.) and total war at that (by both sides) so they weren't holding back.
That doesn't justify it, but I don't think they were glorifying it, either. I think the main reason for that arc was to be able to show the cardassians rising up against the dominion, and the federation helping them, so that they could have better relations post-war, not so much a focus on terrorism.
I think they sent her to set up a counter insurgency, not a terror campaign. Maybe it's a semantic argument, but the tactics are almost identical. Also, it's kind of hard to terrorize Jem'Hadar, who don't feel fear.
Good point about BSG.
Love the way you summarised this video Steve,
I think all fans star trek feel the same way, we may not be destined to explore the stars with warp drives but we all hope to see our world become the best version of itself
One of your best videos to date ... covering a complex issue in the real world via Star Trek.
Thanks.
Here just to say, FIRST!!
Seriously, though. Thank you, Steve, for this timely edition of Trek Actually. So many think that stability is more important than addressing any injustice. Sadly, sometimes injustice can only be addressed by increasingly extreme measures, until it is rectified. It is certainly my hope that we can solve and reach the ideals of Star Trek before end up in some of the darkest chapters of Trek lore.
I am a conservative, and I enjoy watching your videos. You create well-crafted arguments that challenge my assumptions and make me think. :)
Thank you for making these videos. Always so good.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or so the saying goes...
Its a bit of a clumsy saying, though. Some groups are objectively more of one than the other. Do we honestly place the French Resistance alongside the Khmer Rouge? Of course not.
I had an Afghanistan vet tell me that in basic training. I suspect that people who have fought actual terrorists have a much deeper understanding of this than the politicians who send them to the fight.
"Terrorists? That's what the big army calls the little army." - Wolverine to Captain America (talking about Magneto's actions against nations, fifteen years before the movies)
It is worth remembering, that in the 19th and early 20th century the nature of terrorism was considerably different. It focused mainly on attacking military targets and political leaders and was more akin to what we would call guerrila tactics today. Terrorist attacks on large gatherings of civilians generally came a bit later.
I don't see how Errand of Mercy qualifies as terrorism. The goal wasn't to "create terror in the general population" or whatever, that cache was a valid military target of an opposing occupying force. A state of war, acknowledged or not by the Organians, existed between all three parties.
It's basically the same situation as Bajor. If Kira was a terrorist for blowing up Cardassian targets, then the same goes for Kirk and Spock. In both instances, they were targeting an occupying force.
Random point, on the topic of glorifying terrorism.
I have, in my head, a grand total of one superhero character.
Said superhero starts out doing the vigilante thing and knocking out common criminals and delivering them to the police. Eventually, though, she starts talking to them instead. Trying to understand why they're doing what they're doing, and coming to understand that crime's more a byproduct of more prevailing societal ills.
Changes course, goes supervillain, starts threatening and murdering corrupt CEO's who are all but untouchable by the law.
Straight up off with their heads business. Very public and brutal. Gives them a week to at least start trying to undo the damage that they're doing, and if they don't, they get thrown out of the fiftieth floor window with a steel wire noose around their neck which goes taut at the twenty fifth.
....
Curious as to if that would behead a man.
Eventually pulls this ultimatum on her own father, expecting to be able to reason him into not throwing his life away.
Fails in doing so.
Reasons that she's hurt others like herself in the past with her terrorist acts, and refuses to be a hypocrite.
I feel like any decent superhero would be villified to hell and back by the mainstream politicians and press. Like Spiderman, but if J Jonah wasn't just a loon.
Is that an existing character? Or just a cocept in your head?
"Curious as to if that would behead a man."
Yes, it absolutely would. As I understand it, one of the practical difficulties with hanging people as a means of execution is that the general idea is to break the person's neck immediately following the drop. Unfortunately, you have to get the length of the drop just right to avoid either beheading them if the drop is too long, or slowly strangling them if the drop is too short. That's part of the reason states were interested in things like the electric chair because it was billed as a more humane and more idiot proof means of execution than hanging.
WE SAW CROSSES GROW ON ANZIO
I don’t know why people do this in all caps but let’s see where it goes.
Great video, keep it up, highlights of my month honestly
So in other words, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security." Makes sense to me.
The Torys thought the Patriots terrorists for sure. And by most definitions they were. Many Torys got tarred and feathered, run out of their homes, or murdered.
But that is the cost of revolution.
@@gerrye114
Was the treatment of Major Molineux an act of terrorism?
Possibly.
Yea Spock is pretty funny at times. In Galileo Seven, he takes every step not to kill the giant spear throwing creatures which were trying to kill them after they crashed on the planet due to being a "pacifist" and having respect for other life forms. Yet, in "Patterns Of Force" he literally holds a gun to the Daras' head until they explained that she was an underground Ekosian working against Melakon.
Kirk and Spock attack a purely military target in time of presumed war. They are also trying to inspire (albeit futilely), rather than terrifying the Organians into action. Laaaarge stretch to accuse them of terrorism.
Right. It was guerilla warfare... by military officers in civilian disguise.
Trekspertise just did a two parter about this, though they came at it from a slightly different angle. They do a more in depth analysis about how Trek's attitude towards terrorism changed as time went on, especially after 9/11. It was a really good couple episodes, I recommend it.
Indeed, seems like it might have been worth mentioning.
@@belg4mit
Might be worth discussing BSG too.
After 9/11 but the treatment of terrorism was very similar to 90s Trek.
Will The Orville go there?
They did have the heroes massacre the entire complement of a starship (though they did try to save the children) because it was about to attack a Terran colony.
Had to check the date on this to make sure it wasn't released within the last couple weeks.
No honorable mention of TNG's The Hunted? The final act in particular came to my mind.
What a fantastic video Steve, thank you.
I was a little surprised you left out the part where the one guy explicitly compares himself to George Washington, claiming that the line between terrorists and freedom fighters can depend on one's perspective.
I love your insistence on considering nuance in social justice. Definitely a huge part of why Star Trek has meant so much to me since childhood, as I've developed my ethics considering difficult questions raised
I still remember Weyoun calling Rom a 'terrorist' as if The Federation and The Dominion are not at war and Rom wasn't a member of the Federation fighting the Dominion- if you remember how self-centric the Dominion's and Founders' view of conflict is, it's the epitome of 'when we do it, we're _always_ justified- when they do it, it's _never_ justified'.
He's not Federation. He works for the Bajorans. Otherwise there is no way he'd be allowed to continue working on the station.
You knocked this episode out of the planet. So good!
In "For The Uniform", the glorified Benjamin Lafayette Sisko went full George W. and fought terror with terror and poisoned an entire planet. His only justification for it was to capture Eddington because he betrayed the uniform. As far as I'm aware, Sisko never faced repercussions for this act of terror. While this may not glorify terrorism, it certainly does not condemn it. Star Fleet, like most major political powers tend to look the other way when they themselves commit a terroristic act. By not reprimanding Sisko, Star Fleet silently approved of his actions. Also, "In The Pale Moonlight", the actions and plan that starfleet supported lead to an act of terrorism by Garak in murdering Senator Vreenak. While only two people truly know what happened Sisko can live with it. Again while this may not glorify terrorism, it still points in the direction of if it's beneficial, it's all good.
Excellent as always, my friend. Nuance in discussions is too rare, these days.
I think I've now watched perhaps 40-50 of your videos, Steve. None were finer than this one. You took an extremely nuanced and important topic, and covered it with intelligence and perspective. I've resisted subscribing before, but this is the one that has gotten me to push that button. (Oh, one last thought: Is there a moral difference between terrorism and war?)
I think this is your best video Steve. Just brilliant. I was thinking about Kira the other day and how she never flinches from what she's done but regrets the necessity of it.
Great video! I'm definitely eager for your next video. It's always been my opinion that the reason we see so many problems of technology in Star Trek is that fundamentally, it isn't about technology solving all problems. Rather, it's about the fundamental morality which underpins the Federation, and this is proven by the fact that when technology conflicts with that, the morality wins out in the end. That said, there's a good argument that Roddenberry was a believer in technology solving everything, but that Trek has grown since his death.
I'd love to see some Trek set within the Marquis or Bajoran underground. I think a miniseries would be a perfect way to tell that kind of story
Nice work and a lovely message.
Another great one as always, Steve. Really love your work!
An interesting point about that scene with Data & Picard in High Ground is that it was banned in the UK and Ireland due to it mentioning Irish unification, the episode with wasn't shown or edited to have it removed. The Sky station didn't show it unedited until 2006 and the BBC until 2007, and even then it was only after midnight
I define Terrorism as the politically motivated use of violence and murder against non-combatants in order to frighten, intimidate, or provoke. It's important to note that terrorism isn't just something done by rebels but is done by governments as well. The United States government for instance commits terrorism by double tapping Drone Targets.
@DoctorBabylon: I was not familiar with the concept of "double tapping drone targets" before reading your comment. I Googled it, and it's horrific, clearly terrorism, or at least, completely immoral.
In the High Ground there is that great point Finn makes to Beverly when he compares himself to George Washington, and then tells her that it’s so easy for her to judge him now that her society has reach this higher level of morality, a level only attained by reaping the benefits of “terrorist” from their past.
I do wish that conversation had gone a little deeper though. Something to the effect of:
"Washington was a military general, not a terrorist. He confined the Continental Army to attacking British military targets"
"Really? Why don't you ask the Iroquois who called him 'Town Destroyer' how scrupulous he was when it came to attacking military targets?"
When it comes to terrorism, I always ask two questions, 1. Who is afraid of the so called terrorist? and 2. Why?
Terrorism is something the OTHER is labelled to make their use of violence seem worse.
"I'll be good! I promise!" That was perfect! 🤣😂😆 And it went on too far in just the right way....
The Bajoran resistance and the Shakaar resistance cell members in specific is one of my favorite parts of DS9. It's a brilliantly nuanced look at occupation, terrorism and the aftermath. It never treats it as something good, simple or easy and it never pretends that it didn't have a massive cost for the people who did it.
And what makes it best is the end of DS9 in which (spoilers) Kira is sent to Cardassia to help them create their own resistance. Allowing her to both confront Damar in one of the best scenes in the show, but also to remind the audience that the terrorists and the people they are fighting might not be as different as they may seem. It is their circumstances that are different and if both sides could just see things from the point of view of the other, if you have a leader who can understand that the people on the other side are human (so to speak) then you can avoid the situations that lead to the need for terrorism.
I think you nailed it on the head. There comes a time when there is no other option left. Even the founding fathers knew this. Jefferson wrote very eloquently on this.
The thing is, our election system is designed to prevent things from getting that bad here. But thats being subverted.
I hope we don't see it escalate here.
A timely video 3 years later.
Person A: Where'd all these terrorists come from? How dare they!
Person B: have you considered the systematic horrible conditions put on these people? What other options did they have?
Person A: did they try X? That's the way to fix it!
Person B: yep, didn't work
Person A: what about YZ? Those should work if X fails
Person B: they tried that too, didn't fix it
Person A: well I don't care it's not the right way to go about things
Person B: what would you do in their place?
Person A: is this that empathy I've heard so much about? Why does it hurt?
Thank you Steve! I really enjoy your videos and attention to details. I agree with the vast majority of your well worded and thought out observations of Trek in its entirety! Kira is one of the best characters...🖖💖
Great video Steve, though I would like to point out that you did miss at least one terrorist group in ds9, and that was the Terran resistance that Kira and Bashir started in the mirror universe.
I would also like to say that classifying terrorism is a tricky thing as it also depends on what side of the fight you are on and what the ultimate outcome of the actions are. The tail of Robin Hood can be classified as a terrorist action as can the revolutionary war. The biggest problem with the world that we are currently living in is the in many ways, and because of the actions of certain leaders ("cough"trump) who uses the term so loosely is that it has been skewed and does not have the same meaning as it did before.
Ds9 was just brilliant at addressing issues and philosophies in deep and meaningful ways. Occasionally we sensed how deep in space the crew was, but the real depth alluded in the title was the new way it approached characters and stories
I think the position Trek usually takes is “even if the action isn’t justified, the cause might be”.
I am not sure I think all political violence is the same as terrorism. I've always understood terrorism was when civilians where specifically and deliberately targeted to influence change. one trouble with all political violence terrorism or not is it often gives the powers that be the justification they need to crack down and consolidate their own power. In spite of what Star Trek says its more often the political elite crush Opposition and increase their own power. Something to keep in mind whenever contemplating political violence.
Have you heard of state terrorism? It exists, and for me it is much more inexcusable than the other kind, since they have other ways of pursuing their goals, and deliberately choose violence.
Concise. Thanks for today’s video.
Great episode and a really good topic. Also, I'm totally stealing SQW.
Unfortunately as a childhood abuse survivor I can understand and relate to Kira on a very deep level, I know exactly what it feels like to seek help when none is available and become so desperate you're forced to try actions you can't truly justify. I find her portrayal to be beautifully done, how over time she backed away from the burn-it-all-down mentality and grew as an individual. I 100% support her actions as, yes a terrorist, but more importantly a freedom fighter. She always gave me the impression she was pushed and pushed into violence and that she would never have grew into that type of person on her own. I love Kira and she has no reason to apologize, in my mind.
I also love your channel, Steve. I truly enjoy your views on everything. Thank you for providing good entertainment. :-)
"A man's called a traitor, or liberator
A rich man's a thief, or philanthropist
Is one a crusader, or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label is able to persist.
There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities;
so we act as though they don't exist."
I won't be the only one to say this but "The High Ground" was frequently not shown in the UK and Ireland with the BBC censoring the episode by removing mention of a United Ireland won through violence in 2024. It is now a handy meme as we get closer to the date...
Similarly, Sky would frequently skip it in syndication. It was occasionally aired in Ireland, but late in the early am hours...
Great as always Steve.
No marketable skills? Well, I don't know about marketable, but your comedian skills are over the top! Keep it up, Steve, and thanks for letting me start my weekend (watching this on Friday afternoon) with a laugh, I appreciate it! 🖖
P.S. The maquis did not just fight against the nazis in France, they also fought against fascists in Spain... and failed to succeed, I'm sorry to say.
Great piece! A subject I've often pondered and even discussed. KInda wish you had mentioned other contemporary examples, such as the Palestinian resistance, the Troubles, and others similar groupns I'm obviiously forgetting here. Irregardless, the current protests is a great example that is right in our faces.
Keep up the great work!
I thought you would mention some more stuff from Enterprise
The syrannites
the episodes Desert Crossing and Chosen Realm
PS - one episode that I think should be essential viewing on this topic is DS9's "Duet," with Kira's interrogations of the Cardassian prisoner who may be Gul Darheel, the Butcher of Gallitep... or a former file clerk. One of the very greatest hours Trek ever made.
Steve, "Bones" is a favorite of mine. Talking about terrorism reminded me of my favorite episode of that series. For a very special hour of television, I recommend season 8, episode 6, "The Patriot in Purgatory".
A very balanced and intelligent discussion of the issues involved. What was left out was the view that a true definition of terrorism has to include many actions carried out by governments, military, and civil authorities, both in Star Trek and in the real world. The crucial aspect is seeking to use harm, especially to civilians, as a way of achieving political ends. That is done in the real world by governments on a far greater scale than by dissident elements.
Thanks for this interesting analysis of how science fiction, especially Star Trek, handles such a complex issue. As someone that studies the history of resistance movements to fascist governments, people which would technically be "terrorists", I really enjoyed this video. The Bajorans and Maquis are the prime examples of this, and the Bajorans themselves reflect aspects of a number of anti-fascist movements. Grey zones, indeed.
Yep.
WW2 resistance movements often committed terrorist acts.
Eg. The Maquis murdering Vichy police officers.
Have always subscribed to the notion that suggests one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The Nazis considered the French underground to be terrorists.
Also worth noting that terrorism is always reactionary.
Excellent work
Great analysis! :)
It would be interesting if you and the Trekspertise folks got together to talk about this subject, since both channels have recently put out videos about terrorism in Trek.
"But aren't terrorists always supposed to be the bad guys?" Ask any nation that has overthrown an oppressive and abusive regime what they think of that question. The answers will certainly be enlightening.
While I haven't watched any Original Series Star Trek in absolutely forever, from your description I would not consider Spock and Kirk's actions to be "terrorism" as such, as a weapons cache would, in my eyes, be a legitimate target - and let's face it, any Klingons on this planet would be serving in the Klingon military, and not "civilians"... the term I would instead use is "guerrilla warfare".
Whether or not Kirk and Spock's actions were LEGITIMATE, as Starfleet officers, would be for Starfleet to decide...
Very insightful!
There are two attitudes towards terrorism in Trek, and there is one event that changed everything: 9-11. Pre 9-11 Trek was pro freedom-fighter. The TNG episode was banned in the UK due to it's sympathy towards the IRA. Hell DS9 was constantly pro-terrorist, even showing Kira using it to help liberate Cardassia. Modern trek is much more anti-terrorist and it's a reflection of the way attitudes towards it have changed post 9-11.
I enjoy your analysis of Star Trek and tend to come back and rewatch them from time to time. I think one piece that is missing from your analysis was reflecting on how Star Trek treated the topic of terrorism before and after 9/11. Star Trek really seems to lose its ambiguity after 2001. While I’ve not seen much of the newer Trek shows based on your examples I gather there are no additional episodes that encourage people to reflect on the plight of the people pushed into acts of terror.
I can't help but notice that the trek episodes and arcs that say "terrorism is bad but the terrorists might have a point" were mostly made before 9/11. After 9/11, it becomes more "terrorism is bad punch terrorists in the face."
Much of the former sentiment occurred on DS9 when anti-government sentiment was popular during the 90’s especially in sci fi with Independence Day and the X Files.
I've heard a podcast by an attorny working as defendants to people accused of terrorism. He said that terrorism was a propagandist label used to terminate thought. His thinking on that is that all the acts that are labeled as terrorism are illegal already, so the label is redundant (the terrorists could be condemned for murder, destruction of property, conspiracy, etc...). it'legally unhelpful, especially since there is no clear definition (can a state enact terror? is an accomplice loosely affiliated to a non combat arm of a group label as terrorist a terrorist themselves? is it terror if only property is destroyed? etc...).
but when the term is employed, we condemn the act before examining if the grievances are legitimate, if the violence is proportionate, and maybe more importantly if the defendant's rights are respected.
I love this channel.
Just a note, but the groups in the areas given to the Cardassians WERE consulted. The issue is, ultimately, their homes were given away anyway in the name of peace. Whether that is better or worse, being asked and ignored vs never being asked, is another question that I don't have a good answer for.
Great vid!
Really really good stuff.
I think looking at Star Trek's views on war as a whole can be revealing of its views on terrorism.
In City on the Edge of Forever, Edith Keeler starts a pacifist movement dedicated to non-violent solutions to Nazi opposition, and in the process, causes the Nazis to win the war. The episode portrays Keeler as a good person, but also says that violence and oppression cannot be stopped by refusing to fight back. In the tragic end, Edith must die, causing her movement to never be formed, the violent solutions to be allowed to continue, and the Nazis to be stopped. While the creation of the atomic bomb is controversial and seemingly objectively wrong in its slaughter of millions at once, the episode takes the stance that without it, a far more oppressive, genocidal, murderous, unjust society would be formed. This isn't exactly terrorism, as it is incited by the government, but the goal of inciting terror to cause political change is there.
In A Taste of Armageddon, the crew of the Enterprise lands on Eminiar VII, who is in the midst of a 500 year long war, only to be told that they have been destroyed. It turns out that this war has been fought digitally for centuries, and victims simply commit suicide when they are "killed" to avoid unnecessary destruction of property. In the end, Kirk destroys the computer that "fights" the war and tells them that he's "given them back the horrors of war" and that they can either "wage it with real weapons" or "consider an alternative. Make peace." The moral of this story is not that war or violence are good, but that a war without a reason to be disgusted, a reason to end it, will never end. The only way to end the killing is to make it ugly, make people afraid of it. To quote Hamilton, "Make it impossible to justify the cost of the fight." The episodes stance is not that war is necessary, but that the reality of war is the best argument against itself. This isn't terrorism either, but the stance on violence is relevant to the discussion.
Basically, you were right, Steve. Good job, nerd.
Steve, I'm a retired Navy officer. In Errand of Mercy, I would describe what Kirk and Spock did as guerilla warfare against legitimate military targets, not terroriam. They were clearly focused on attacking military targets and not the civilian population whom they were trying to protect in their minds.
Would you class American bases getting bombed in the Middle East as terorist attacks
Just wondering your opinions
@@hashiramacells9845 Clearly it's terrorism, because the U.S is the country equivalent of Football(or Soccer) players screaming for the other player to get red carded, because they got scratches trying to stab the other player to death.
That scene between Picard and Data got the episode barred from British and Irish TV because it states that in the Trekverse the IRA successfully united Ireland in 2024. It aired on satellite TV a couple of years later as THE EPISODE TOO DANGEROUS FOR THE BBC, but with the Ireland line snipped out of the scene. Later repeats on satellite/cable TV - generally after the peace process had lead to the Good Friday agreement would sometimes leave the line in but it was inconsistent. Home video releases of the episode were uncut.
The High Ground eventually aired uncut on the BBC in 2007. It never aired on RTÉ before they let their rights to the show lapse.
To add to the conversation, our recent two-parter series covers terrorism in the Star Trek franchise:
Terrorism In Star Trek Part One: bit.ly/2X9imCX
Terrorism In Star Trek Part Two: bit.ly/2PaDRPA
Nice DS9 replica! Now I want one
I'd say that DS9 has another terrorist in its main cast: Sisko. He attacks a civilian population, driving them from their homes in order to drive the surrender of one of the Maquis. Sisko was actually lucky that his quarry was very concerned about the plight of civilians in Sisko's attacks, as well as trusting that Sisko would stop after he was caught. Kira and the rest of the Bajoran resistance certainly never trusted Dukat to do the same if they turned themselves in.
If you're going to single out people out of power using terror tactics, but leave the people in power unquestioned, that seems like more like the question is tailored to whether it is right to resist at all when outside of power. One of the reasons to refuse to attack civilians is because once one side of a conflict starts committing war crimes, the other side will feel justified in acting the same in retribution.
You'd think terrorism would be easy to label as attacking civilian targets to terrify the public.
But then you get into the question of what a civilian target is.