What is the difference btwn Atta and Skywalker?

Post Reply New Topic

What is the difference between Mohammed Atta (step 11th hijacker leader) and Luke Skywalker (Leader of assault on Death Star)?



(Lets assume the Empire and the Death Star incident really happened)

It strikes me moreso as the next star wars movie draws closer, that Atta and Skywalker are essentally cast from the same mold.

the WTC was the home of many financial insituations that engaged in pratices exermemly offensive to muslims around the world. Ursury is illegal in muslim business, however many islamic states do engage in borrowing money and although the states did know what they were doing, the blame is on america for the indebtness of their nations. IF they didn't spend so much da*m money they would not be in such terrible shape!

ON the other hand, the Death Star was a response to the rebelion of . . . well, rebels against the trynanny of the empire. If those rebels did not do so much dam* rebelling, there would be no need for a death star!


While I in no way condone the attacks on the WTC, I can understand why people would dance in the streets after 9/11. The WTC was a symbol in a similar function as the D.S. in that a nation with a great indebtness has no power, no abliity to act and has a culture vurnable to outside interference. . .Just look at the "mandates" and "suggestions" of the IMF.

Of course, the D.S. skipped all that trouble and blew up the planets outright.

Your thoughts?

(I repeat, I do not in anyway support or condone the attacks on the WTC, I am just playing the part of the devil's advocate here.)

Hmm. Interesting idea, but I bet this will be misread. Wonder when this thread will be locked.

Its an interesting thought but then again I really don't know enough about Star Wars III movie comming out to say anything on that end.

As for the deathstar blowing everything up though, I know people would widely disagree on that. Some people like myself would say they restructured the governments so that they had more self control and had a better set of people running things (who are friendly to human rights and democracy rather than negotiating via lobbing heads or running plains into towers), then again other people would claim that we're just bending em all over for oil before we blow their planets up.

If anything, I've heard a lot more people try and call GWB darth vader though (I take those people with too many grains of salt to be all that surprised of offended anymore) but then again it looks like you live in Cleveland too so I doubt I need to talk much about our area and the leanings it has.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 19 May 2005, 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, I find GWB more comparable to Jar Jar Binks than anything....

I like!

However, the point is not GWB or poltics, I am trying to compare the moral weight of the two situations (assuming, of course, that the death star really happened)

Ok, I just saw Star Wars III last night. IMO you might be able to draw that correlation if you think of Aniken as Atta and Palpatine as Bin Laden but still - via the positions of power its too abstracted at that point; enough to you could draw probably a more convincing parellel in many movies more easily than Revenge of the Sith.

I just liked what the one Jedi said about the light vs. dark side of the force - in effect that those who use the lightside are ruled by reason and altruism whereas those who use the dark side of the force are ruled by passion/emotion as the source of their actions. I couldn't agree more with that analysis in this world, especially right now.

Actually, the plans for the Death Star were complete at the start of the Clone Wars, long before the Corellian Treaty was signed - the Rebel Alliance dident even exist. And the fact that they were considering using something like that just proves even more the validity of the rebels plite

Also, there are ways to strike back at oppression that dont destroy hundreds of innocent lives

(Thats a refrence to the 9/11 attacks. While there were innocent people on the death star who had merely been indoctrinated by the Empire, the situation was urgent, with those very peeples only hope of freedom at stake, so i will condone the destruction of the deat star. Plus, the Death Star isent reel, so neether were the peeple on bord)

Ill support that comparison

Last edited by Assassin on 16 Jun 2005, 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ill support that one to lol

You can venture into the dark side with perfectly honrable intentions, which is shown by Anakin's desire to save Padme. It just warps your mind until you forget completely about what you went there for.

Yeah, but there's a real clear point where you should be getting a gut feeling that something's really off - probably right about the time he was getting the urges to get in between Samuel L. Jackson's character and Senator Palpatine. There's certain things you just don't do, even if you think it'll save a life - lining up with the darker side is one of those things that should be a no-brainer (and by the time he was killing kids that arguments way out the window; I think I'd have to kill anyone who I saw doing that regardless of what their intentions were). That and when you see the end of the movie, you see a Twelve Monkey's scenareo - taking path with the dark side was what brought that path of destiny (Padme dying), and you hear Yoda talking to Obi Wan about bringing Quaigon back - turns out it was the light side of the force who had that trick, not the dark side.

Innocent? Define innocent.

In the view of many isalmics, ursry is abborhant. The bankers of the WTC praticed ursry on their own nations and were not innocent.

Were the potentail billions of troopers really all that guilty on the D.S.?

The devil is in the details.

When Anakin killed Mace Windu, it was partly becos he beleeved he needed Palpatine to teech him Darth Plagueis ability to control mediclorians, and partly becos he was quite gullible and had been taken in by Palpatines lie thet the Jedi were trying to destroy democracy.

The high up bankers may have deserved wot they got, but lower down there were lots of low level workers who were just doing a job, and menny of them dident even have ennything to do with the dets in the middle eest, apart from the fact that they were linked to the corporations involved. Most of them wood have had cleer concenses on that matter.

I still have to play the worlds smallest violin for him - lets weight the two: padme's life, the fate of the empire. It's times like those when yuo need to be an altruist and take one for the team. As for that conversation about the Jedi beig against democracy, he was feeding Aniken a lie he could tell himself and other people (includine Padme) to rationalize it. In other words he wasn't getting confused, yeah he was getting conieved, but he still knew what he was doing was way beyond f'd up. Gullible or not, you better think *damn* hard before you start taking lives and playing with the fate of civilizations (ie. if the greater good doesn't hand in the counterbalance you just don't do it).