http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/08/weekend-reader-the-themes-of-911-and-after-in-tie-fighter/
interesting read if a bit stretched in places.
Also, TIEs not having shields is an ADVANTAGE? I know that was the official line but I always believed the empire was too cheap to equip TIEs properly

The writer is on something. I want some.
My buddy and I beat that game. His wife was freaking out when she learned he was flying for the Empire. I laughed my ass off at her.

The part I found most interesting was the focus on the US...
When TIE fighter was released originally, the UK was still in the process of dealing with the IRA (violence outside of N.Ireland was lower than it had been for years, but the peace process was only just beginning). Of course, the US have always had a romantic view of the troubles.

I read it, and it was a load of crap. Anyone who sees that in a game that came out that many years before 9/11 is clearly looking for trouble. Also, while the lack of shields can make it a more challenging, satisfying experience, it is in no way an advantage. While removing the shield component from a ship probably increases the speed, it would be better in the long run for TIEs to be equipped with them.
I thought the game was more focused on that as well. In his preface, Owen says that it's "the point Lucas supposedly intended to make with Star Wars: Episodes II and III," which is foolish, because George Lucas had never even heard of George W. Bush as president until he was elected years after this game came out. It's the same thing with that one Harry Potter director thinking that Voldemort applies to Bush; Voldemort's character was outlined way before 9/11, so all they're doing is looking for trouble.

Sure it was made before 9/11 and was probably not referring to any country in particular but the similarities on how the empire acted and how America is acting is similar. It is surprising how what should be just fiction can end up being very realistic.
Star was episodes two and three were made during the bush years so that very well may be true to what Lucas was doing.

That's a mighty fine tinfoil hat you have on. I'd ask to try it on, but I'm afraid that it may cloud my ability to think rationally.

And it leads to the terrible condition "Hat hair"

You lost me on that one. What are you referring to? Rather immature to be resorting to petty insults. I'm not saying we are exactly like the empire but the there are some similarities in the actions that were taken.

I just think that people who compare our government's actions to the Empire's are looking at it the wrong way. Many people are dead-set on accusing our government of trying to take over the world, and when you present concrete evidence that disproves their theory, they ignore it completely.
Sorry if I offended you, since whenever I hear anyone say the words "9/11" and "conspiracy" together I tend to get very angry about people comparing our government to the Empire, or Voldemort, or Hitler. I get the same way when people say that autism is caused by shots, or when someone accuses Obama of being a Muslim terrorist or the Anti-Christ.

oh no I don't think that America was during the bush years to try and take over the world. I was noting similarities like the pointless spying with no evidence issue, how we ended up capturing terrorists and torturing them, instead of just interrogating back then in the name of fighting terrorism. Probably many had honest intentions that went weary over time.
I love my country and want it to be the best it can be and I don't like it when other bring our country down like torturing or accusing Obama of being Satin or an Arabic. I think the article was noting similarities in actions and how without really thinking about were our actions will lead could possibly lead us down a dangerous path of arrogance of our selves and ignorance of the whole picture of a situation. Like how we could brainwash our selves into thinking that all Muslims are evil. I mean this whole terrorism and insurgency issues is complicated as it's not a simple shoot and kill thing but to gain there trust to end or reduce much of the conflict. I want these wars to end well for all sides.
I'll forgive you for the offense.

Err I think you mean SATAN there, accusing him of being Satin has an entirely different (though slinkier and shiner) meaning...

Wait, it's been a while since I've seen episode 6, but wasn't the A-wing "suicide bombing" the SSD an accident?

No way that was an accident, he aimed it at the bridge & had plenty of time to swerve if he really wanted to

He'd already been shot though, so his options were really: "die pointlessly" or "die and do some collateral damage to critical components."
I don't think that decision puts him on the same level as the Al-Qaeda suicide bombers, which is what the debate is actually about.