Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: What is the insurrection?
  • Subject: What is the insurrection?
Subject: What is the insurrection?
  • gamertag: aaz b
  • user homepage:

Remember Elk

RIP 9/11/2011

Moderator Notice: This user has been blacklisted from this forum. Until the user is removed from the blacklist, all posts this user has made have been hidden, and all topics created by this user have been censored.
  • 06.01.2011 6:40 AM PDT

The Insurrection is the proper name given to an undeclared civil war fought between Earth's primary military, scientific, and exploratory agency, the United Nations Space Command and various loosely organized groups of rebels over control of the Outer Colonies for some 43 years, between the year 2494 and 2537. Originally, the breakaway movements started as disquiet against the Colonial Administration Authority's oversight of the Outer Colonies, with the colonists tired of the organization's bureaucracy. It first started as peaceful protests, and after years of frustrating negotiations, some groups began to use more forceful methods, eventually abandoning diplomacy in favor of terrorist tactics.

  • 06.01.2011 6:55 AM PDT

Thank You

Yours Sincerely,
Teh Phantom Panda

In short, Al-Queda + Hippies + anarchists + Burma militants

[Edited on 06.01.2011 7:11 AM PDT]

  • 06.01.2011 7:08 AM PDT

They're basically terrorists.

  • 06.01.2011 7:11 AM PDT

Online Gaming's pretty much like a zombie movie. There are a lot of mindless idiots roaming around but you find some survivors on the way.
My YouTube channel
If you're interested in vs threads, here's a sweet little group for you to join


Posted by: MasterGeneral8
They're basically terrorists.

I wouldnt view them as narrowly minded as that. To the UNSC yes they were terrorists, but in their eyes they were fighting for what was right. They beleived the UNSC was becoming to powerful and feared it could be corrupted. So naturally, they fought against them.

  • 06.01.2011 7:15 AM PDT


Posted by: WEE MAN MJJC

Posted by: MasterGeneral8
They're basically terrorists.

I wouldnt view them as narrowly minded as that. To the UNSC yes they were terrorists, but in their eyes they were fighting for what was right. They beleived the UNSC was becoming to powerful and feared it could be corrupted. So naturally, they fought against them.


By nuking a colony and bombing civilian locations? They hurt more civilians then UNSC.

At first the rebels were working for a good case, but then it devolved into pure terrorism.

[Edited on 06.01.2011 7:25 AM PDT]

  • 06.01.2011 7:24 AM PDT

Halo: Contact Harvest shows us what the "war" with the innies was like.

Posted by: SPARTAN925
Arg! they are rebels fighting for freedom they do not beleive in the unsc so they rebeled and yes the turned into terrorist's.


Terrorist is a terrorist. Period.

Fighting for freedom is one thing, but when you start nuking civilians and crashing craft into luxury liners, you become a terrorist and should be put down as such.

[Edited on 06.01.2011 11:06 PM PDT]

  • 06.01.2011 11:05 PM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.

One man's terrorist is still another man's freedom fighter...Despite the gross amount of violence involved it's still for the same goal.

  • 06.02.2011 2:08 AM PDT

The ends do not justify the means.

Many real life terrorists consider themselves freedom fighters. Does that make their actions less appalling?

A freedom fighter picks military targets. When you start killing civilians en masse you are no longer fighting for the people.

  • 06.02.2011 6:28 AM PDT

Online Gaming's pretty much like a zombie movie. There are a lot of mindless idiots roaming around but you find some survivors on the way.
My YouTube channel
If you're interested in vs threads, here's a sweet little group for you to join


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: WEE MAN MJJC

Posted by: MasterGeneral8
They're basically terrorists.

I wouldnt view them as narrowly minded as that. To the UNSC yes they were terrorists, but in their eyes they were fighting for what was right. They beleived the UNSC was becoming to powerful and feared it could be corrupted. So naturally, they fought against them.


By nuking a colony and bombing civilian locations? They hurt more civilians then UNSC.

At first the rebels were working for a good case, but then it devolved into pure terrorism.

They probably did that to get the UNSC's attention. If they just fought against the UNSC military they would'nt get anywhere and would most likely lose.

  • 06.02.2011 6:57 AM PDT

"Concise and devoid of elegance...what I have come to expect from human communication"-Endless Summer

Hitler believed what he was doing was right. So did the Insurrectionists. UNSC decided that if drastic military action wan't taken (ORION, SPARTAN II,and III) that humanity would enter a new Dark Ages, nothing but death,famine,and war for at least 40 years.

[Edited on 06.02.2011 8:41 AM PDT]

  • 06.02.2011 8:39 AM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.


Posted by: UshotYerEyeOut
The ends do not justify the means.

Many real life terrorists consider themselves freedom fighters. Does that make their actions less appalling?

A freedom fighter picks military targets. When you start killing civilians en masse you are no longer fighting for the people.


Of course from one point of view the ends do not justify the means.

From their point of view however, it does not change the fact of what they think, and what they are doing it for and for their supporters.

There is not one sole perspective on this matter (this applies to all acts of revolution, insurrection, and outright war). On one perspective you can most definitely say that the lengths of one group can go too far, and by the conventions of that perspective you would be absolutely correct. However, do not be so narrowminded to think that the opposing force even remotely thinks on the same plane as the perspective you take.

  • 06.02.2011 1:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Nate Cleaves

good is not good without evil, systems complex as a human or a political party cannot be described by such simple terms(hence points of view) Some innies were not terrorists and some were. Sence they are simply a loose band of rebels, they have no common goal and are simply just that.

  • 06.02.2011 2:04 PM PDT

It's not about how the other side thinks, it's a matter of being a freedom fighter vs. a terrorist.

By ANY convention of thought, if you intentionally kill large amounts of innocent people, you are a terrorist.

Out of thee books I've read, there are two types on Innies. Those who want their freedom and those who just want to kill civilians. They knew who they were and so did the UNSC.

Throughout our history we have plenty of examples for both. For instance, the Viet Cong were freedom fighters. They focused on hitting military targets and wanted the support of the people in South Vietnam. On the other hand, you have "freedom fighters" in Africa mutilating and massacring people. Those are terrorists.

Both groups know what they are.

[Edited on 06.02.2011 2:07 PM PDT]

  • 06.02.2011 2:06 PM PDT

Lets Boogie

Some of the rebels are TERRORISTS. But it is stupid to say all the rebels were. A rebel was really anyone who thought that the UNSC should not be governing all of humanity.

Yes there were some rebels who went to far and purposely killed civilians for their ideology....which is WRONG...but many rebels were not like that.

It is like the UNSC. Although the UNSC has done many good things, they are still a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT (totalitarian), ONI has done MANY gray things, and don't forget that they kidnapped and experimented on children.

I myself sympathize with the Rebel movement (does not mean i think rebel terrorists are ok). After all if in the future of mankind, if we have colonized many worlds, i don't think one government should rule over all of mankind.

[Edited on 06.02.2011 2:28 PM PDT]

  • 06.02.2011 2:26 PM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.


Posted by: UshotYerEyeOut
It's not about how the other side thinks, it's a matter of being a freedom fighter vs. a terrorist.

By ANY convention of thought, if you intentionally kill large amounts of innocent people, you are a terrorist.

Out of thee books I've read, there are two types on Innies. Those who want their freedom and those who just want to kill civilians. They knew who they were and so did the UNSC.

Throughout our history we have plenty of examples for both. For instance, the Viet Cong were freedom fighters. They focused on hitting military targets and wanted the support of the people in South Vietnam. On the other hand, you have "freedom fighters" in Africa mutilating and massacring people. Those are terrorists.

Both groups know what they are.


You do realize that the Viet Cong did not discriminate between killing armed soldiers and civilians in the South right? Many southern civilian Vietnamese casualties were incurred by Viet Cong forces. Many more slaughtered by regime they put into place. So they get a pass for being "freedom fighters" in your eyes?

Think about what you've just said. "...intentionally kill large amounts of innocent people..." Does that make joe shmoe the serial killer a terrorist? What about psycho billy who went nuts and decided to rack up a kill count at school? Japanese soldiers in WWII that committed unspeakable acts beyond the rules of war for civilians and POWs?

No they don't get that label. Why? Because they don't have the same MO as a terrorist. Terrorists commit acts of terror to send a message for a cause against an established system of some sort, and to rock that system off kilter.

See at the end of the day, you can argue semantics about definitions but at most what can be said is that 'all terrorists are rebels, but not all rebels are terrorists' which is the end point I'm trying to make. Regardless of methods they're still under the same umbrella and that umbrella is the change they fight for, and that change as a whole will be fought against as a whole by the party the rebels oppose.

So in regards to Halo there's no reason to divide the Innies into two distinct groups of "rebels and terrorists" because at the end of the day they are the same and will be identified all the same because share the same goal: separate from the UNSC. And that goal, that idea, is one that is wholly opposed by the UNSC and they strive to crush it as a whole.

  • 06.02.2011 3:19 PM PDT

Rebels who wanted freedom from UNSC control. They were mostly stationed in the outer colonies. Many thought the threat posed by the Insurrection would be so great, that it would tear Humanity apart and many lives would be lost. That's why Halsey created the Spartan IIs, to control the rebels before they instigated a Civil War.

And then the Covenant came...

  • 06.02.2011 3:27 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Member
  • gamertag: skul95
  • user homepage:

Grilled Grunts.

They were not terrorists, they were essentially, Freedom Fighters?

They posed a huge threat on Reach, more so then in the outer colonies. In fact, many outer colonies such as Harvest were almost untouched by them. (I may be wrong)

  • 06.02.2011 3:57 PM PDT


Posted by: SkuI
They were not terrorists, they were essentially, Freedom Fighters?

They posed a huge threat on Reach, more so then in the outer colonies. In fact, many outer colonies such as Harvest were almost untouched by them. (I may be wrong)


The rebels everybody knew about were terrorists, not freedom fighters.

Even if the UNSC had withdrawn and allowed them free reign, they would continue attack civilian and UNSC structures, causing massive death tolls. They also had no solid leadership, so the different groups would fight each and wipe themselves out.

  • 06.02.2011 4:15 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

I really want to know more about the UNSC rule, there has to have been a reason for the Insurection...

I feel life before the war was pretty harsh under the UNSC, I would love a book to be made from a Insurectionest's perspective.

  • 06.02.2011 4:38 PM PDT


Posted by: Makko Mace
I really want to know more about the UNSC rule, there has to have been a reason for the Insurection...

I feel life before the war was pretty harsh under the UNSC, I would love a book to be made from a Insurectionest's perspective.



From what I gather it's simply a set of facts.

A: I believe Cole said it "The farther from Earth you go, the less likely they are to accept the laws."
B: Apparently the UNSC took a little bit more then they needed from the outer colonies to feed/supply inner colonies (From what I've heard here.
C: Just like the American Revolution, the UNSC lawmakers or such didn't understand the conditions in the outer colonies.

I've never heard anything that implies harshness to citizens...

  • 06.02.2011 4:45 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Posted by: Makko Mace
I really want to know more about the UNSC rule, there has to have been a reason for the Insurection...

I feel life before the war was pretty harsh under the UNSC, I would love a book to be made from a Insurectionest's perspective.



From what I gather it's simply a set of facts.

A: I believe Cole said it "The farther from Earth you go, the less likely they are to accept the laws."
B: Apparently the UNSC took a little bit more then they needed from the outer colonies to feed/supply inner colonies (From what I've heard here.
C: Just like the American Revolution, the UNSC lawmakers or such didn't understand the conditions in the outer colonies.

I've never heard anything that implies harshness to citizens...


But look, we only have the perspectives of military personnel, we never get to see the world from out side the UNSC, ONI has an entire branch for propaganda...

Also, things like the Spartan program.. that was started before the Covenant showed up, and for some reason I doubt that's the worst thing they've done.

  • 06.02.2011 5:11 PM PDT


Posted by: Makko Mace
But look, we only have the perspectives of military personnel, we never get to see the world from out side the UNSC, ONI has an entire branch for propaganda...

Also, things like the Spartan program.. that was started before the Covenant showed up, and for some reason I doubt that's the worst thing they've done.


Maybe, but think of it this way. Which was worse, the UNSC, or what the bulk of the rebels had become?

Answer is the latter. Halsey figured if they had the chance, they would turn ships into weapons of mass destruction, and start a massively bloody civil war.

  • 06.02.2011 5:17 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron

Maybe, but think of it this way. Which was worse, the UNSC, or what the bulk of the rebels had become?

Answer is the latter. Halsey figured if they had the chance, they would turn ships into weapons of mass destruction, and start a massively bloody civil war.


I'm not saying that the Insurection is a good thing, but I feel like we only hear half the story.

I wish they'd write a dual perspective book on this, with a Inie and a ONI officer as the main charachters.

  • 06.02.2011 5:27 PM PDT