American revolutionaries: terrorists? Options

[strice]

during the revolutionary war, americans were labelled as terrorists under the British Terrorism Laws, which stated that any violent insubordination qualified as terrorism. I would argue that they were indeed terrorists of a sort, one example being the boston tea party. They are fighting for their freedom from an imperialistic overseas power and that is exactly what the terrorists of the middle east are doing, except with far less pleasant techniques. What do you bastards say?


i feel like this is going to garner a healthy amount of flames.

[sadolakced acid]

they were indeed terrorists.

the revolutionary war lasted for 8 year- the american army couldn't stand up to the british in a conventional fight

so washington used what he learned in the french and indian war- guerulla tactics.

he would ambush the british, hide behind trees.

he even forms a sniper group.

these were all terrorist actions.

[sikdragon]

The losers in war are always terrorists. The winners write the history.

[queen]

The losers in war are always terrorists. The winners write the history.

but england's one of our allies... most of the time ;x

this is a unique subject 'cause at least one time in our lives we are all persecuted. i don't mean to sound cliche, but only time will tell. who knows, maybe in 20 years the middle east will own the west ;o

..maybe there wouldn't even be a middle east or west haha.

[sikdragon]

England wasnt then. They are challenging a greater power and we are winning against them, thus the name terrorists.

[Retrogressive]

totally correct silkdragon:
I had a qoute like that on my sig for a while. Good is only the side you're on. It was:
"There is no such thing as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong. Just differences of opinion."

[queen]

England wasnt then. They are challenging a greater power and we are winning against them, thus the name terrorists.

what do you mean though? who are you calling terrorists? england or u.s.?

totally correct silkdragon:
I had a qoute like that on my sig for a while. Good is only the side you're on. It was:
"There is no such thing as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong. Just differences of opinion."

but i don't consider terrorism good or bad; i consider it however it's defined in the dictionary.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity <street terrorism> —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

but i guess everything can be left to interpretation ;o

[Retrogressive]

its only terror if you're on the recieving end.

[queen]

its only terror if you're on the recieving end.

then what would you call it as a spectator?

[*CrackedRearView*]

I don't believe so. About 85% of the people in England were poor and were going to be poor for the rest of their lives.

That's why the colonies in the New World were havens for the "worthy poor", namely Georgie under James Oglethorpe.

The fact is, the revolutionaries had a decent cause. The terrorists in the middle east blow up infrastructure for political gain, rather, a fear factor.

Decent causes/malicious causes are what I believe draw the line between terrorists and revolutionaries.

[sikdragon]

It doesnt matter, the pen holders labeled americans as terrorists because they were violently against their crazy king. We only hear the whole story because we won.

[ComradeRed]

"Whenever the legislators attempt to take away or destroy the property of the people, or reduce their liberty under arbitary power, they put themselves at a state of war with the people who are thereby released from any further obligation to obey and left to the common refuge which God has provided for all men against force and fraud."
--John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government

The British Parliament's Navigation Acts, their order to blockade the port of Boston, and the presence of their soldiers on our ground were overt acts of war against the American people, who afterward had the right to defend themselves by force of arms -- much like our military occupation of Iraq is an overt act of war against the Iraqi people, who have the same right to defend themselves by the force of arms. People only have an obligation to obey the government when that said government acts according to the Rule of Law. Arbitrary power can morally be countered with arbitrary power -- just as you have the moral right to shoot an armed robber entering your house.

A terrorist is someone who attacks another country to cause fear and terror there and seeks to destroy the property of others.

Someone trying to protect his OWN property, or get a foreign nation out of his OWN country is not a terrorist -- The Iraqi insurgency, for example.

[lilazneye10]

England wasnt then. They are challenging a greater power and we are winning against them, thus the name terrorists.

true..

[helian]

yes, they were terrorists. they lived in england's colonies and england's government was, under law, their government too.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, but the law was unjust.

The American colonies (most of them) started off as self-governing. They had their own legislatures, etc. The British only imposed direct rule towards the middle of the 1700s.

Moreover, the social contract demands that all people be treated equally. The American colonists did not enjoy the rights that were given to many of the British under their Bill of Rights established in 1689 after the Glorious Revolution.

As such, they had no obligation to pay taxes, and thus the right to resist by force of arms if necessary.


If American soldiers marched into Denver and suspended the Colorado state legislature and still demanded that Colorado abide by fedearl law and pay federal taxes, then the people of Colorado would be justified in revolting.

[sadolakced acid]

you, CrackedRearView, are biased because you are american ( i presume) or like americans and not middle eastern.

the americans were terrorists. the army would snipe at the british. on british victory marches from battles, the farmers from the countryside would shoot them from a hidden place.


the americans used deceit, treachery, and unethical tactics to win the war.

they paid pirates to raid british ships, in order to scare the british from trading with anyone in the americas.

the americans did not win on the battle field. the won in the minds of parliament. paliament was afraid of the cost, so they quit.

we were terrorists.

[ComradeRed]

Decent causes/malicious causes are what I believe draw the line between terrorists and revolutionaries.

Both are fighting for self-determination, isn't that as decent of a cause as you get?

[someflipguy]

Both are fighting for self-determination, isn't that as decent of a cause as you get?

*knods head* agreed

[ComradeRed]

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as the abilities of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility, which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things, which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth—to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations, which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation—the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose were not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains, which the British ministry has been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm, which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation? There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means, which the God of Nature hath placed, in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!”—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!