Were Founding Fathers Terrorists?

[Douger]

If you want the truth, ask an Indian. You'll find them on the crappiest lands in the empire. Get there early. They'll probably be all fucked up trying to forget their past and dismal future.
Gotta go !
Here comes murkins with the casino and tax free tobacco noise !

 

[SayMyName]

If you want the truth, ask an Indian. You'll find them on the crappiest lands in the empire. Get there early. They'll probably be all fucked up trying to forget their past and dismal future.
Gotta go !
Here comes murkins with the casino and tax free tobacco noise !

Hmmm, good points. Controversial, but good points.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Anyone who resists tyranny is a terrorist.

 

[there4eyeM]

The British perhaps perceived the rebels as terrorists, but I think it's a stretch of the term for us to think of them that way today. Certainly, the participants at the Continental Congress were not, as a group or individuals, terrorists by any sense of the term.

As for confronting the British army in a classic open field, I think the Continentals actually did far too much of exactly that. It should have been done much more with the long effective range of Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles and not with the blunderbusses that the Brits used. Organized, yes, with massed troups to back up the shock groups, but just marching out to meet them was playing things too much their way.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

threads like this are just so... uhm... ignorant. why do I say this? Because a circle jerk is not an argument or a debate. It is a circle jerk

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.

How ignorant can you be? In Iraq and Afghanistan we used two terms 'insurgents' and 'terrorists'

Jesus! and anyone who keeps arguing with you is probably as big an idiot as you are as it is easy to expose your ignorance with just adding one word: 'insurgent'

The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.
they even dressed as Indians.

One more fruitcake statement form the ignorati @ usmb? Jesus.


The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion against authority and the Tea Party activists destroyed property to make a political statement about authority, trade, taxes...

you people need to get out more often


---

combined two posts

next

 

[SFC Ollie]

I went back and read some of the accounts of Lexington and Concord, there are eye witness accounts preserved from both sides. The British pretty much called us Rebels......

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I went back and read some of the accounts of Lexington and Concord, there are eye witness accounts preserved from both sides. The British pretty much called us Rebels......

morons will always try and say terrorists terrorize, therefore all who terrorize are terrorists.

Used to be when kids did something wrong they were terrified their parents would find out, and they suffered through terror when the parents did find out. Thank god parents are not terrorists anymore...now their fucking kids are

 

[SFC Ollie]

I went back and read some of the accounts of Lexington and Concord, there are eye witness accounts preserved from both sides. The British pretty much called us Rebels......

morons will always try and say terrorists terrorize, therefore all who terrorize are terrorists.

Used to be when kids did something wrong they were terrified their parents would find out, and they suffered through terror when the parents did find out. Thank god parents are not terrorists anymore...now their fucking kids are

LOL That's exactly what my son calls his kids.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.

I would disagree.

Did they seek to assassinate leaders of the British Government? No.
Did they seek to blow up civilian targets in Britain? No.
Did they form a regulated army to meet the British forces in open battle? Yes.
Did they seek to assume the resonsibilities of a well-regulated government? Yes.

They wee certainly rebels against lawful authority. But they were not terrorists.

1. They did seek to terrorize, torture, and kill leaders and associates of the British government. Sons of Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. They did destroy by violence and arson civilian targets associated with the rule of Great Britain. Sons of Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. and 4. are already admitted

To suggest that as violent as were the Sons of Liberty and other organizations that somehow they were the equivalent on Al Quada is simply wrong.

 

[regent]

Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.

I would disagree.

Did they seek to assassinate leaders of the British Government? No.
Did they seek to blow up civilian targets in Britain? No.
Did they form a regulated army to meet the British forces in open battle? Yes.
Did they seek to assume the resonsibilities of a well-regulated government? Yes.

They wee certainly rebels against lawful authority. But they were not terrorists.

1. They did seek to terrorize, torture, and kill leaders and associates of the British government. Sons of Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. They did destroy by violence and arson civilian targets associated with the rule of Great Britain. Sons of Liberty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. and 4. are already admitted

To suggest that as violent as were the Sons of Liberty and other organizations that somehow they were the equivalent on Al Quada is simply wrong.

We tend to deify the revolutionists, but they were at times a motley group. One only need to look at how they supported the troops. The troops were not paid some of the time, and threatened to mutiny. We must remember that one third of the colonists were Tory and were loyal to England, another third could care less about the war except it could be a money maker, and finally the last third supported the war. But worse, is the lack of help the nation gave not only the troops and Washington but each other.
The war was financed by the states and states often, in effect, told the Congress the check is in the mail.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

People who mention sovereignty and founding fathers usually know little or nothing or both subjects

 

[JakeStarkey]

Study the civil war between patriots and loyalists from NC to north Florida: a lot of American blood spilled by other Americans.

 

[numan]

Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were....

How ignorant can you be? In Iraq and Afghanistan we used two terms 'insurgents' and 'terrorists'

I see no reason to use the propagandistic terminology of the U.S. military, which is notorious for twisting the recognized meanings of words to excuse and hide their own horrible crimes -- for instance, their crimes of murder and torture and terrorism in Vietnam and Iraq.

I am quite satisfied to use the standard definitions of the word found in the Unabridged Webster's Dictionary, Third New International Edition. It is a surprisingly short article; there are only two very short definitions.

terrorism :

1 : an atmosphere of threat or violence

2 : the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion

(of course, by definition number one, almost all of normal life in the United States is marked by terrorism)

also of interest : terrorize :

1 : to fill with terror or anxiety

2 : to coerce by threat or violence

3 : rule by intimidation

By definitions #2 and #3, many of the people who post on this forum arguably fit the criteria of being terrorists, and presumably, under the very elastic provisions of the "Patriot" Act, could be charged in court as terrorists, if they were found to be sufficiently annoying to those in power.
.

 

[Politico]

No because they won.

 

[editec]

Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were, only there might be a time and a place to be one.

You know what they say, amigo.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Using the definition we use today, were the founding fathers "terrorists?" I submit that they were....

How ignorant can you be? In Iraq and Afghanistan we used two terms 'insurgents' and 'terrorists'

I see no reason to use the propagandistic terminology of the U.S. military, which is notorious for twisting the recognized meanings of words to excuse and hide their own horrible crimes -- for instance, their crimes of murder and torture and terrorism in Vietnam and Iraq.

I am quite satisfied to use the standard definitions of the word found in the Unabridged Webster's Dictionary, Third New International Edition. It is a surprisingly short article; there are only two very short definitions.

terrorism :

1 : an atmosphere of threat or violence

2 : the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion

(of course, by definition number one, almost all of normal life in the United States is marked by terrorism)

also of interest : terrorize :

1 : to fill with terror or anxiety

2 : to coerce by threat or violence

3 : rule by intimidation

By definitions #2 and #3, many of the people who post on this forum arguably fit the criteria of being terrorists, and presumably, under the very elastic provisions of the "Patriot" Act, could be charged in court as terrorists, if they were found to be sufficiently annoying to those in power.
.

:The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

The USA defined enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan as Terrorists and Insurgents. There are differences. The Colonial Rebels were Insurgents

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No because they won.

you're just as big an idiot for agreeing in principle/

gawd, some of you people need to be slapped silly

 

[numan]

'

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.​

Since Colonial America, under the English Constitution, already had freedom, the violent Insurrectionaries were not "freedom fighters."

There is a difference between freedom and licence -- as the violence, looting and destruction of property of the Boston "Tea Party" clearly demonstrates.

Traitor John Hancock, colonial America's biggest smuggling mafioso, engineered that crime because the East India Company's lawful tea was cheaper than his smuggled Holland tea!!
.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

whatever