Concord was "open combat?" The Brits were ambushed from the side of the road, and harassed all the way back to Lexington. And the attack at Trenton was hardly "open combat," since most of the Hessian mercs were drunk. And it was the middle of the night.
You're trying hard to apply a different standard to "our" guys than you would to someone else. But the fact is, the Revolutionaries could easily be classified as terrorists.
But that's just a label. The cause for which they fought was just. I think the world -- and even the vanquished British -- would ultimately admit that. But then you get into an "end justifies the means" argument.
Personally, I don't care what label you slap on the Revolutionaries. And I don't care what equivalencies you draw between them and today's so-called freedom fighters. We won. And I am the heir to that legacy -- both good and bad.
There were also some guerrilla actions taken, similar to what the French and their Indian allies did against the Brits and colonials in the Seven Years' War. They met them straight up at the Concord Bridge and on the Green at Lexington; they did harass them from the bushes on their trek back to Boston, though.
They were dug in at Bunker and Breeds Hill and did not form lines as did the Brits...does that count?
No...they were not terrorists.
You still do not understand the difference between lawful combatants (soldiers) and terrorists. One targets the armed forces of the enemy while the other targets civilians.
Washington was not involved in Lexington, nor Concord. Do you consider Yorktown to be a terrorist act? How about Ticonderoga? Breeds Hill? Cowpens?