If you have one, please cite. It would be appreciated.
Do you think the term was used then? Do you think that the definition would have been the same across time if it had been?
|
Go back to LEWser.com, fool.
When you can point that out, I'll listen to you. Otherwise, pardon me if I excercise expresion of my personal opinion that your are a "moral-equivalence" knucklehead.
What is your point. Is this why why you logged into FR. Your little one liner is a waste of space.
What did the founding fathers blow up that caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians? Nothing. You disgust me.
First, you ignoramus, terrorist as a term did not exist then. Second, the Patriots were in no way terrorists as defined currently; they did not target civilians, but rather faced the most imposing army in the world at the time in the open field.
One more thing: please take your name to the Taliban, the Cubans and the North Koreans and see how they and the other fascists like you do with the concept.
Happy New Year!
You don't specify in your post exactly where you got this information. Perhaps you meant to, but accidently posted before you could? That might explain your lack of punctuation.
I would be interested in reading your documentation. Could you post your source?
Absolutely. And the colonial Americans were known for going to Britain and killing innocent Brits by the thousands. Uh, that would be NOT! Idiot, how stupid can you....no, don't tell me.
To point out just how different the colonists and the British government were from today's lawless terrorists who blithely murder innocent civilians, one need look no further than the Boston Massacre.
In 1770 an incident involving a British soldier (in an argument over payment for a wig) escalated into mob violence (taunting young men pelting the soldier and others who came to his rescue with ice, snow, and coal). Someone shouted "fire", the soldiers fired on the mob, and five people were killed.
John Adams, the nation's second President, courageously undertook the legal defense of the soldiers in the face of hostile public opinion. A jury (made up of colonists, of course) acquited all the soldiers except two, who were convicted of manslaughter. Those two plead "the privilege of clergy" which reduced their sentence from imprisonment to branding on the thumb.
Most people can discern a significant difference in the events surrounding the Revolutionary War as compared to Al Queda terrorism, even if you see only a "moral equivalence". Nor would that have changed even if the Revolutionary War had ended in defeat.
By the way, you would have been correct if you had argued that the Founding Fathers were considered "traitors" by the British government. But "traitors" is very different than "terrorists".
How can "we" forget something that is entirely untrue? The "legal" government of the British colonies in America never used the word "terrorists" to describe the "rebels" or the "insurrectionists" that fought against the British Crown's control. Both rebellion and any form of armed insurrection were punishable by the gallows at the time, so why expand the description with inaccurate and unnecessary hyperbole?
The accepted definition of "terrorism" is as follows, and in no way describes the actions, intents, tactics or strategies of the leaders of the American Revolution:
"terrorism- the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political ends. Terrorism involves activities such as assassinations, bombings, random killings, hijackings, and skyjackings. It is used for political, not military, purposes, and by groups too weak to mount open assaults. Terrorism reaches back to ancient Greece and has occurred throughout history. In the 20th cent. acts of terrorism have been associated with the Italian Red Brigades, the Irish Republican Army, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Peru's Shining Path, and the Weathermen among many groups. It is a modern tool of the alienated and its psychological impact on the public has increased because of extensive coverage by the media. Governments find terrorism difficult to prevent; international agreements to tighten borders or return terrorists for trial may offer some deterrence. In 1999 the UN Security Council unanimously called for better international cooperation in fighting terrorism and asked governments not to aid terrorists.See B. Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (1998).
Nothing Ozama Bin Laden has done or will do in any way resembles or can be construed to describe the actions of the American revolution's leaders. Your statement is not only inaccurate, it is deliberately fraudulent and misleading.