Quote:
Originally Posted by American  The usual suspects try to cover their hatred for America by claiming someone will see this as Anti-Americanism. Well we know it when we see, and we see it from you on a regular basis. You, knowing nothing about American history, overlook the pleadings from Congress and Ben Franklin trying to change the hearts in Britain prior to the declaration; and the fact that a body representing the colonies passed this resolution by a vote, and signed their names for all to see. |
Where in the hell have it talked about what Congress or Ben Franklin did? I could careless about motives or how it was done, as that was not what I was discussing.
I have only commented about the tactics used by the rebels in battle with the Brits and they could in those times be considered terror, as they were outside the accepted practices of warfare of the time. You did not practice hit and run engagements while having standing armies. It was not civilized warfare.
I understand fully you and others defence of your revolutionary heroes and I fully agree that they are heroes and I personally admire what they wanted to create.
But it does not take away the fact that, at the time, they were considered rebels aka criminals, and when they started using tactics that were not seen as morally correct, then if the world had the word "terrorist" in its vocabulary, then they would have been called it.
The term terrorist is new and hence many use the definitions of today and try to export them back in time.. and if it dont fit, then no they are not terrorists. If so, then terrorists have not existed until the 20th and 21st centuries.. and do you really believe that!?
No terror has been around since the dawn of time, and so has terrorists, we just called them by different names.. enemy, reds, vikings, barbarians, Hun, Mogols or what not. Their goal was always to strike terror into the civilian population either via tainting the water supply, burning fields, raping the women, murdering the children, or executing the men... all for a political or religious reasons. We just called it warfare and accepted it. When the Allies bombed German cities, was it for strategic military goals (considering very few bombs actually hit their targets) or was it to drive terror into the populations so they would give up or overthrow the Nazi government? I would claim a bit of both (and it failed too). It was unheard off bombing cities like the Germans and Allies did.. and has never been done since as most were and are ashamed of what they did... 50000 people burning alive in a fire bombing is shame full and it is terror, but we called it war.
That we today have invented this word terrorism and terrorist for people we not only do not agree with, but that go outside the "norms" of correct warfare is just that.. word(s).
When the Palestinians lob a rocket into Israel its terror, but when the IDF lobs a shell into Gaza or use attack helicopters to attack a car its not.. both terrorise the civilian populations, but we don't call what the IDF does as terror, but believe me for the civilians on the ground they feel the same terror as the Israelis hearing the air raid signal when a Palestinian rocket comes flying overhead.
Again it goes back to the victor writes the history books and one man's terrorist/rebel/criminal is another man's freedom fighter...