Originally Posted by Bodhisattva It has nothing to do with fighting the British army, either. That was not my goal.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva My goal was to prove that Washington did, in fact, order some of his troops to launch a terror campaign against civilians. He did. It is right there. Done.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva I have other instances where there are implied commands to terrorize, torture peoples in order to gain advantage.

My Web Profile Page

Bodhisattva,

If one carefully reads the order, one finds:

- "The immediate objects are the total distruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible..."

- "After you have very thoroughly completed the destruction of their settlements; if the Indians should shew a disposition for peace, I would have you to encourage it, on condition that they will give some decisive evidence of their sincerity by de livering up some of the principal instigators of their past hostility into our hands..."

- "I have no power, at present, to authorise you to conclude a treaty of peace with them but you may agree upon the terms of one, letting them know that it must be finally ratified by Congress and giving them every proper assurance that it will."

There is a distinction between the total destruction of settlements (property, crops, infrastructure, etc.) and that of people. If the aim was to attack and kill as many civilians as possible, there would have been no need for Washington to have added, "...and capture as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible." In short, "total destruction" of property was the objective, but "total destruction" of civilians was not.

Furthermore, it was prudent for Washington to have set forth concrete evidence that the Indians were sincere in seeking peace. Actions are essential in helping one evaluate intent.

Indeed, in the Middle East, the absence of concreteness has undermined progress on the path to peace. Instead Israel's good faith gestures have been pocketed by the Palestinians with no reciprocity from the other side. Worse, they have been cited as evidence of Israeli weakness by Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

Sadly, demonstrating either a remarkable failure to learn from past experience or an increasing desperation for political survival, Prime Minister Olmert appears poised to make yet another unilateral prisoner release.

Going back to the American Revolution, there is no doubt that some civilian objects e.g., settlements, were not viewed as being immune from attack. Indeed, at the time, the Laws of War had not evolved to the point that distinguished civilian objects from military ones. That didn't happen until later in the 19th century. However, even the order you cited seems to differentiate between civilians and property. There is no definitive statement in the order that civilians were the intended target of the attack. What would properly be defined as civilian property was.

"Implied" commands that are subject to revisionist interpretation do not cut the muster. One needs explicit commands that stand up to scrutiny to prove the hypothesis. I am not aware of any express commands whereby Washington specifically directed his troops to kill civilians.

Originally Posted by Tashah Then your goal is not in sync with the spirit of the OP. It appears you are correct in this goal. On the other hand, you have not balanced this in regards to the opposition. What is your point here? You seem to be implying that these facets were unique to American forces. Indians never used such tactics, nor did the British? The Revolutionary War was different than the War of 1812? The Civil War? The Indian Wars? The Mexican War? From any war through history?

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 "Implied" commands that are subject to revisionist interpretation do not cut the muster. One needs explicit commands that stand up to scrutiny to prove the hypothesis. I am not aware of any express commands whereby Washington specifically directed his troops to kill civilians.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Bodhisattva, If one carefully reads the order, one finds: - "The immediate objects are the total distruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible..." - "After you have very thoroughly completed the destruction of their settlements; if the Indians should shew a disposition for peace, I would have you to encourage it, on condition that they will give some decisive evidence of their sincerity by de livering up some of the principal instigators of their past hostility into our hands..." - "I have no power, at present, to authorise you to conclude a treaty of peace with them but you may agree upon the terms of one, letting them know that it must be finally ratified by Congress and giving them every proper assurance that it will." There is a distinction between the total destruction of settlements (property, crops, infrastructure, etc.) and that of people. If the aim was to attack and kill as many civilians as possible, there would have been no need for Washington to have added, "...and capture as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible." In short, "total destruction" of property was the objective, but "total destruction" of civilians was not. Furthermore, it was prudent for Washington to have set forth concrete evidence that the Indians were sincere in seeking peace. Actions are essential in helping one evaluate intent. Indeed, in the Middle East, the absence of concreteness has undermined progress on the path to peace. Instead Israel's good faith gestures have been pocketed by the Palestinians with no reciprocity from the other side. Worse, they have been cited as evidence of Israeli weakness by Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Sadly, demonstrating either a remarkable failure to learn from past experience or an increasing desperation for political survival, Prime Minister Olmert appears poised to make yet another unilateral prisoner release. Going back to the American Revolution, there is no doubt that some civilian objects e.g., settlements, were not viewed as being immune from attack. Indeed, at the time, the Laws of War had not evolved to the point that distinguished civilian objects from military ones. That didn't happen until later in the 19th century. However, even the order you cited seems to differentiate between civilians and property. There is no definitive statement in the order that civilians were the intended target of the attack. What would properly be defined as civilian property was.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva There are simply a couple of instances when they did not act in accordance with the nobility that we grant them. They were in error sometimes, that is all. Just as everybody else has been. The British, the Indians, the French... I just think that we should be honest about some things too.

Originally Posted by Tashah War is not a pretty animal and virtually all wars have warts. Addressing the main issue, PeteUK's characterizing the US fighting preferences as terrorism is simply wrong. It was unconventional warfare, but not terrorism.

Originally Posted by PeteEU Seems to me that people are hypocritical. Only the "enemy" can be terrorists, and when we do similar or worse acts, that are solely designed to "terrorise" civilian populations, then its accepted as part of war or a tragic accident, because we don't do it often. Terror is terror, regardless of motive, action or who does it..