Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not have to imagine a US General ordering the mass killing of civilians. What else do you call the fire bombing of German cities or lighting nukes over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Compared to these brutal amateurs of ISIS or whatever the Western world is capable of Terrorism on a near incomprehensible scale.
But that is different.....(sarcasm)
Factually one most note, it was Truman that gave the order to drop the nukes on Japan.
Quote:
The people that support the ISIS terrorism should keep in mind the results when the West decides they are a real threat. As a culture we are, or at least were, quite capable of astonishing brutality. We just have to become sufficiently frightened.
Was George Washington considered a terrorist against Britain? Or was
Britain the terrorist against the Colonies?
It would depend on who you asked. If you asked a Liberal, they'd probably say that Washington was a terrorist yes. Conservatives would have the opposite view.
It would depend on who you asked. If you asked a Liberal, they'd probably say that Washington was a terrorist yes. Conservatives would have the opposite view.
Depends on what kind of conservative. The patriotic, big military/police state types would surely call him a terrorist.
Neither since they were both standing national armies.
How can a not-Nation have a standing national army?
At the time of the Continental Army there was no United States, it didn't exist, it's Sovereign was the British Empire. Technically if the US raised an Army it would have to have been under the command of the British, but it wasn't, it was under the command of a rebel, George Washington.
That is like saying ISIS is the standing army of the Levant.
So yes George Washington and the Colonial Armies and militia's were probably seen as "terrorists" at the time, but known as rebels because the term terrorist is a modern invention, of arbitrary application.
No, George Washington was not a terrorist. He led an organized army.
Some people consider the Scotsman, John Aitken (aka John the Painter) to be a terrorist acting on behalf of the Americans against the British. Aitken set fires to the Royal Navy shipyards in England. I dunno. Maybe those acts were more in the nature of sabotage than they were in terror.
Others have argued that the real heroes of the American effort were the privateers who savaged British merchant shipping and put enormous strain on insurers such as Lloyds of London.
No, George Washington was not a terrorist. He led an organized army.
What does leading an organized army have to do with whether or not someone is considered a terrorist.
Mohammed Omar led an organized army, he's still considered a terrorist. His army was considered no more organized or legitimate as George Washington's was considered organized and legitimate by the British.
Problem is that terrorism is generally determined to be after the fact through the lens of history. Or entirely the actions of a group considered a terrorist organization regardless of those actions. In the US Washington is not considered a terrorist, and in the UK they don't really care enough to consider it important. However when you consider the actions taken and compare to modern day equivalents a lot of the same things that were performed during the Revolutionary war would today be considered terrorism. That's not to say that the British did not perform similar acts, but they don't consider those acts terrorism either, neither do the US.
Take Che Guevara terrorist or freedom fighter? Depends on who you ask doesn't it. To some he's a freedom fighter who fought for his ideals regardless of the methods he needed to employ, to others he's a terrorist who used inhuman methods to achieve his ends. It's all just a matter of perspective.
Neither since they were both standing national armies.
A standing national Army "The Continental Army" of a state that had no recognition and would not until 1783. One could say thy had some commonality with the Confederate States of America. At least the Royal Army, Marines and Navy were not nationless.
I'm not sure if George Washington was a terrorist, but I can definitely tell you that the Knights Templar were radical Christians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
