Was George Washington considered a terrorist against Britain? Or was Britain the terrorist against the Colonies? (revolution, ideology)

[BentBow]

Over religion..... and freedom to worship who and how you wish?
After all, England did have the bloody Crusades to avoid again.

The Church of England was losing it's control over the people....


There were militias, fighting those that disagreed with them and their freedom.
Killing many, was the mission to rule themselves.

[Northeastah]

"The sun never sets on the British Empire"

Britain was mad they weren't going to be able to rule the world. Hmm, a certain terrorist group comes to mind with that ideology as well.

[HappyTexan]

Today the Boston Tea party would have been considered a terrorist attack.

[TheDusty]

This is why I have trouble taking the word terrorist overly seriously. It's totally subjective, rather cultural bias allows anyone of us to see it that way. Yeah, it's not unreasonable to call a religious fanatic with a bomb strapped to their chest a terrorist, but it's not unreasonable to call a flying robot dropping bombs with lasers an act of terrorism either. However, from our perspective, only one is.

The reality is the American colonials were terrorist rebels in the eyes of the English. Then again, the entire American revolution is always taught in such a bizarre way. The King is always made the to be the villain, when really, he wasn't even the main problem. He had the power to stop it, which he didn't, but the people who were causing problem were English ruling elite. Dare I call them a ruling 1%? Regardless, the American revolution always seems so misunderstood.

[Dbones]

Neither since they were both standing national armies.

[bluesjuke]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Over religion..... and freedom to worship who and how you wish?
After all, England did have the bloody Crusades to avoid again.

The Church of England was losing it's control over the people....


There were militias, fighting those that disagreed with them and their freedom.
Killing many, was the mission to rule themselves.

Back when we started afresh without tyranny developing yet.

[getitgotitgood]

How about strapping on an automatic rifle and calmly, methodically shooting people in cold blood who are simply enjoying a night out with friends and family? I'd say that qualifies.

[Pretzelogik]

Wrong on both counts...the were freedom fighters.

[pknopp]

The British army did consider the newly formed armies terrorists. They did complain that it wasn't proper to hide behind trees and set up traps in war.

You lined up in a field and fought proper.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by getitgotitgood

How about strapping on an automatic rifle and calmly, methodically shooting people in cold blood who are simply enjoying a night out with friends and family? I'd say that qualifies.

Now THAT would qualify as a terrorist! And in fact, I'd lump the nutjobs in this country that go all postal and shoot up a public place (gun free zone) as well as the gangbangers in the hood into that category as well!