The American Revolution Redefined---terrorism?

actually the republicans have a great sense of humor, they elected GWB which puts them on a par with the democrats who nominated Kerry. About even I'd say.

The rebels in the Indepence War never killed innocent British civilians( there were maybe collateral damage , as it happens today, but it seems improbable given the characteristics of 18th century warfare) . War is ruled by a code of honor, which tries to humanize it( as far as this is possible), while terrorism is coward, vile and treacherous. If the Iraq "insurgents" were not so prone to slaughter civilians in the bakers's, they may get the status of "freedom" fighters( an ill-conceived freedom, however). Unfortunately, they don't deserve to be called warriors but murderers( despite the nasty insistance of left wing European media).

Anyway, some atrocious crimes related to Communism or Fascism cannot be accurately described with the term "terrorism". So it's our troops task to face and destroy these guys, regardless they are fanatic freedom fighters or merely terrorists.

For STOB : leave this forum and this country, if you hate it so much, and start enjoying "freedom" in Iran or anywhere else.

Literal dictionary or encyclopedia definitions aside, I think most people see militant/political terrorism as different from social terrorism.

Dumping tea into Boston Harbor as a defiant act of protest doesn't quite make it as terrorism in my mind. It was illegal, perhaps vandalism or malicious mischief, but who was harmed other than whatever sealife happened to be in those waters that night? Now if they had blown up the boat along with its captain and crew, it gets much closer to my definition of terrorism.

The threat of loss of status, prestige, reputation, livelihood, position, privileges, personal freedom, law suits etc. may be seen as legal or illegal blackmail or extortion, but even though it is fear that controls the people and can be reprehensible, this doesn't make it as terrorism in my mind. Spiking trees, fire bombing abortion clinics, sending out letter bombs or mail laced with 'white powder' comes much closer to my definition of terrorism.

Throwing a bomb onto a city bus loaded with Israeili school children is terrorism. Highjacking an airliner full of civilians and intentionally flying it into an office building occupied by civilian men, women, and children is terrorism. Coercing some gullible young person to drive a car loaded with explosives into a crowded market is terrorism. Kidnapping some poor working guy and publicly beheading him is terrorism. And that doesn't even touch on the methods used by some despotic governments to instill fear in the hearts of their citizenry so that the citizenry can be controlled.

Terrorism by my definition is the intention to instill fear and compliance by means of inflicting as much pain, suffering, destruction, and mayhem upon the innocent as possible.

I think we trivialize it when we try to suggest that lesser things are also terrorism.

Well, okay.

Doing such - which seems for me as done from today's view - I wonder now, how people in 18th would have judged today's terrorim.

foxfyre, I agree completely. Vandalism, no matter how reprehensible, is not terrorism. But the line between the two is not always straight and clear. For example, if a group of "insurgents" blow up a government building at night, making certain that there is no one inside, is that or is that not "terrorism"? No one was injured, but the building, worth millions of dollars, was destroyed along with its contents. How destructive does an act of defiance have to be before it is labeled a terrorist act? Is destruction of life the only criterion?

Good question Andrew and there may be a gray area there. If the purpose in blowing up the building was to 'punish' somebody or some entity it would be different than blowing up a building in order to make people believe the next one might have people in it, etc. To me terrorist employ methods with intention to instill fear in people by causing death, injury, pain, suffering and there is no respect for who the target of their attack may be. A class of kindergarteners is no different than a military outpost to terrorists.

So I guess I would have to say if deliberate effort is made to prevent loss of life, and there is no intent to instill fear into innocent people, it would be difficult to define the activity as terrorism. In my mind anyway.

And despite what some think, I do not consider my opinion the last word on anything.

(Edited to correct some of the awkward syntax)

And Walter, I don't know how differently 18th Century people might see it. I took Lash's thesis here to be what we think terrorism is now. I might have read it wrong.

Re: The American Revolution Redefined---terrorism?


You certainly might be correct, and I misunderstood that - obviously, because I (still) look at such like I was taught at university :wink:

No, Walter, in retrospect you read it right and I overlooked the premise of the thesis. My bad.

Nevertheless, we must look at the thesis through the prism of a 21st Century perspective; otherwise the question itself makes no sense.

So now I'm conflicted. Are we to look at the issue as it was understood by those who lived the Revolution? And I am a firm believer that you cannot understand the motives or intent of the people of any historical period, however ancient, unless you look at their experience through their eyes. I also resist assigning 21st century morality to peoples of a different era .

Or are we to decide if the events of the Revolution included terrorism according to 21st Century definitions?

Lash?

That's what history students are taught from the very day onwards :wink:

Once again, Fox, I pretty much agree with that. Although, to be fair, tossing all that tea into the Boston harbor could mearly have been a Guiness world record attempt at the largest cup of tea ever brewed.

Hi



Couldn't agree with you more. And again, it comes back to motives and intent, but with the added caveat that those motives are subjected to standards of the then existing civilization.



There is an iffy area here however, this would put the bombing of Nagasaki on shaky ground. Personally, I dont regard that as terrorism, but your definition seems to imply that it is. I'm sure that was not your intention, so we may need to add another caveat or two, something regarding the greater good.

PS : sorry for the delay in posting, it is/was spring break

Fox--

Sorry, I've been away for a while. Just saw this.

Yeah. I was talking about the revisionist history that now makes the claims that--due to recent definitions of terrorism, the Revolutionary War patriots were indeed, terrorists.

<pursed lips>

I feel confident we can say they were treasonous to the crown. Good show on that. But, terrorists? Can you be regarded a terrorist when you've issued documentation about your intentions, and given the other party a choice to avoid violence?

That would mean you don't think the IRA are terrorists?

physgrad writes


I don't put the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same category as terrorism even when the results could be considered to be the same. Japan was the aggressor and the A-bomb I view as overwhelming force and I do advocate pverwhelming force (not nuclear though) for the conduct of any war. The intent was not to subject Japan to our will, but rather to force them to stop attempting to force their will on us via bombing and shooting at us. And it worked. And now Japan is a peaceful nation, a staunch ally, and a good neighbor to just about everybody.

I doubt any terrorist organization has similar goals for the subjects of its attacks.

Actually, no Adrian. I haven't decided. I'm asking opinions. But, I definitely view the IRA as terrorists.

I'll have to run similarities with the Revolutionaries...

At first blush, they do seem very similar.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of warfare, not of terrorism. We can argue about whether or not that bombing constitutes a war crime til the cows come home. In fact, it's being so argued on another thread. But at a time of officially declared war, it is meaningles to speak of "terrorism." All war is terrorism in one sense, but that's not how we generally understand the word. Attacks on civilians in wartime are commonplace and not regarded as terrorism. The Nazis blitzed London, we firebombed Dresden etc. etc. That's not terrorism, that's called war.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of warfare, not of terrorism. We can argue about whether or not that bombing constitutes a war crime til the cows come home. In fact, it's being so argued on another thread. But at a time of officially declared war, it is meaningles to speak of "terrorism." All war is terrorism in one sense, but that's not how we generally understand the word. Attacks on civilians in wartime are commonplace and not regarded as terrorism. The Nazis blitzed London, we firebombed Dresden etc. etc. That's not terrorism, that's called war.

If we narrow that related to the British Crown only, it really reads like that.