Were our Founding Fathers terrorists?

Some of you guys need to hit the history books before popping off. Specifically, check out the campaigns in the south. Terror was a weapon, which, I hope, does not make you hate your motherland. The regular forces didn't tend to be too bad, but in the south there were large sanctioned militia groups and things got real ugly.

A little later our leaders did some things to the Indian Nations that were vile (in regard to killing women and children see Jackson's infecting the Cherokees with smallpox, and the Trail of Tears.) Evil resides in us all and conditions bring it out. If you believe that we as a nation are somehow immune to this, then you are living in a fantasy world.

I love the USA and many of its values, but don't think that we are somehow genetically immune from doing evil deeds.
 
badbob, now that I think about it, the FBI are terrorists. See Ruby Ridge and Waco for just a few notable examples
Click to expand...

Tiz true. Have you seen what's happening with the OKC bombing? The feds may have been caught once again.Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6275147.stm

Last Updated: Friday, 2 March 2007, 12:47 GMT


The Conspiracy Files
4 March, 9pm on BBC Two

Programme preview
The FBI man in charge of collecting evidence from the government building destroyed by the Oklahoma bomb has called for the case to be reopened.
Former deputy assistant director Danny Coulson has told the BBC programme The Conspiracy Files that he questions whether everyone involved was caught.

The attack in 1995 killed 168 people, including 19 children.

Gulf war veteran Timothy McVeigh was convicted of the attack and sentenced to death by lethal injection.

Mr Coulson said a federal grand jury is now needed to find out what really happened: "We have victims here and we have victims' families and we don't even know the answers. And the answer is frankly for a federal grand jury."

He argues this is the only way to prove whether other people were involved in the bombing in a wider conspiracy beyond Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who was also convicted of manslaughter and conspiracy and sentenced to life in jail.



We have victims here and we have victims' families and we need to know the answers.
Danny Coulson, Former FBI deputy assistant director

Danny Coulson interview

Mr Coulson spent 31 years in the FBI. Between 1991 and 1997 he was the deputy assistant director of the Criminal Division of the FBI in Washington, responsible for all violent crime cases in the United States.

Mr Coulson said there were some "very strong indicators" that other people were involved with Timothy McVeigh.

The FBI interviewed 24 people who claimed to have seen McVeigh in Oklahoma City with someone else on the morning of the attack, yet the only known accomplice of McVeigh, Terry Nichols, was at home in Kansas over 200 miles away on that day.

The FBI's investigation concluded that the eyewitnesses were unreliable. However, Danny Coulson says they were "extremely credible" and had no reason to make it up.

"If only one person had seen it, or two of three, but 24? Twenty four people say yes I saw him with someone else. That's pretty powerful," he said.

Elohim City

Mr Coulson also says that FBI headquarters closed down part of their own investigation into a white separatist community called Elohim City, which conspiracy theorists believe was involved in the attack, with government knowledge.

Mr Coulson said: "It wasn't until after I had left the investigation, some months later, that I know FBI headquarters told them to close down the investigation in Elohim City which has some very significant connections to Mr McVeigh and previous bombing attempts.

"Never in my career did I have FBI headquarters tell me not to investigate something."

Jon Hersley, the FBI's leading case agent in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation disputes this.

"There was none of that whatsoever. In fact, in this investigation I feel like we uncovered more rocks than have ever been uncovered in the history of the FBI and at times we over-investigated parts of the case."

Last December a US Congressional report found no conclusive evidence of a wider conspiracy, but the report concluded that "questions remain unanswered and mysteries remain unsolved."

The report by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee said the FBI was "not justified in calling off any further investigation" into McVeigh's possible accomplice, and concluded that more investigation was needed.

The Conspiracy Files: Oklahoma Bomb will be broadcast on Sunday, 4 March 2007 at 2100 GMT on BBC Two

badbob
 
today by the US government they would be called Terrorist and That matters more than what others here opine.

seperatist is another.

Sugar Act
Stamp Act
Intolerable Act
British taking powder from public armories and imposing on the colonist homes. emoluments of statuteable plunder.
Declaration for the Causes and Necesity of Arms,from Reason to Arms July 6th 1775
Declaration for Independence July 4th 1776
Articles of Confederation
Shays Rebellion and Slaughter
Thomas Jefferson Tree of liberty often needs to be refreshed with the blood of Tyrants and Patriots.
US Constitution
Bill of Rights Thanks James Madison

one mans patriot/freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
James Madison

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]

Terrorist \Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.]
1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation;
specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary
tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.
[1913 Webster]

2. One who commits terrorism[2].
[PJC]
WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]

terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially
as a political weapon); "terrorist activity";
"terrorist state"
n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually
organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often
uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 [moby-thes]

121 Moby Thesaurus words for "terrorist":
Bolshevik, Bolshevist, Bolshie, Carbonarist, Carbonaro, Castroist,
Castroite, Charley, Communist, Cong, Fenian, Guevarist, Jacobin,
Leninist, Mafioso, Maoist, Marxist, Mau-Mau, Puritan, Red,
Red Republican, Roundhead, Sinn Feiner, Trotskyist, Trotskyite, VC,
Vietcong, Yankee, Yankee Doodle, Young Turk, alarmist, anarch,
anarchist, annihilator, arsonist, assassin, beast, beldam, berserk,
berserker, biblioclast, bomber, bonnet rouge, brute, burner,
criminal, criminal syndicalist, demolisher, demon, desperado,
destroyer, devil, dragon, dynamitard, dynamiter, exterminator,
felon, fiend, fire-eater, firebrand, fury, goon, gorilla, gunman,
gunsel, hardnose, hell-raiser, hellcat, hellhound, hellion,
holy terror, hood, hoodlum, hothead, hotspur, hun, iconoclast,
idol breaker, idoloclast, incendiary, insurgent, killer, mad dog,
madcap, monster, mugger, nihilist, radical, rapist, rebel, red,
revolutionary, revolutionary junta, revolutioner, revolutionist,
revolutionizer, ruiner, sans-culotte, sans-culottist, savage,
scaremonger, she-wolf, spitfire, subversive, syndicalist,
termagant, terror, thug, tiger, tigress, tough, tough guy,
ugly customer, vandal, violent, virago, vixen, wild beast, witch,
wolf, wrecker
Click to expand...
 
Yes they were. So were the Israelis who were in the IrGun and other groups.
Terrorists use violent means to gain attention for their cause. Was it for a good cause? I beleive it was. We shouldnt get our morality and the the definition of terrorist mixed in with each other.
 
Uh, Mr. Welch?

Did I say I had a problem with it?

History is a funny thing, especially American history.

What most people are taught is that the American Revolution was based on only the highest ideals, conducted only by people of the most impecable character, and done free of all the baggage that normally accompanies a war.

Bull****.

Don't you find it both curious AND interesting at the same time that Thomas Jefferson wrote of all men being created equal, yet held slaves? That he stated, during debates on adoption of the Declaration of Independence that he had resolved to release his slaves, but yet never did?

That George Washington said that he never wanted command of the Continental Army, but yet every day showed up in Congress wearing the same suit of clothes -- his Major's uniform from the French and Indian Wars?

That George Washington was a military bungler who almost lost the Revolution several times, yet was very likely the only person who could have held the Continental Army together for 8 years of war?

That George Washington and John Hancock were probably the two richest men in the colonies, whose wealth derived and largely depended on the British Empire, yet they fully supported independence?

That the "crushing taxes" paid by Colonists were actually substantially less than those paid by people of the same class in Britain?

That the British tax on tea, which resulted in the Boston Tea Party, actually made tea CHEAPER in the colonies?

That Benjamin Franklin, an ardent supporter of independence, had a son who was Colonial Governor of New Jersey, and when William Franklin was arrested, Ben did absolutely nothing to help his son, and in fact totally cut him off?

That John Adams, ardent supporter of the concept of the equality of men, was an incredibly imperious prick who never failed to let people know, in action and word, that he was their superior?

That John Dickinson adamantly opposed the push for independence and refused to sign the Declaration but instead of joining the British army, where he would have become an officer, he joined a Delaware militia unit and fought AGAINST the British?

The history of the Founding Fathers are full of these kinds of "psychotic fugue" examples.

Over the past 200 years we've made the mistake as a nation of deifying these people -- converting them to marble statues and have virtually ignored what they really were -- men who were just as human and just a fallable (sp?) as any one else of the time.

It's inconvenient to look at the incongruities of our Founding Fathers, because it ruptures the little mythories that we've been taught about them and their motivations.

History, even American history, is sometimes pretty damned ugly. But to ignore the real history of these men in favor of some sanitized Parson Weemsistic version of "the truth" does them a great disservice. And to be sucked into that kind of does the "suckee" an equally great disservice.
Click to expand...

So they've been downgraded from cutthroat terrorists to rude self centered pricks? That's what I'm reading in your two posts. Our founding fathers were men plain and simple. Not perfect by any strech of the imagination but you make it sound like they eat kittens which is...how did you put it...Bull****.
 
I disagree. The American Revolution was a revolt by pre-existing American colonies, all of which had their own governments and they were all over 100 years old. Few of the "founding fathers" were foreigners, which is an important fact. At one time they had considered themselves British subjects but by the time of revolution, they were considering themselves to be Americans. They were not terrorists by the standards of our day and neither are all revolutionaries of today. Castro should probably never have been considered a terrorist, for example.

There are interesting parallels with the War between the states and there were certainly divided loyalties and mixed feelings. And it was a war in which many of the founding fathers lost their fortunes.

I certainly wouldn't consider Washington a military bungler by any standard, though he was certain daring at times.

I think the French lent a hand, too.

I also think the thesaurus is misleading as to what a terrorist is and besides, what difference does it make? War is just another means to a political end and nobody calls themselves a terrorist.
 
There are MANY types of militants out there. One type is called a "terrorist." A terrorist is one who inflicts random violence aimed at creating panic (terror) in a population, in order to confuse and disrupt that population to the point that a military objective is more achievable.

We all definitely know that the Founding Fathers were "militant nationalists." However, I don't think you could call their actions "terrorism." The Boston Tea Party was not intended to create a state of panic IN the colonies. It was intended to disrupt commerce and revenue for England, and ultimately drive up the price of tea (in other words, it was meant to annoy the British).

There's a difference between "terrorism" and "militant nationalism." I think the word "terrorist" is overused to the point that people are starting to forget what the word means.
 
Terrorism goes back before the Revolutionary War. Try the Zealots Scarii in Jerusalem in around A.D. 66-70. Their targets were Roman soldiers and officials who were struck in daylight with witnesses around. The idea was to make the Romans feel unsafe like modern day terrorists.

Terrorism is older than out modern day definition.

It was intended to disrupt commerce and revenue for England, and ultimately drive up the price of tea (in other words, it was meant to annoy the British).
Click to expand...
The major purpose of a terrorist is to say Hey I am here! To get the world to notice. I think the tea party qualifies as a terrorist attack.

In other words to get the attention of the crown so they would take notice of the colonies. Sounds like what terrorists do today. One mans militant nationalist is another mans terrorist.

One of the aims of terrorism is to get the other side to intiate atrocities against the local population. The British came down on the colonies like a ton of bricks pissing some of them off giving support to the revolution.

Sounds like our founding fathers were experts in terrorism to me....
 
as you said terrorists inflict panic then didn't the boston tea party inflict panic on the brits. Not saying they didn't deserve it. But you do realize that whole war was based on land that neither really had any rights to in the first place. I mean if it is ok to take land from native then since yellowstone is a park I can go take it and live there. Not that I would but do you see my point
 
There is big difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism. terrorism is aimed at civilians and their property. The Boston tea party probably was an act of terrorism, but at least it wasn't against civilians. I'm not saying that during the war that revolutionaries never targeted civilians, just that it wasn't the main focus of how to win the war. Also, I'm sure the British had their share of civil targets. I read that one tory city rounded up a militia and drove out the British after a British officer raped a tory girl:rolleyes: .

So, I would say that the founding fathers commited treason, but not terrorism.
 
Last edited:
You are associating your morality with terrorism. Some Muslims see Osama Bin laden as a "George Washington" type for them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but it has nothing to do with the truth. I have no moral problem with the founding fathers being terrorists. I beleive in the cause it was done for.

In fact I would say that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was the single greatest act of terrorism in the world. It worked and we accomplished out goals when Japan surrendered.
 
In fact, they were, by today's definition. Important point, that. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Has ALWAYS been that way, and ALWAYS will be that way.
 
Treason? yes, Terrorism?...No

Not as I would define the word. Many things get overlooked, or deliberately glossed over due to the passage of time, and "definition drift". By the definitions recently put into US law in the last few years, yes, our founding fathers would be legal terrorists in today's world. But I prefer the older and correct definition, which involves targeting innocent civilians.

If you attack/kill/blow up/destroy etc. Govt buildings, Govt officials (from the dog catcher through the corrupt judge to the Govenor-General) you are an insurgent, a guerilla fighter, a rebel, but not a terrorist. Your targets are all valid political objects.

Now if you blow up a bus, gun down shoppers at the mall, etc., people with no direct connection to the power you oppose other than being citizens of the country, then you would be a terrorist.

Bombing enemy cities from the air would not be a terrorist act, as there are valid military/political targets in cities. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate (but useful) byproduct. The phrase currently in vogue is "collateral damage".

One thing not generally remembered about the US Revolution is that it was not a one sided affair. Not even a two sided one, but more of a three sided thing. About 1/3 of the Colonists were for Rebellion against the Crown, and about 1/3 were Loyalists. The other 1/3 were just people who wanted to get on with their lives, and were caught in the middle. Both power blocs used (or allowed the use) of unsavory tactics at times, but not with official sanction. In many ways, we were quite "ungentlemanly" combatting the British and their allies. Today we glory in the fact that our founding fathers had the "brains" not to stand out in the open and get shot. But the reality of history is slightly different.

In British eyes, our Founding Fathers were guilty of treason. But we don't call it treason. We won.

Do you know why treason never prospers?
Because when it prospers, none dare call it treason!
 
In fact, they were, by today's definition. Important point, that. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Has ALWAYS been that way, and ALWAYS will be that way.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There is a way to tell the two apart. They didn't commit random acts of violence against those with no stake in the conflict for the sake of scaring those who did. To agree with another poster treason yes terrorism no.
 
who says the all the attacks have to be random. Was 9/11 a random act? It was planned and bankrolled over several years.

I dont think an atomic bomb qualifies as collateral damage.
 
So if an Iraqi Muslim considers American troops to be terrorists and Osama Bin Laden to be a legitimate warrior.

You consider American Soldiers to be legitimate warriors and Osama Bin Laden to be a terrorist.

who is right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top