Were our Founding Fathers terrorists?

Wow. Some of you have drank a bit too much of the moral relativism Kool-Aid. And many of your definitions of a terrorist are ridiculous and lacking much common sense.

Comparing the Founders to terrorist is simply idiotic. While they weren’t Saints, most were men of true virtue and integrity. Man is flawed, so too were the Founders—but at no time in human history have a group of men with such wisdom and vision strived together for freedom. And anyone who believes their methods are akin to terrorism—is a fool—plain and simple.

Not all causes are the same. One person’s freedom fighter isn’t always another’s terrorist, or vise versa. Quite often in our world there are (dare I say it) good men and Just wars—where one side is truly fighting the Good Fight. I know to many of our “enlightened”, this notion seems trite and too simplistic. Think again folks.
 
In fact I would say that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was the single greatest act of terrorism in the world.
Click to expand...


WOW…just WOW.

Dude, either you need to put down the crack pipe—or enroll in some night classes at your local community college. Actually, strike the latter—as that’s probably where you got your twisted “logic”.
 
Dude, either you need to put down the crack pipe—or enroll in some night classes at your local community college. Actually, strike the latter—as that’s probably where you got your twisted “logic”.
Click to expand...

So what is your definition of terrorism?

So governments or states cant commit acts of terrorism to achieve its goals?

Aerial bombing is designed to spread fear and terrorize the citizens in order to demoralize them and their government into surrendering. The atomic bomb was dropped for that reason. What about the deliberate fire bombing of civilians in Dresden?

The bombings in Spain were designed to terrorize the population before an election, the terrorists achieved their goal.

What is the difference between the two other than the fact that one was carried out by a nation and one by a group of people?

they were both done to create terror and to influence the people and the government.

terrorism is much like a firearm as its the person behind it that makes the act evil or good. It is an instrument to be used for good or bad.

The founding fathers committed an act of terrorism when they did the Boston Tea Party. The probably knew that such an act would draw reprisals against the colonial population. The British did commit reprisals against the colonials. This made them choose a side. The same tactics that terrorist use today.

Some of the founding fathers of Israel were terrorists. I don't see their struggle as evil or bad.

Was it done for a good cause or a bad cause? that is up to the persons perception. I believe the American revolution was a good cause.

I am not saying that dropping the A bomb nor the fire bombing of Dresden was an evil act. I see the bombings in Spain as an evil act.
 
Last edited:
A couple of points

on which I must disagree.

An Atomic Bomb is the ultimate in collateral damage.

Definitions of terrorism-? Too broad a definition reduces the accuracy of the term. Some might feel that any act which terrorizes someone is an act of terrorism, and while correct in the broadest terms, I do not feel it is the proper use of the term for the purposes of our discussion.

The bombing of cities, as in WWII would not be terrorism, as it is carried out by the military forces of a nation state. Armies do not commit terrorism. They wage war.

Using the term terrorism to include legitimate acts of war (no matter how horrifying) is inappropriate. Military troops "terrorizing" a village, a farm, a city, the countryside, etc is not terrorism, it is war.

That is, in fact the difference between them, one is carried out by a government, and the other by individuals (who wish to be the government).

The actual act may even be the same in general, such as a bombing, but since one is carried out by a govt. and the other is not, different terms must be used, otherwise one cannot converse accurately.

That some people cannot or willnot restrict their definition of terrorism is one of the major sticking points of the whole issue. Some people see no difference between acts of war and acts of terrorism. Some even go so far as to see uniformed soldiers as terrorists, because warfare does terrorize.

We must maintain clear seperate definitions, to do otherwise is a disservice to the men and women in uniform, and grants a status to terrorists that they neither have nor merit.

Rebels need not be terrorists, although many have turned out to be. Our Founding Fathers were rebels, but not, in my book, terrorists.

For me, the dividing line is target selection. Terrorists target innocent civilians, and will even pass up attacking the military forces of their enemies to strike at the civil populace. They will kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill individuals for no other reason than the fact that they are citizens of the "enemy" nation. They engage in acts which demonstrate only their ruthlessness against those weaker than themselves.

I disagree with the analogy of terrorism and firearms. While the ultimate goal (good or evil) is dependant on the person behind it, firearms are inanimate objects, while terrorism is a deliberate act, evil in nature, as it requires harm to be done in order to exist. There is a difference.

The Boston Tea Party was not a terrorist act. It was sabotage. Destruction of specific property (tea), while taking pains to ensure minimum "collateral damage".

Over the last couple of centuries Western Civilization has worked out a set of generally acceptable rules for "civilised warfare" (I leave the argument for if there can be such a thing for another time). Generally speaking, if you are a nation state, you are expected to play by these rules, even if you are not signatory to international treaty requiring it. Failure to abide by these rules and you become a rogue nation, and war criminals. If you are not a nation state and you engage in war you are still expected to abide by the rules. If you do, you are rebels, insurgents, or guerilla fighters. If you don't, you are terrorists.

Terrorists are criminals. Their underlying philosophy boils down to the same thing, do what we say, or die.
They are the schoolyard bully writ large.
 
Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty were nothing more than a gang of thugs. In the past I've compared them to Mussolini's black shirts, and in many ways the comparison holds. Not quite as violent, but more than willing to resort to violence, intimidation, and rhetoric as a means to an end.
Click to expand...
Mike Irwin, do you have any links to information on this?
 
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?
Click to expand...


Who flew and crashed aircraft into the civilian population after cutting the pilot's throats? Who saws the heads off of tied up victims while chanting to Allah? Who straps explosives on kids and sends them to their deaths? Who kills their own countrymen because they witnessed them talking to American troops?

Who is right indeed...:rolleyes:

These type of actions are never right no matter how valuable the cause.

Your problem is that you wish to look at it through the glass of relativism when you should consider right vs. wrong perspective be damned.
 
Man, this is making my poor little head hurt.


I’m trying to get a clear picture of how all this is supposed to run. On the one hand if, like some have said, “one person’s terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” then right or wrong is reletive I guess all that is important is that you make damn sure that the other guy loses at what ever cost and no means is off limits. Kill em, kill em fast, kill em hard, and kill em all. Motives are relative, whether they were good is a function of whether or not you win. If you happen to be the biggest baddest mother on the planet then so much the better. Lets face it, history belongs to the winner

Hmmm… OK, well if “right” and “wrong” are in fact relative and my choice is between “dead” and…well…just dead. Or, on the other hand, “alive and I also get to claim right is on my side because I’m alive and your not. Hey I’m voting for option “2”

Hmmm… OK, I’m good with that one. Anyone who is going to try and give me that argument as some sort of guilt trip is just plan delusional.

I guess the other argument I hear the most is that “we made Osama BenLaden” etc. etc. or that we only do it for the oil. OK, I would say that that is true as far as it goes. What it fails to recognize is that we “made” Osama BenLaden at a time when that part of the world was up for grabs and who ever controlled the oil controlled the world There were no George Washington’s or Abraham Lincolns in that part of the world. They were all cut from the same cloth. Our choice of allies was between bad and worse. So I’m thinking that you have to play the game with the pieces that are on the board. Then there is the oil business. Here’s a news flash. Without oil the world goes back to a time when the average life expectancy was 35 years of age. In today’s world oil is survival. Without oil life as we know it disappears. So yeah we do do some things for the oil. Oil is life, oil is survival. In all reality, considering just how vital oil is to survilal I would have to say that we are pretty generous about the whole business. Making bargains and working deals with these little pest hole dictatorships. I guess we just haven’t quite got the hang of the whole “moral relativism” thing yet. We still attempt to conduct ourselves as though there was such a thing as right and wrong. When will we get it through our poor little deluded brains that we will be right as long as it is us who are left alive to tell the story.


Hmmm… maybe it’s the cadence, I’m trying to get a handle on the liberal mindset but I’m having real difficulty making it sound good.

Oh yeah, crap, I forgot. “Good” is a function of whether or not you win. That’s really a slippery one.
 
So what is your definition of terrorism?
Click to expand...



A hell of a lot differnt than yours.

Your NewSpeak definition of terrorism is pretty kooky—and actually even scary. But no use in explaining the common sense definition, as it’s obvious you and I are in completing different books. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
 
I think the dropping of the atomic bombs is not a good example for any of the examples given. Although it was only one plane and one bomb, some other bombing raids caused more damage and more civilian deaths. In fact, they supposedly had the streetcars running in Hiroshima the next day. Usually air power is overrated.
 
Actually in the 'Southern' part of the revolution for America,

the British were the ones that used most of the terror tactics. In fact, in the History books I've read the war was pretty much lost and the British devided their forces and took Charleston SC and planned to head up North, just to mop up the insurgents and speed up the obvious outcome of the insurection. For many reasons... a few insurgents for one...they got bogged down in S.C. and it was decided that the scotch irish farmers in the north east of the state were the problem.. the solution was to burn all the Presbityrian churchs and any farms that looked like they might be surporting the cause... as I understand it most of the population up until that time had remained nuetral and didn't really want to get involved. The second thing the British comander in charleston did was to declair any one on parole (previous soldiers who had been captured and realeased after signing a letter saying they would be nutral and fight no more) traitors if they did not declair themselves on the British side and join up with them. Both of these acts were such a violation of the existing rules of war at that time that a goodly number of folks got mad and then things got really nasty. Then the British ran into a little problem in several battles, one where they didn't realize a bunch of 'boy's had decided to walk over the mountains from Tennesee and join in the fray. Oh and don't forget Francis Marion... the colonial army couldn't figure out what to do with him or his followers and so they said...just go back down there and do what you can. he ran one hell of an insurgant war for a long time.

By todays standards the founding fathers (and mothers) were not terrorist... but by the standards of the 1770's they were. (just my opinion)

One thing I've noticed in movies...is the revolution is always shown as 'us' against British soldiers. In reality, many of those British soldiers were our neighbors and once friends... those that sided with the crown left after the revolution was won.
 
you still havent given me your definition of terrorism Semper. Have to see it before I can decide whether its different or not.

Nothing newspeak about terrorism its as old as man is.

Simply being Americans make us right 100% of the time?
 
Last edited:
So armies and states cant commit acts of terrorism while thier is a declared war?

Should civilians be targeted during wartime?
 
Using the term terrorism to include legitimate acts of war (no matter how horrifying) is inappropriate. Military troops "terrorizing" a village, a farm, a city, the countryside, etc is not terrorism, it is war.
Click to expand...

Osama followed the traditional Muslim form of decalring war against us. He issued us warnings and then we got 9/11. In his mind he is in a war against the United States and western civilization. So would 9/11 to him be an act of terrorism under your definition?
 
Osama followed the traditional Muslim form of decalring war against us. He issued us warnings and then we got 9/11. In his mind he is in a war against the United States and western civilization. So would 9/11 to him be an act of terrorism under your definition?
Click to expand...

Yes it was. First of all one idiot in a cave ranting and raving about how evil the west is isn't what I'd call a formal declaration of war. He has no acknowledged backing from any country, no uniformed troops, nothing that would make it a legal declaration.

The above is a moot point however because even if these were true he still attacked civilian targets when he could have just as easily attacked the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Congress, Fort Dix, or any host of military installments or governmental targets. The only thing that would come close was the Pentagon but he ruined that by hijacking a civilian airliner to accomplish it.
 
The history I was taught was a lot different than what I know from my family history. I recognize the propaganda for what it is. Lots of interesting reading in those old schoolbooks but not much fact. My grandfathers fought both sides during the Revolution, the French Indian War, and the Civil War. One side would scalp, torture, the other. Yes, I'd call it terror. No one was exempt. It was the just the way it was. Lots of times opponets even knew each other personally.
 
Nothing newspeak about terrorism its as old as man is.
Click to expand...
When I used the term “Newspeak” I was referring to Orwell’s 1984, in which simple and concise language (i.e. terrorism) is altered and perverted so as to change the true definition.

Simply being Americans make us right 100% of the time?
Click to expand...
Of course not—we’re probably only right 98% of the time. ;)

At no time in human history has a nation wielded as much power as the U.S.—and yet been so disciplined in using it. If the United States were to magically disappear tomorrow—the world would be far worse off. So yeah, we are the good guys. And while not perfect—we are truly “the last best hope of man on earth”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top