NationStates Jolt Archive

So I've been thinking- "terrorists," are fighting to do what they want, whatever cause that may be, whether to rid themselves of oppressors (Iraq), to pissing off the Jews (Hezbollah), to general mayhem.

But what about Pre-Revolution Americans? The Boston Tea-Party, Lexington and Concord, etc. etc. etc. all occurred when the colonies were part of Britain. Would their actions then have been considered acts of terror now?

They had substantial weapons cache's (for their relatively meager funding and means of getting good guns), fought and killed a few British Soldiers here and there, had a few people killed in rioting (Boston Massacre, even though the British were provoked, similar to what occurs now in rioting.), that sort of thing.

So would those "Freedom Fighters," of the day, be labelled as "terrorists," in today's world?

Consider the following

For the time, sabotage and smuggling, which was rampant through the colonies (especially New England), was considered "pussy" (for lack of better term) warfare, but it was the best viable option. Facing the British in open fields was stupid; like facing the American Army in an open battle.

Instead, people raided British supply posts (Ticonderoga, also pre-Declaration) and, though they didn't blow others up (pussy warfare today), might they have?


*Edit*Option 4 means that they would have instantly been branded as terrorists, and no one would bother negotiating with them.

I don't think so; terrorism is literally defined as the "use of terror to effect an outcome" but it is usually narrowed to just mean attacks on civilians. The American revolutionaries used guerilla warfare against military targets; if they intentionally attacked civilians or civilian property that would be terrorism, but it would not be if they only attacked military targets.

I don't think so; terrorism is literally defined as the "use of terror to effect an outcome" but it is usually narrowed to just mean attacks on civilians. The American revolutionaries used guerilla warfare against military targets; if they intentionally attacked civilians or civilian property that would be terrorism, but it would not be if they only attacked military targets.

Thats true, but say someone today were only attacking military targets; maybe the USS Cole for example. That was considered an act of terror, wasn't it?

*Edit.* And the Boston Tea Party was aimed at civilian ships in the Boston Harbor.

Thats true, but say someone today were only attacking military targets; maybe the USS Cole for example. That was considered an act of terror, wasn't it?

I object to defining that as an act of terrorism actually.

I object to defining that as an act of terrorism actually.

Perhaps you personally, but I believe I remember seeing it called that on television. I'll see if I can dig it up somewhere.

Thats true, but say someone today were only attacking military targets; maybe the USS Cole for example. That was considered an act of terror, wasn't it?

Yeah, but I don't really consider that a terror attack myself.

It's probably called one because the organization behind it was a terrorist group. However, the attack itself was not an act of terrorism in the most accurate sense of the word.

Perhaps you personally, but I believe I remember seeing it called that on television. I'll see if I can dig it up somewhere.

It was.

I believe that this was in error.

Yeah, but I don't really consider that a terror attack myself.

It's probably called one because the organization behind it was a terrorist group. However, the attack itself was not an act of terrorism in the most accurate sense of the word.

True enough, but as you just said, "Terrorist group," attacking a ship which was clearly not on alert with no warning or obvious reasoning. I think this could be defined as a slight gray area.


Taken from Wikipedia; not the best source, but I'm a little lazy.

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence targeted against non-combatants to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands.[1] The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger.

The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong.

That'd define the USS Cole attack right there.

True enough, but as you just said, "Terrorist group," attacking a ship which was clearly not on alert with no warning or obvious reasoning. I think this could be defined as a slight gray area.

The Boston Tea Party would probably fall in to a similar area; the ships and their cargoes were owned by civilians but operated under the auspices of the British East India Company, a government-owned corporation.

However, no one was hurt and the damage was only the lost tea so it's hardly comparable to the damages suffered in the Cole attack.

The Boston Tea Party would probably fall in to a similar area; the ships and their cargoes were owned by civilians but operated under the auspices of the British East India Company, a government-owned corporation.

However, no one was hurt and the damage was only the lost tea so it's hardly comparable to the damages suffered in the Cole attack.

Hardly comparable, but as you see in my prior post, could be similar motive.

Hardly comparable, but as you see in my prior post, could be similar motive.

Probably.

They are terrorists to the British and Freedom Fighters to the Americans.

Western media often labels groups or individuals "terrorist" when fighting for liberation, and the same people "statesmen" when they succeed in liberating their country.

Also from Wikipedia. Just a bit of food for thought. This is my point with the Revolution thing; say the same sort of actions occurred in...Japan, for example. (Yes, I realize Japan is not very likely for a revolution, just an example.)

What sort of thing would the world (Particularly America, who has a trade interest with Japan) say about these revolutionaries, who might disrupt the internal economy of their nation?

Now go back 230 years, to the 1770's. Britian knows that its colonies are a political hotspot, but doesn't want to go in with military yet. Does it define the revolutionaries as "terrorists?"

They are terrorists to the British and Freedom Fighters to the Americans.

So what makes them different to today? Terrorists to Us, freedom fighters to whom they're fighting for.

*Sorry for the multiple post thing... NS forum went completely haywire on me.

Hope it didn't bug anyone too much :(

I don't think so; terrorism is literally defined as the "use of terror to effect an outcome" but it is usually narrowed to just mean attacks on civilians. The American revolutionaries used guerilla warfare against military targets; if they intentionally attacked civilians or civilian property that would be terrorism, but it would not be if they only attacked military targets.
I agree. Case closed.

When American revolutionaries did wind up harming civilian property, alcohol had far more to do with it than pre-planned activities. Have you ever destroyed a street sign whilst drunk? Is that terrorism? Certainly not. It's roughly equivalent.

I agree. Case closed.

Eut, I'm tending to fall into that line too; they weren't terrorists then.

But I do think they would have been labelled as such, and if a nation tried that sort of revolt today, even if they stuck to military targets, the fighters would be labelled as terrorists, even if they aren't doing acts of terror.

When American revolutionaries did wind up harming civilian property, alcohol had far more to do with it than pre-planned activities. Have you ever destroyed a street sign whilst drunk? Is that terrorism? Certainly not. It's roughly equivalent.

Well, it depends. Who's streetsign is it, and how exquisite was it?

Yeah, a drunken mob isn't a terrorist group, agreed. But a drunken mob who goes home, sobers up and plots against others, technically, is a terrorist organization.

Look at the Federal Government's official Definition of Terror.
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism[6]. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

"..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

(Unfortunately, I couldn't find the footnotes on this one, which apparently do matter.)

The Defense Department's,
"calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
*I think that one is extremely open-ended, don't you?

The Infamous Patriot Act
"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

And finally the National Counter-terrorism Center
The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) described a terrorist act as one which was: "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations
That one would have the American Revolutionaries nailed right there.

This is just a lame attempt to try and equivocate Hadj with the Founding fathers.

The FF were, are, and will always be a cut above an insurgent. They were Honourable, and GOOD men. Your Hadj militant? Hardly.

This is just a lame attempt to try and equivocate Hadj with the Founding fathers.

The FF were, are, and will always be a cut above an insurgent. They were Honourable, and GOOD men. Your Hadj militant? Hardly.

Please point out where I supported any Hadj militant groups sir, and I'll eat my shoes. I've got no support for any sort of militant groups. I'm just pointing out that by the common definition of terrorism today, our Founding Fathers might have ended up on a deck of cards.

This is just a lame attempt to try and equivocate Hadj with the Founding fathers.

The FF were, are, and will always be a cut above an insurgent. They were Honourable, and GOOD men. Your Hadj militant? Hardly.

Didn't England think that about our founding fathers at the time they rebelled?

Didn't England think that about our founding fathers at the time they rebelled?

They were Rebels, not terrorists.

And, might I add, the underdog won :p

They were Rebels, not terrorists.

And, might I add, the underdog won :p

The point is, Marksman, that rebels are technically terrorists. They target objectives to achieve a political change on a large scale, which is terrorism. Yes, its not as dirty and cheap as today's terrorists, but it is, nonetheless, terrorism.

And as I said earlier, those we call terrorists now may be looked upon as politicians 10 years from now.

And I wouldn't be gloating about the underdog. Look at who the underdog is now, and see whats happening.

Please point out where I supported any Hadj militant groups sir, and I'll eat my shoes. I've got no support for any sort of militant groups. I'm just pointing out that by the common definition of terrorism today, our Founding Fathers might have ended up on a deck of cards.

Perhaps I was a bit over the top. I apologize.

However, the Founding fathers had a just cause for fighting, and that they did AFTER they peacefully went to King George with a redress of Greivances. The king blew them off, and thus the colonies rebelled. There wasn't any massacres of civilians in England.

Perhaps I was a bit over the top. I apologize.

However, the Founding fathers had a just cause for fighting, and that they did AFTER they peacefully went to King George with a redress of Greivances. The king blew them off, and thus the colonies rebelled. There wasn't any massacres of civilians in England.

I'll agree with that; they did attempt diplomacy beforehand. However, look at the "no negotiations with terrorists," policy that the US has now. If we had a similar situation (overseas occuring with an entirely independant nation)*, those (with a just cause for fighting) would likely be blown off as terrorists, making them live to their label; they've got no other options if they can't speak their point.

Basically, whats happening is that today's terrorists are just bypassing stage 1. They may have a just cause somewhere, they're just fighting it wrong.**

*edit
**Thats some, not all. Some terrorists truly are that; terrorists, and deserve to be castrated and fed to agitated snakes.

The point is, Marksman, that rebels are technically terrorists. They target objectives to achieve a political change on a large scale, which is terrorism. Yes, its not as dirty and cheap as today's terrorists, but it is, nonetheless, terrorism.

And as I said earlier, those we call terrorists now may be looked upon as politicians 10 years from now.

And I wouldn't be gloating about the underdog. Look at who the underdog is now, and see whats happening.

Back then it wasn't terrorism. Today it would be an act of war.

The underdog? Depends on wat conflict that's going on/you are looking at.

I'll agree with that; they did attempt diplomacy beforehand. However, look at the "no negotiations with terrorists," policy that the US has now. If we had a similar situation (overseas occuring with an entirely independant nation)*, those (with a just cause for fighting) would likely be blown off as terrorists, making them live to their label; they've got no other options if they can't speak their point.

Basically, whats happening is that today's terrorists are just bypassing stage 1. They may have a just cause somewhere, they're just fighting it wrong.**

*edit
**Thats some, not all. Some terrorists truly are that; terrorists, and deserve to be castrated and fed to agitated snakes.

Peice by peice, 'cause snakes have tiny mouthes. Buzzards gotta eat to, same as worms.

You can never justify terrorism. Never. The founding fathers never resorted to terrorism, period, even by today's standard, and that would be an act of war, which they were willing to do because they so valued the freedoms which they had previously enjoyed as Subjects of the crown.

Armed rebellion can be justified.

Back then it wasn't terrorism. Today it would be an act of war.

The underdog? Depends on wat conflict that's going on/you are looking at.

You see, the "Act of War," and "Act of Terrorism," are incredibly blended. In today's acts of war, terrorism on some level is inevitable. There will always be innocent deaths, and thats widely considered terrorism, isn't?

The difference is that an artillery shell which kills 12 people is mostly blind; its been shot from over the horizon, while a suicide bomber who kills 12 people in a crowded room had to look at everyone.

And I'm looking at mostly the middle-east. Particularly Israel...I cannot decide who's the underdog there, though I'd pick Palestine. Thats an excellent example in and of itself there; those people are fighting for an independant nation free of Israeli control, and have resorted to terrorism. This is because they know they can't stand up to the Israeli military in the open, so they target the soft civilian targets instead. Weak? Definately. Effective? Marginal at best. But still they do it. Why? Because its all they really can do. Few are willing to negotiate and fewer are willing to give anything more than the West Bank and Gaza.

That brings me back to the FF's... their style (pre-open warfare) was scorned upon by the British as weak and dishonorable. But it was all they had.

Peice by peice, 'cause snakes have tiny mouthes. Buzzards gotta eat to, same as worms.

You can never justify terrorism. Never. The founding fathers never resorted to terrorism, period, even by today's standard, and that would be an act of war, which they were willing to do because they so valued the freedoms which they had previously enjoyed as Subjects of the crown.

Armed rebellion can be justified.

It can. But the form of armed rebellion has long since changed.

Unfortunately, thats another subject. I'm afraid I've got to get going.

Good discussion, maybe another one will come up sometime.

Were they terrorists? No, not according to my personal definition. But then, according to my definition neither was the attack on the USS Cole or the Marines in Lebanon.

Would they have been called terrorists? Definitely. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there were old documents calling exactly that.

The word "terrorist" is becoming so overused as to be "meaningless" :rolleyes:

No, they weren't terrorists. Generally speaking, terrorism is an act perpetrated upon civilian population with an intent to make an administration change its policies.

The closest act to 'terrorism' that the Revolutionaries committed was tar-and-feathering Loyalists, and seizing their property and finances to further the efforts of the Revolution. However, even the tar-and-feathering wouldn't really count as terrorism, since it was more of a lynch-style mob tactic than a concerted effort or official policy of the revolutionaries.

The term 'terrorist' is used to mean basically any non-traditional combatant in this day and age, and is not really the proper use of the term.

i'm not american so i do not care one bit.

We never apply the word "terrorist" to a victor, so no. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is simply which side of the fence you sit on.

I don't think the Founding Fathers can be classed as terrorists as their actions were generally solely against the British military.

However this question does lead to an interesting comparison with the actions currently being taken by the Hezbollah militia men. After all the revolutionaries stored weapons in civilian areas and their troops blended in with the civilian population when not fighting. I'm curious as to whether the people on this forum who so vigourously defend Israels actions at the the moment believe that the British forces should have been shelling the shit out of American civilians during the war of independance?