What Am I Missing? - Israel and Hamas (Palestinians)

[Bailey Guns]

I completely disagree with any attempt to portray British sentiments toward the Colonial fighters as terrorists. At least in the same sense as we use the word today.

Traitors or rebels is far more accurate. Were there incidents where the Colonials targeted non-combatants? Yeah, I think so.

But to say they used the same tactics as what we refer to as terrorists today shows a complete misunderstanding of either history, the English language or both.

On almost any occasion when the Colonial fighters engaged against inappropriate targets they were rebuffed, sometimes severely, by the leadership at the time.

As an example here's an excerpt from a recent Ann Coulter column (she explains it clearly and accurately) where she outlines some of the differences between the OWS nutjobs and true patriots. It applies to this as well:

(Paul) Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse -- say, voting -- were unavailable.

Our revolution -- the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 -- was not the act of a mob.

As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.

George Washington disapproved of the destruction of the tea. Benjamin Franklin demanded that the India Tea Co. be reimbursed for it. Considered an embarrassment by many of our founding fathers, the Boston Tea Party was not celebrated for another 50 years.

It would be three long years after the Boston Tea Party when our founding fathers engaged in their truly revolutionary act: The signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Modern-day terrorists (especially those of the radical Islamist persuasion) are not at all like our Founding Fathers.

[Byte Stryke]

I completely disagree with any attempt to portray British sentiments toward the Colonial fighters as terrorists. At least in the same sense as we use the word today.

Traitors or rebels is far more accurate. Were there incidents where the Colonials targeted non-combatants? Yeah, I think so.

But to say they used the same tactics as what we refer to as terrorists today shows a complete misunderstanding of either history, the English language or both.

On almost any occasion when the Colonial fighters engaged against inappropriate targets they were rebuffed, sometimes severely, by the leadership at the time.

As an example here's an excerpt from a recent Ann Coulter column (she explains it clearly and accurately) where she outlines some of the differences between the OWS nutjobs and true patriots. It applies to this as well:Modern-day terrorists (especially those of the radical Islamist persuasion) are not at all like our Founding Fathers.

a fine a narrow view of some very select events...

and what of the raids on England itself??