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.
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote