Wouldn't many of the American fighters in the American revolution be considered terrorists in today's world?

Yes, as would the Israel Freedom fighters before the formation of Israel. History is full of such examples. Terrorism, freedom fighters, liberationists - these are all just historical perspectives on the idea that sometimes force is necessary to liberate a country. However, there is a difference in fighting within your country for its liberation, and attacking targets globally that do not relate to your struggle - the Trade center is an obvious example. That type of attack is simply evil, and cannot be supported in terms of the struggle for liberation. In that case, no country was being defended; no occupation of any kind was under way, and the people behind it were fighting for an ideology, not for a homeland.

i'm sorry, yet you're incorrect. The British considered the people who took area interior the revolution rebels no longer terrorists. very akin to the North noted helps of the Confederacy as rebels. fairly, many modern-day historians now communicate over with the yankee Revolution because of the fact the 2d British Civil conflict, drawing comparisons between the battling of the colonist for freedom against tyranny and the conflict between the British people and an autocratic monarchy in the process the 1640s and 1650s. besides, as yet another poster has already talked approximately, the term and prepare of "Terrorism" is a widespread theory that did no longer exist interior the latter have of the 18th Century. there is not any assessment between the war for freedom from authoritarianism that the yankee colonists persevered and the terrorist assaults on 9/11. besides, those Terrorists do no longer choose freedom for his or her people, their end purpose is worldwide theocratic authoritarian state, ensuing in no freedoms for everybody.

Wrong,,,,another fine example of typical liberal logic, not being able to see the difference between soldiers fighting for freedom, and terrorists (not insurgents) fighting against freedom.

A terrorist is someone who commits a crime to infect terror on society, who wears no uniform and carries no flag.

Officers, soldiers and civilians fighting for freedom, wearing military uniforms, and carrying a flag, cannot be considered terrorists, and only an America hating liberal would even try to compare the two.

They were trying to BREAK AWAY from said established government, and they weren't even thinking of overthrowing it.

And back then, practically every war on every side were using guerrilla tactics, not just the colonists. Especially England, sheesh they were BRUTAL. Just take a look at Sir Francis Drake!

Go learn some proper history.

I'm sure the British considered them to be terrorists. Although that word was not used at the time. I believe rebels would have been the correct British term.

Yes they would. They started a war over something other than self-defense and they played king of the mountain with their families on the hill.

It *does* seem somewhat silly to me that we praise our forefathers for bringing down a tyrannical government, and (at the same time) would be appalled if someone suggested the same thing now. Our tendency to question the status quo seems to have left us... due to ignorance or apathy or something else.

The start of our revolution started with high taxation to support englands wars over the pond The english military march to Concord to strike fear in the hearts of the yanks and shoot [the shoot heard around the world] a handful of yanks The citizens/ farmers were incensed By the time they returned to Boston there were over 300 dead

So the world power wants to tax one of their subject to support their empire building If they complain they shoot them

They get their butts handed to them so they call them terrorist

Only if they had lost