&heellip; First Michael Moore brought you the idea that the terrorists in Iraq were equivalent to America’s revolutionary minutemen. Then NBC News anchor Brian Williams quipped that the terrorists weren’t all that different, from the British perspective, than our founding fathers. &heellip;

Wow talk about missing the point.

Your comparison of todays terrorists and our founding fathers was very accurate however, you missed the point by a mile.

And that point was that at the time and by the stanards of that time the british may have considered our founders terrorists. Even though I would find it hard to believe that they would have used the term terrorists, the concept is totally realistic.

It is a well known fact that they found our methods of combat to be less than honorable, hiding behind cover and ambushing rather than straight on confrontation.

Interesting question. I can remember as a younger man being worked up because Menachem Begin was one of the King David bombers in pre-Israel Palastine. It didn’t seem right that a terrorist…and that was a terrorist act if ever there was one…should rise to the position of Prime Minister in a nation under siege from terrorists daily. One would have to research the history of the American Revolution to see who did what to whom but I suspect that Richard’s point demonstrates the difficulties in comparing across eras.

That said…I’d still be ticked if it turns out that an Iranian kidnapper has become a nation’s leader but what are you going to do? Extradite a foreign President?

I gain more respect for you each time you type a comment Carrick! No small measure of a man is his capacity for reason!

We don’t always agree, but you’re rational, thoughtful, unafraid to admit when you’re ignorant or wrong, and determined to thoughtfully discuss an issue!

I aspire to live these same attributes.

Cheers!

Don Myers resorts to the tactics of the left:

lik and seth are like Bizarro World version of the Incredible Hulk–the less-informed they are, the angrier they get.

I didn’t see anything out of line with Seth’s comments. As far as I can tell, he ran over your initial argument with a steam roller. Naturally, being a well trained leftie and having nothing left to argue, you respond with a personal attack.

Here are some facts. Let’s see if you can dispute them instead of resorting to personal insults:

1) The word insurgent indicates a citizen of a country who rises up in armed opposition to the established government of that country (which may be foreign imposed) using unconventional means.
2) A rebel is a citizen of a country who arises up in armed opposition using conventional means. Normally this indicate the organization of the rebels into an army, including the use of a recognizable uniform, the acceptance of the rule of law in the treatment of prisoners, etc.
3) A terrorist is a person who resorts to the use or threat of terror, including but not limited to the infliction of injury or death, in order to achieve political ends.

The American revolutionaries were certainly organized into well-defined armies that fought set battles against the British Army. It is irrelevant that they chose to fight on their own terms instead of using European “set-piece” battle formations.

It is well established that the enemy combatants in Iraq are principally foreigners. Being foreigners, they can hardly be classified as either “rebels” or “insurgents”. Since they undeniably use terror as their principal means of achieving political ends, “terrorists” certainly does apply.

This may be an incendiary to Don, but so what? It is the terrorists themselves, who have given terrorism such a bad name. Do you see any other military combatants who regularly target women and children, or behead non-military captives as an act of intimidation? This is the price you pay for resorting to such extreme tactics.

Finally, it is true that the British used many derogatory and inflammatory terms to describe the rebel movement. Again, so what? Just because the British were pissed at the American revolutionaries and called them bad names, doesn’t magically turn the Iraqi enemy combatants into revolutionaries, or make these terrorists brutal tactics suddenly sublime and beautiful to behold.

The left is in really sorry shape when it starts justifying the brutal tactics of these murderous thugs and terrorists brutalizing the innocent citizens of Iraq.

I still can’t fathom the comparison. Nor the great lack of understanding of the military history of the revolutionary period.

Some portions of the US military used Guerrilla tactics. But those tactics had been used by the British/Colonists during the French-Indian war. The British fully utilized the Indians for their tactics, which could be called terroristic, against the French. And they used the Indians for these same tactics against the colonists during the revolution. The British thought the Guerrilla tactics that the colonists to be so effective that they then used them in the Napoleonic war. The combatants were called skirmishers and they revolutionized warfare for the British. (You can find histories on the 95th rifles which proves this point completely.)

The vast majority of military clashes between the colonists and the British regulars was between uniformed regulars/militia. Don’t forget how poorly the revolution went in battles for the colonists. There were only a couple very important battles, and the french involvement that allowed the revolution to end successively.

Just because the colonists sometimes used non-conventional methods does not mean that the colonists were considered terrorists by the British. They were called ‘rebels,’ which was appropriate. In fact there was much sympathy in England for the colonists. More so than there is sympathy for terrorists in Iraq. There was no butchering of citizens, though the treatment of the tories in the colonies were poor at times, there still was nothing so brutal as beheadings or suicidal bombing.

Seth says:

All of this is apparent in the “Federalist Papers”… perhaps you should read it.

Embarrasingly, I haven’t read it, but will. Here is an on line version. I particularly like this quote, from No. 64,

IT IS a just and not a new observation, that enemies to particular persons, and opponents to particular measures, seldom confine their censures to such things only in either as are worthy of blame.

King Don,

We wanted them called Terrorists, because that’s what they are. Insurgents are people who are rising up against the government of THIER country. The terrorists in Iraq are, for the most part, foreigners. They have come to Iraq to instill terror upon the people of Iraq in an attempt to make them cave in and return to theocratic rule of fear and hate. You, of all people, should be supporting their efforts and call a spade a spade… terrorist a terrorist.

The US Revolutionary army, while employing guerilla tactics, and buring ships and stocks, did not target civilians for attack. They did not use the threat and act of beheading innocents for political gain. They did not relish the demise of life in the pursuit of freedom from governmental rule. All of this is apparent in the “Federalist Papers”… perhaps you should read it.

I see where those “founding fathers” in Iraq killed 32 children in a bomb blast as US troops were handing out candy:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/#112130259278013521

Can you see George Washington doing the same?

WOOF: Suicide attacks are a small part of the insurgency.
Unless you count civilian deaths of course.

How you tell where someone is from after they have blown themselves
and everyone around them must be an interesting process. In most cases, the identity of the person who “martyrs” himself is known, either by materials recovered at the site, or by identification of the individual via one of the terrorist groups. In many cases, you can track down stories of “martyrdom” on the Web (see e.g., this article) In Saudi Arabia, Syria and other Muslim countries there is prestige associated with martyrdom for the family of the martyr, so these people generally don’t hide their identity.

Suicide attacks are a small part of the insurgency.
How you tell where someone is from after they have blown themselves
and everyone around them must be an interesting process.

In our last assault on Fallujah , the Marine general reported 1000
insurgents killed , 10 being foreigners.

Brian Williams thinks a comparison between our founding fathers and terrorists is fair. What do you think? Via Wizbang and Ankle Biting Pundits. [IMG]