Is Terrorism morally defensible?

Ever heard of Andrew Oliver or Thomas Hutchinson? How about The Gaspee? The patriots, The Sons of Liberty, weren't just about the tea party. They were legit terrorists.

I was speaking of terrorsim as where the civilians are the targets, like what's happening now. We and the french were attacking Military targets, so there is a difference.

Not military targets, not in the American Revolution, not at first. Most of our acts of terror were committed against Tax collectors, Stamp distributors, merchant vessels, and even the the Lieutenant Governor of Massachusettes. Not Soldiers.

Ah, I was thinking of our actual army. Yeah, The Son's of Liberty crossed the line several times. However, when you compare it to what happened in the French Revolution, it's not as bad. In the American, the worst that could happen really was you getting tarred and feathered, and losing your home. In the French Revolution, you would lose your head. I see what you're saying though.

Indeed, the French Revolution, though noble in intent, was fucked up. I'm pretty sure tarring and feathering, torching someones house while they are inside, and sinking and looting merchant vessels is considered terrorism. And let's face it, there wouldn't have been a revolution if not for SoL propaganda and exaggerated reports of British wrongdoings, and public excitement through open acts of terror. Indeed, most of the Founding Fathers were members of the organization. Actually, even that wouldn't have been enough had the french not helped. Generous estimates put the amount of contemporary supporters of the revolution at roughly a third of the population. But I could rant all day.

Though we had plenty of ammunition to throw at the british. They burned and shelled multiple towns and cities, that previously hadn't done anything remotely treasonous before the war had truly begun. It is true that the Sons of Liberty did blow several events out of proportion. However, the British inflicted a great deal of (if not most) the damage upon themselves with all the taxes, including trying to force us to buy East Indian tea, to hold up the sagging East India trade company, which would put a lot of american businesses out of the market. The King and Parliament just didn't understand the nature of the Revolution. I would say most Americans either didn't take sides, or supported the Revolution. I could be wrong though.

From what I know most Americans just stayed out of it.

True, most Americans were neutral, but the Revolutionary cause was far from the majority. I'm not trying to imply that more of them were loyalists, because that just isn't true, but in my opinion as a Libertarian, a revolution should only be successful if it contains the majority, and without external help. Which is why I have a beef with the American Revolution, because it simply shouldn't have, and wouldn't have been successful without help. And back to StephenColbert's original points, I firmly believe that these issues could have been settled without the Declaration of Independence. There were many supporters of American representation in parliament, well, in the parliament. It was mostly one party, the Tories I think, who supported the policy of virtual representation. Also, contrary to popular belief, Britain's modern democratic political system already existed at this time, and the king held little real power. The real leaders were the prime ministers, particularly Lord North. And yes, trade monopolies are bad, but that does not warrant terrorism, not in my eyes.

There were still a lot of Loyalists to that mainly left through New York. There were also the black loyalists that came here here to because they offered freedom and land in Canada to any slave that left the Americans and made it to New York. Then in the War of 1812 the descendants were our best fighters since they had a hatred of America that fueled them. Then even today towns where the black loyalists settled still burn American flags.

O rly?

Yes, but the loyalists were far in the minority.

Indeed. I think it was something like one-third patriot, one-fourth loyalist, and the rest neutral. It was just as much a civil war as a rebellion.

I agree with that. That's why our armies were so small compared to the amount of our population. Though, it's probably better our armies were that small, seeing our trouble supplying the troops we had then already.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

He's canadian. As in, loyal to the British. He's seeing the war from the other point of view. Not mine and your American view.

I'm going to ignore the insulting part of this post and just point out that it still makes no sense in the context of the quote I employed.

What?

He was saying that Washington, Adams and Jefferson are still recognized as traitors to the Commonwealth nations, and that Benedict Arnold is a hero to them.[/quote][/quote]

1) I dismissed your post because you insulted me and that you are not Observer.
2) You need to fix your post.

I'm sorry if I inadvertently insulted you, but I have no idea what you're talking about. And what a way to thank someone for clearing up a confusion for you. I don't need to deal with this.

To Americans they are considered heroes but to us they are traitors and terrorists. It shows how it's all matter of opinion.