Was America founded on terrorism?

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
No, because genocide is not terrorism, neither is protest or armed struggle. Terrorism is the act of killing and maiming to have an effect on a larger group.

So in summary, some early Americans were guilty of genocide, protest and armed conflict, but not terrorism (from what I know).

Yeah, I agree with this. You can say we did bad things without mislabeling it as terrorism.

Although by the "definition" of terrosim that the media uses today, the British probably would have seen us as terrorists.

you mean like calling Iraqi freedom fighters "terrorist"

how are they any different than US Colonials launching guerilla attacks on british soldiers?

There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
No, because genocide is not terrorism, neither is protest or armed struggle. Terrorism is the act of killing and maiming to have an effect on a larger group.

So in summary, some early Americans were guilty of genocide, protest and armed conflict, but not terrorism (from what I know).

Yeah, I agree with this. You can say we did bad things without mislabeling it as terrorism.

Although by the "definition" of terrosim that the media uses today, the British probably would have seen us as terrorists.

you mean like calling Iraqi freedom fighters "terrorist"

how are they any different than US Colonials launching guerilla attacks on british soldiers?

Because they are targeting civilians?

 

[SagaLore]

America was founded on religous freedom of worshipping the Christian God, regardless of denomination. Nothing about total freedom, tolerance, or acceptance.

The diseases that were carried over was not intentional, they had never been to a new and previously isolated country before.

The discovery of America was due to the desire of gold. Ironically, the founding of our early American culture was due to the opposition of excessive taxation. Then once more, the migration across the country was due to the greed for gold.

I think the greatest attribute of the peaceful native american tribes was also their demise. They refused to claim land as their own. By living with nature rather than exploiting it, their populations stayed small, and they rarely had to deal with the economic issues that typically force humans into inventing better language, math, engineering, etc. which inevitably influences changes in culture, art, perspective, etc.

I wish I had a time machine that could go into a parallel universe where I could visit my tribe 1000 years before the first European settlers. I would establish a permanent city with a university, outer walls and towers for protection from other tribes. I would preserve the respect for nature while creating a generation of advanced engineers and scientists. In 1000 years, they would visit Europe first, and protect their sovereignty.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
No, because genocide is not terrorism, neither is protest or armed struggle. Terrorism is the act of killing and maiming to have an effect on a larger group.

So in summary, some early Americans were guilty of genocide, protest and armed conflict, but not terrorism (from what I know).

Yeah, I agree with this. You can say we did bad things without mislabeling it as terrorism.

Although by the "definition" of terrosim that the media uses today, the British probably would have seen us as terrorists.

you mean like calling Iraqi freedom fighters "terrorist"

how are they any different than US Colonials launching guerilla attacks on british soldiers?

There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

Not "freedom fighters" as we would define it now, but not unlike our original minutemen, in that they are fighting for a cause they see as just.

In Vietnam, their just cause was getting colonial powers out of their country, our just cause was fighting communism. The problem with our cause was, what we substituted for communism wasn't any better than communism, so maybe it wasn't actually a just cause.

It's pretty hard to say what the truth is in Iraq, only time will reveal what is happening, which is one reason why it's hard to say if us being there is helping or hurting Iraq.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents in Iraq are in fact Iraqis.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
'4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-06-iraq-border_x.htm
Only 3.5% of the 13,885 detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq are foreigners, but they are often behind the deadliest suicide bombings

Most insurgents in Iraq are fighting to oust the foreign conquerers.

 

[Atomicus]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
The people who scalped people were terrorists.

Wow! I think it is time to shut up. :roll:

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents in Iraq are in fact Iraqis.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
'4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-06-iraq-border_x.htm
Only 3.5% of the 13,885 detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq are foreigners, but they are often behind the deadliest suicide bombings

Most insurgents in Iraq are fighting to oust the foreign conquerers.

Actually, they are either Sunni's who are trying to get back the power that they lost when Saddam was ousted or they are Iranian backed Shiites like Al-Sadr who want a religious state. The Kurds have probably been the best at working to form a new Iraq.

Iraq was one of Winston Churchill's greatest mistakes.

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
:thumbsdown:
Terrorism is just killing for killings sake. It serves no particular purpose. So no.

???
Terrorism is violence against innocents to achieve a political goal.

No its not.

Care to elaborate?
It's about instilling fear in a populance. Do what we say and the fear/violence goes away. How is not?

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


If you're going to argue the meaning of the word isn't it just easier to look it up? 😉

By definition, I'd be comfortable saying that anything up until the point where the constitution was written could be considered terrorism. After the constitution, America became a nation and defending that nation from the Brittish was no longer "unlawful"

I also think it's important to mention that just because the word "terrorism" is a very negative term in society, doesn't mean it should be viewed in a negative light. Destroying hundreds of crates of tea over outrageous taxes is not the same as flying planes into buildings and killing thousands with seemingly no purpose.

The WTC disaster was a symbolic strike against capitalism. That's the perceived evil for the individuals involved, just as those involved in the Boston Tea Party held taxes and British rule as the perceived evil.

In a time when individual civilian lives were much less valued, but trade with one's colonies were comparatively integral, the Boston Tea Party went a long way in instilling fear in British society, which was the desired effect. That's terrorism, plain and simple.

Bullsh!t! The only thing that was injured in the Boston Tea Party was British pride and 3 cargo ship loads of tea. I bet the average Englishman reading about it a month after the event happened did nothing more than mutter about bloody cheeky colonials.

Simply false. Although the Boston Tea Party itself was relatively peaceful, it certainly was the beginning of numerous terrorist attacks, many violent, that, in part, were commited to incite a general fear in British society. It was a simple attempt to quell any public support for a war in the colonies, and it did a great job.

I suppose all the violence that followed in Massachusetts wasn't terrorism either? If you're looking for modern-era suicide bombings you obviously won't find them, but guerilla attacks on British troops throughout MA were the 18th Century equivalent.

That this is even a point of debate surprises me, but I guess the victor really does write history.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents in Iraq are in fact Iraqis.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
'4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-06-iraq-border_x.htm
Only 3.5% of the 13,885 detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq are foreigners, but they are often behind the deadliest suicide bombings

Most insurgents in Iraq are fighting to oust the foreign conquerers.

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents are foreigners trying to fight America and keep the fledgling democracy destabilized. Most Iraqis support America and know they would be dead meat if we left.

 

[deepred98]

only difference between patriots and terrorists is that the patriots eventually won

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Simply false. Although the Boston Tea Party itself was relatively peaceful, it certainly was the beginning of numerous terrorist attacks, many violent, that, in part, were commited to incite a general fear in British society. It was a simple attempt to quell any public support for a war in the colonies, and it did a great job.

I suppose all the violence that followed in Massachusetts wasn't terrorism either? If you're looking for modern-era suicide bombings you obviously won't find them, but guerilla attacks on British troops throughout MA were the 18th Century equivalent.

That this is even a point of debate surprises me, but I guess the victor really does write history.

It's not an issue of who gets to write history, it's an issue of what is considered acceptable. People have a hard time equating the tactics used back then to terrorism now, because the tactics used back then are acceptable now. But they weren't back then. The way we conducted the war was "uncivilized" by the standards of the day, as is typical when a weak force opposes a much stronger force.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents in Iraq are in fact Iraqis.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
'4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-06-iraq-border_x.htm
Only 3.5% of the 13,885 detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq are foreigners, but they are often behind the deadliest suicide bombings

Most insurgents in Iraq are fighting to oust the foreign conquerers.

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents are foreigners trying to fight America and keep the fledgling democracy destabilized. Most Iraqis support America and know they would be dead meat if we left.

One can only hope this is sarcasm. If not, it's another reason to weep for the future.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents in Iraq are in fact Iraqis.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
'4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-06-iraq-border_x.htm
Only 3.5% of the 13,885 detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq are foreigners, but they are often behind the deadliest suicide bombings

Most insurgents in Iraq are fighting to oust the foreign conquerers.

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents are foreigners trying to fight America and keep the fledgling democracy destabilized. Most Iraqis support America and know they would be dead meat if we left.

.............:thumbsup:

 

[HardcoreRobot]

war does not have to be terrorism

a lot of the indians died due to disease, which was sorta accidental (except when we intentionally infected)

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Americans delivering death and destruction: not terror but in fact for everyone's own good... like tough love. Awww aren't we sweet?
Anyone delivering death upon Americans: how dare those terrorist/communist scumbags. don't they know who they are messing with?

Our CIA's covert actions, over the last 50 years, in Central & South America alone, certainly qaulified as 'terrorism' by any definition. Only we mostly equipped, funded and trained others to do it for us.
That way we can maintain plausible deniability and the good old American 'who, us?' pretense.

Terror is terror. If we don't recognize and admit our own terrors we've perpetrated how in the hell can we have the moral authority to be the world judge on what is and isn't 'terrorism'?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents in Iraq are in fact Iraqis.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
'4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-06-iraq-border_x.htm
Only 3.5% of the 13,885 detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq are foreigners, but they are often behind the deadliest suicide bombings

Most insurgents in Iraq are fighting to oust the foreign conquerers.

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents are foreigners trying to fight America and keep the fledgling democracy destabilized. Most Iraqis support America and know they would be dead meat if we left.

Even when someone beats you over the head with the facts you still spout the same drivel. And "most Iraqi's support America"? Good to the see the propaganda machine is still working on some people.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
There is no such thing as Iraqi "freedom fighters". They are almost exsclusively jihadists from surrouding countries, especially: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. You portrayal suggests that Iraqis are fighting for the return of dictatorship, when the majority want peace and complete the formation of their new democracy. Sure religious and civil strife persists due to the evil hand of jihadists.

edit: Ill bet you thought that the North Vietnamese forces were "freedom fighters" too! :roll:

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents in Iraq are in fact Iraqis.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
'4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-11-06-iraq-border_x.htm
Only 3.5% of the 13,885 detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq are foreigners, but they are often behind the deadliest suicide bombings

Most insurgents in Iraq are fighting to oust the foreign conquerers.

Wrong wrong wrong. Most insurgents are foreigners trying to fight America and keep the fledgling democracy destabilized. Most Iraqis support America and know they would be dead meat if we left.

Even when someone beats you over the head with the facts you still spout the same drivel. And "most Iraqi's support America"? Good to the see the propaganda machine is still working on some people.

I agree with the news sources including generals on the ground who are espousing the opinions I have mentioned. Some guy cites USA Today and you think they have presented all "the facts". But they arent true. You can agree or disagree with me or them, but they have by no means spoken the final word or even given an acurate report. You take their word as gospel and thats your mistake.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
:thumbsdown:
Terrorism is just killing for killings sake. It serves no particular purpose. So no.

???
Terrorism is violence against innocents to achieve a political goal.

No its not.

Care to elaborate?
It's about instilling fear in a populance. Do what we say and the fear/violence goes away. How is not?

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


If you're going to argue the meaning of the word isn't it just easier to look it up? 😉

By definition, I'd be comfortable saying that anything up until the point where the constitution was written could be considered terrorism. After the constitution, America became a nation and defending that nation from the Brittish was no longer "unlawful"

I also think it's important to mention that just because the word "terrorism" is a very negative term in society, doesn't mean it should be viewed in a negative light. Destroying hundreds of crates of tea over outrageous taxes is not the same as flying planes into buildings and killing thousands with seemingly no purpose.

The WTC disaster was a symbolic strike against capitalism. That's the perceived evil for the individuals involved, just as those involved in the Boston Tea Party held taxes and British rule as the perceived evil.

In a time when individual civilian lives were much less valued, but trade with one's colonies were comparatively integral, the Boston Tea Party went a long way in instilling fear in British society, which was the desired effect. That's terrorism, plain and simple.

Bullsh!t! The only thing that was injured in the Boston Tea Party was British pride and 3 cargo ship loads of tea. I bet the average Englishman reading about it a month after the event happened did nothing more than mutter about bloody cheeky colonials.

Simply false. Although the Boston Tea Party itself was relatively peaceful, it certainly was the beginning of numerous terrorist attacks, many violent, that, in part, were commited to incite a general fear in British society. It was a simple attempt to quell any public support for a war in the colonies, and it did a great job.

I suppose all the violence that followed in Massachusetts wasn't terrorism either? If you're looking for modern-era suicide bombings you obviously won't find them, but guerilla attacks on British troops throughout MA were the 18th Century equivalent.

That this is even a point of debate surprises me, but I guess the victor really does write history.

Please educate all of us by listing the "terrorist attacks" that preceded the start of the full scale revolt on April 19, 1775?

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: raildogg
When you consider when the first Europeans came here and had encounters with the Native Americans. And when the Puritans came here to purify the land for Christianity. Their interaction with the Natives was peaceful at first, mainly due to self interest on both sides. But the disease they carried killed much of the Native American population and then as greed took over, the British basically killed off much of the population of the local tribes. They did this so they could support their increasing populations. This is simplified due to space and time constraints.

People often say that America was founded on freedom, tolerance and acceptance. To me, that is true, but for the white man. Where was the freedom and tolerance for the Native Americans and slaves later on? Is that not terrorism?

Gross oversimplification to say the least.

1. First Europeans were Spaniards/Italians, they certainly saw fit to rule the Americas...
2. Puritans came here to flee from religious persecution, not to "purify the land for Christianity"
3. British weren't the only ones, Dutch, French, and to a limited extent German/Irish/Scandinavian peoples were all part of the mix
4. As always with people, there were some who respected the Natives, and there were some who wanted to wipe them out - not all acted against them
5. Example: the French - for the most part they lived amongst the Native American tribes/co-existed relatively peacefully compared to the English

Genocide != terrorism

Sure, wiping out the Native Americans was genocide, and it's bloody wrong, but that's not terrorism. Lynching slaves would be terrorism. Burning abolitionist's houses would be terrorism. War/genocide is not terrorism, but a whole different beast. The subjugation of other human beings is also it's own sin.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I agree with the news sources including generals on the ground who are espousing the opinions I have.... You take their word as gospel and thats your mistake.

Pot. Kettle.

He shouldn't take his sources as gospel he should take your sources as gospel as you do eh? 😀

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
:thumbsdown:
Terrorism is just killing for killings sake. It serves no particular purpose. So no.

???
Terrorism is violence against innocents to achieve a political goal.

No its not.

Care to elaborate?
It's about instilling fear in a populance. Do what we say and the fear/violence goes away. How is not?

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


If you're going to argue the meaning of the word isn't it just easier to look it up? 😉

By definition, I'd be comfortable saying that anything up until the point where the constitution was written could be considered terrorism. After the constitution, America became a nation and defending that nation from the Brittish was no longer "unlawful"

I also think it's important to mention that just because the word "terrorism" is a very negative term in society, doesn't mean it should be viewed in a negative light. Destroying hundreds of crates of tea over outrageous taxes is not the same as flying planes into buildings and killing thousands with seemingly no purpose.

The WTC disaster was a symbolic strike against capitalism. That's the perceived evil for the individuals involved, just as those involved in the Boston Tea Party held taxes and British rule as the perceived evil.

In a time when individual civilian lives were much less valued, but trade with one's colonies were comparatively integral, the Boston Tea Party went a long way in instilling fear in British society, which was the desired effect. That's terrorism, plain and simple.

Bullsh!t! The only thing that was injured in the Boston Tea Party was British pride and 3 cargo ship loads of tea. I bet the average Englishman reading about it a month after the event happened did nothing more than mutter about bloody cheeky colonials.

Simply false. Although the Boston Tea Party itself was relatively peaceful, it certainly was the beginning of numerous terrorist attacks, many violent, that, in part, were commited to incite a general fear in British society. It was a simple attempt to quell any public support for a war in the colonies, and it did a great job.

I suppose all the violence that followed in Massachusetts wasn't terrorism either? If you're looking for modern-era suicide bombings you obviously won't find them, but guerilla attacks on British troops throughout MA were the 18th Century equivalent.

That this is even a point of debate surprises me, but I guess the victor really does write history.

Please educate all of us by listing the "terrorist attacks" that preceded the start of the full scale revolt on April 19, 1775?

Although this argument is pointless, as it's clear you're a jingoistic, close-minded "patriot," I'll play along anyway.

Don't be foolish. How can you consider the "revolutionary" activity throughout MA in 1774-1775 to be anything but terrorism? It was clearly designed to incite fear in the British and force them out of the colony, and it succeeded with the exception of Boston.

In addition, to use the date you mentioned, Lexington and Concord were hardly "battles." At best they were insurgency, at worst terrorism.

The parallels to modern-day Iraq are quite astounding. History does have a way of repeating itself.

 

[thebigdude]

terrorism = randomly killing inoccent civilians
revolution = does not

That being said I don't think that the Revolutionary War was a terrorist act. For the most part the colonists attacked military targets.

That is the reason they were not terrorists. They didn't go to the local markets and start shooting random people.

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: thebigdude
terrorism = randomly killing inoccent civilians
revolution = does not

That being said I don't think that the Revolutionary War was a terrorist act. For the most part the colonists attacked military targets.

That is the reason they were not terrorists. They didn't go to the local markets and start shooting random people.

That's a completely incorrect definition of terrorism. Very GWB, though. Not only does terrorism not require killing, it also doesn't have to involve civilians.

Terrorism involves using illegal force or threatening force with the purpose of inciting fear or intimidation for a purpose, which could be political, religious, personal, etc.

The colonists' activities against the British in the 1770s were certainly illegal. Again, if you believe otherwise, it's a situation of the victors writing history. They also certainly involved force or the threat of force in an attempt to intimidate the small British military contingency in the colonies to leave (specifically MA in the beginning). It was terrorism that resulted in war.

You can debate whether the Revolution was good or bad all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it was rooted in terrorism and insurgency. The war that followed and the Treaty of Paris simply legitimized it in this case.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Remember, also, that American revolutionaries often 'terrorized' suspected collaborators.
Admittedly there were very few executions... mostly beatings, and similar attacks, some rapes and assets seized and sold or destroyed.

 

[steelio]

Your original question dealt with the colonization of the North America. That includes the atrocities of Native Mexico, Canada, and USA. They (british, dutch, spainish, etc.) all did it. And those happend many years before the US was founded.
And I would say it falls under coloization or conquering.
Now how the patriotist got rid of the British was borderline Terrorism, but (BUT) they were revolutionist fighting for freedom, liberty, and rights. Modern terrisom does not follow these guidelines.
Now with that said over in Iraq some of the fighting is for a revolution, but I would say a great majority is to just kill mame or hurt Americans or anyone else.