loyalists and about the same number supported the continental
congress, the other third just tried to stay out of way of both sides.
>From what I've rad about the time, while there were some incidents on
the other side (notably in New Jersey where one Loyalist unit was as
nasty as the patriots), by and large the ethnic cleansing was done
mostly by the patiots. The terrorism was such an integral part of the
revolutionary war that I simply cannot see how it could have been any
different. The first incident was a terrorist act - sniper shooting at
crowd control troops in boston, as was the last act - the lynching of
a loyalist family that was preparing to leave for Britian.
larry
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:32:35 -0500, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is very true, and I think some parrellels can be drawn between these occurrences, and what is going on in Iraq. Insurgents are killing Iraqi citizens who are aiding the Americans. This seems awfully similar to early US patriots terrorizing loyalists.
>
> If your cause is the correct one, then terrorism should not be necessary to achieve your goals. To that end, i believe a US revolution would of occurred without said acts of terrorism, whereas an "Iraqi insurgency" would all but cease to exist without these acts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry C. Lyons
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Definition of terrorism(WAS The politicization of the Iraq War
>
> At the same time however, the so called patiots saw nothing wrong with
> burning the homes of loyalists and effectively running ethnic
> cleansing campaign against them. For instance one North Carolina
> county make any loyalist resident liable for any robberies, thefts etc
> that occured in the county. And George Washington praised the county
> for doing so.
>
> larry
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
