Terror Can Be Noble

[BuckNaked]

Originally posted by dcentity2000


Not in your one dimensional interpretation of the word, no.

Primary entry for conviction:

"Entry:__
conviction

Function:__
noun

Definition:__
belief

Synonyms:__
confidence, creed, doctrine, dogma, eye, faith, feeling, judgment call, mind, opinion, persuasion, principle, reliance, say so, sentiment, slant, tenet, view"


So in the usual use of the word, there most certainly was and still is to this day. Should you wish to verify this, http://www.thesaurus.com is a good source. See if belief comes up before criminal sentence. Bet you $100 it does



Rich::

The definition you've quoted pertains to personal convictions, but I'm sure you already knew that.

If you choose to believe that a belief (otherwise known as a personal conviction) is the same as a legal conviction, as was alleged by VampHeartless, have at it. Doesn't make it right by any means, but you're free to stick with it.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Equating a bit of wartime intimidation from a bygone era with modern terrorism is just plain absurd IMO. One can just as easily say that Union troops in the Civil War were terrorists. They didn't "terrorize" civilians in either case.

I'm not sure what you would call "A bit of wartime intimidation." The rebellious Americans did terrorize their loyalist American neighbours. Those who remained loyal to the Crown were imprisoned without cause; their property was confiscated; some were tarred and feathered; others were ridden out of town on a cedar rail while others had massive quantities of tea forced down their throats; private property was seized and destroyed.

Tarring and feathering is nothing fun -- the tar is applied to the human skin while quite hot and feathers are then stuck on to the tar. The tar hardens and when it is removed it tears the skin and flesh away with it. Not something you would consider family entertainment.

Riding a person out of town on a rail involved tying the individual in a sitting position to a cedar rail which was carried to the edge of town with violent jerking motions. The resulting injury was often what we might refer to as "rupture."

If you think drinking tea is an enjoyable way to spend the afternoon -- imagine having gallons of it poured down your throat. Imagine trying to breath while this is happening. Imagine drowning.

These actions were not just aimed at military forces or representatives of the government, but at civilians. Thousands upon thousands of these civilians would later flee the "liberty" of tyranny in the United States and settle in the British provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and what would become Ontario. To suggest that what happened to them was "a bit of wartime intimidation" is an affront to their memory. They became refugees for what they believed in.

Why are the German allies (legal subjects of King George III) of the Crown Forces considered mercenaries when the French (without whom the rebellious Americans could not have won the war) were considered valued allies of the Americans?

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Originally posted by missypie
I wonder how people defined the term "terrorism" n the 1770s? I bet one reason the British thought of the revolutionary colonists as terrorists is because the colonists hid in the woods, etc. to shoot, instead of marching in a straight line toward the enemy as the British and other armies did at the time.

You display an amazing lack of understanding of the military tactics of the period and the history of the United States of America. It is a complete myth that Americans didn't use the line tactics and favoured hiding behind trees to shoot at the British.

While it is true that militia units (such as the ones who attacked the British at Lexington and Concord when the British were attempting to retrieve British weapons) did use the natural cover provided by the terrain to their advantage -- you must understand that the British were retreating and could only use the roads.

The light infantry tactics were also employed by the British to tremendous effect upon Americans and American units also employed line tactics in the great majority of battles they fought against the British forces.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by RoyalCanadian
These actions were not just aimed at military forces or representatives of the government, but at civilians. Thousands upon thousands of these civilians would later flee the "liberty" of tyranny in the United States and settle in the British provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and what would become Ontario. To suggest that what happened to them was "a bit of wartime intimidation" is an affront to their memory. They became refugees for what they believed in.

It may be a bit harsh to put it that way but it's probably right. Tarring and feathering and whatnot was probably handled by average citizens, not the army - we have a long history of mob vengeance against all kinds of innocent people.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

An interesting study of acts of terrorism sanctioned by the fledgling rebel government would be a look at the 1779 campaign of General Sullivan against the Iroquois Confederacy. It is an excellent example of a scorched earth policy carried out against a defined race because of their general allegiance to the British Crown.

After all, it was the Proclamation Line of 1763 which was one of the causes of the American Revolution. There were forces pushing for westward migration into the lands of the Iroquois Confederacy (ranging from New York in the north, all the way south into Georgia) despite the treaties established between the Iroquois and the British government that sought to protect the sovereign lands from illegal encroachment by American settlers and speculators.

 

[Teejay32]

For "scorched earth" policies one could also refer to King William's War of 1690, which is probably not as well publicized in Canada.

The war began by a series of Indian massacres instigated by Frontenac, the governor of Canada. The first of these was the destruction of Dover, New Hampshire, a town of fifty inhabitants. One night in July, 1689, two squaws came to the home of the aged Major Waldron and begged a night's lodging. Being admitted, they rose in the night and let in a large number of Indians who lay in ambush. Waldron was put to death with frightful tortures, the town was burned to the ground, about half the people were massacred, and the remainder were carried away and sold into slavery. In the following month Pemaquid, Maine, met a similar fate. In February, 1690, a body of French and Indians, sent by Frontenac, came to the town of Schenectady on the Mohawk. For nearly a month they had faced the wintry blasts, plowing their way through the deep snow on their mission of destruction. At midnight they fell with dreadful yells upon the sleeping village. In a few hours all was over; the town was laid in ashes. More than sixty were massacred, many were taken captive, a few escaped into the night and reached Albany. The towns of Casco and Salmon Falls soon after met a similar fate.

Again, why are we bothering with applying terrorist labels retroactively? It would apply to the whole foolish continent.