Hacker News Reader

Comment by josefresco | Hacker News Reader

Care to elaborate? ...not that it's relevant to this discussion.

The United States was founded by a group of revolutionaries attacking the British state.

We all know that, but did they engage in terrorism? It's a pretty specific definition, simple rebelling against any authority in any manor does not qualify one as a "terrorist".

> It's a pretty specific definition

Please elaborate. I have not heard this specific definition.

Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

I'm pretty certain American revolutionaries used violence and intimidation against British soldiers and British property in the pursuit of political aims.

Do you disagree?

"violence and intimidation against British soldiers"

Read that line again - I don't consider actions (leading to or during a full scale conflict) against opposing soldiers as terrorism in the "modern sense" of the word.

Yes war is terror, terrorizing and many invading armies throughout history have used "terror" as part of their strategy.

I feel as though we are drifting too far from useful discussion - I will disengage with respect.

The Boston tea party saw a government official burned with hot tar, then humiliated by being covered in feathers.

All while burning down a harbor.

I think you missed the part where, if you're fighting for, say the independence of Iraq from an invading force, you're likely to end up on a "terrorist" watch-list, even if you only ever used to fire artillery on invading soldiers.

I think he's trying to imply that the current definition of terrorist according to the us gov would put the founding fathers as a match based on what they did.

Weak assertion (IMHO) based on a heavy amount of snark.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com