Whas george washington a british traitor and terroist?

Question

Geogre washington was a british subject when he went to war against britian so was he a traitor Also in this day of any groups which fight against a country being called terroists was he also a terroist

Answer 1

A good example of 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. But today we have refined the idea. Muslims are 'terrorists', and anybody else is a 'freedom fighter'.
I wonder what the American Indians thought of the whites invading their land? 'Terrorists'?

Answer 2

From the British perspective, Washington was clearly a seditionist, a terrorist, and a traitor. From the American perspective, he is a great war hero and the father of the nation. Perspective can powerfully determine how events and people are understood; and it is the rigidly held perspective with no consideration for other points of view that is most often the greatest obstacle to peace in any conflict.

Answer 3

The winners write the history books usually. Washington was such a great man and general that the English, if they had won, would have called him a nobleadversary since the English love to be noble in sentiment.

BTW, a friend of mine said she hates being called British so I say English.

Answer 4

A terrorist in its derrogative term means one who engages in terrorism, a broad and controversial category of acts, usually involving the use of fear tactics against a population.

Terrorism on the other hand refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence targeted against innocents or non-combatants to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands.

On the subject, no to the terrorist side your implimenting, and no, he isn't a traitor, he was born in Virginia, nd fought in two wars(the French and Indian war which lasted from 1754-1763, and the American Revolutionary War, 1775–1783)

Answer 5

Such a question is irrelevant. We should not be living in the past---we should look at history only to teach us best practices, not to set precedents, because no two situations are alike. As to your question, think of how irrelevant it is to compare Washington to the evil muslims who are killing innocent Jews. I know this will not change your mind because your mind is closed, but think:

--Washington did not write a charter that mandated the death of nation. Radical muslims have.

--Washington started out peacefully protesting the Tea Tax. When --British moved in with force, he defended first his plantation, then was chosen as the leader of the revolution.

--Washington did not hide behind women and children like thse evil muslims. They are cowards.

--Washington faught face to face, in a conventional war. He did nto whine like Hezbollah and Hamas pigs.

Read history and understand it, and you will see that what USA and Israel are doing is sheltering our children from slavery of radical Islamists.

Answer 6

Traitor to Brittain, yes. He fought against the government. Terrorist, no. He did not battle civilians as a means to change policy.

Answer 7

ndmac mentions the 'wanking brits' (no capitalisation). Does he realise that it if it had not been for the 'wanking brits' what is now the USA would have been a French colony?

How funny would that be?? Just look to your northern border. By the way, as us wanking brits are better at geography than you, I'd better point out that your northern border is Canada.

Answer 8

What is a terroist? Is that like an illiterate tarot card reader?

TFTP

Answer 9

he was a traitor against england, but not a terrorist.... the terrorists of today aren't trying to free their land from tyranny, it's all religious. so no comparison can be made

Answer 10

Yes, he was and thus, he is a hero. Because he led the rebellion against those wanking Brits.