were George Washington and members of the continental army considered terrorist by the British?

Question

What's the difference between a terrorist, freedom fighter, and insurgent?

Answer 1

The term "terrorist" had not yet been coined at the time of the American Revolution.

The founding fathers and all the soldiers were, in fact, traitors. They took up arms against their legal, legitimate government.

Had they lost most certainly Washington and his important generals would have been hung for treason. This was, no doubt, a good incentive to fight hard and win.

As to your other question: Terrorists and freedom fighters are the same people. just viewed from different sides. For example,
when the US armed and financed Bin Laden against the Soviets in the 1980's he was a "freedom fighter." Now that he's decided he wants us gone as well, he suddenly becomes a "terrorist."

An insurgent is someone that is not technically a member of one of the warring factions, and comes from outside to join one side.

The govt and media are tricking you when they refer to "insurgents" in Iraq. They are not insurgents, as they are ordinary Iraqi citizens that are fighting to drive out an army that has invaded them.

Answer 2

A terrorist is a fighter who only intends to damage & not occupy land. It could be foreign or domestic. It could also be a freedom fighter or an insurgent, depending on which side you are on.

A freedom fighter is someone on your side who is revolting against a dictator or foreign power. It would be called either an insurgent or terrorist by that authority or power.

An insurgent is your enemy or an enemy against the established govt.in a civil war. For anyone not on your side, you might call it a terrorist. If it is on your side, it is called a freedom fighter.

Do you understand the difference now? Qiick note. These are not dictionary definitions, rather trying to describe what seem sto be common usage.

Oh, yes. GW. If they had used the word terrorist then, George certainly would have been called that. Do you know he actually broke the rules of engagement by refusing to stand his men in a straight line across an open field from a British force 20 times the size of his army? That damn rascal actually had the gall to ambush the British troops during the march or while they were sleeping instead! How bloody distasteful!

Answer 3

some could argue that the difference between a terrorist and a general, is the difference between winning and losing. If you lead your side to victory you are called a General, If you are on the losing side you are labelled a terrorist.

Personally I think that's bullshit.

When George Washington fought the British Army, he used Gorilla warfare - attacking British soldier he did not target civilians ( women and children) like the cowardly terrorists of today.

Answer 4

The difference between terrorist, freedom fighter, and insurgent is perspective... point of view. Simple as that.

Answer 5

No. George Washington and the continental army were not considered as terrorists by the british.
Terrorist - a group of individuals that carry deadly weapons and tactics for the purpose of harming innocents people. They are the individuals that feels so much fun, when they killed harmless people. They loved to spread fears among people.
Freedom Fighter - this group of individuals fights and love to kill only to those whom they believe that could be a hendrance for the success of their common goal. Usually, these inviduals called themselves as protector of the weak.
Insurgents - they are the one that has no direct purpose but only to give doubts to quarrelling parties. They are the one that makes sabotage inorder that the two quarrelling parties will highten their hatred.

Answer 6

No, do some studying on world history or are you just trying to foolishly make some idiotic point?

I believe that a "freedom fighter" would be a citizen of a country that is attempting to overthrow the existing government by waging violent acts against the military forces of that government. A state of declared war/purpose exists.

A terrorist would be a person that is either in the employ of a government/power monger (normally) or acting on their volition (not so much anymore) that wages violent attacks on a government whether military or civilian (usually) in order to cause as much death and destruction as possibly without a formal declaration of war.

An insurgent is a catch all name for rebel forces.

Just my understanding. A terrorist is some a**hole that murders women and children with no other purpose in mind that to create as much death and pain as possible.

Eat shi* and *ie if your one of their supporters.

Answer 7

They committed acts of high treason against their government and King George. They were not considered 'terrorists' as I don't believe the word existed, at least not in that form. A freedom fighter is one who fights, as they did, for freedom from tyranny. An insurgent doesn't necessarily have to fight for freedom, they just fight against the current government/ruler.

Answer 8

The Insurgents are Freedom Fighters, in the Spirit of 1776

This belief has its roots in the multicultural mindset that compels many Westerners to describe the actions of non-Westerners using the vocabulary of moral equivalence. Since Americans don’t kill for religious purposes or to satisfy the craving of a murderous minority that wants to reclaim autocratic power, it therefore follows that her enemy’s motives must be unrelated to these interests as well.

Disingenuousness is a critical ingredient for proponents of this position. They must remain intentionally naïve to the true motives of the terrorists, disregarding the call to Jihad, for example (which obviously inspires the suicide bombers) while drawing attention to the portion of insurgent propaganda that is designed to appeal to Western sensibilities.

The reality in Iraq is that the insurgents leaders are Islamic terrorists and elements of the old regime that are sheltered by small pockets of the Sunni community. They cynically use Islamic theology to inspire fellow Sunnis from outside Iraq to join the “Jihad.” Since the Sunnis benefited disproportionately under Saddam Hussein (at the expense of 80% of the Iraqi population) many are sympathetic to the true motives of the terror leaders, which is to reestablish the sort of tyrannical rule that worked to their narrow advantage in the past.

True political freedom in the form of democratic rule is obviously antithetical to the interests of this minority, so they employ the most barbaric tactics to undermine the constitution and thwart the people’s efforts to define their own government. They aren’t fighting for freedom, but rather for minority rule and subjugation. This makes them the polar opposite of the American Revolutionary.

There are true freedom fighters in Iraq, of course. They are the tens of thousands of police and Iraqi soldiers who take enormous risk each day to keep their democratic government in power. Unfortunately, their sacrifice doesn’t serve the political interests or the romantic needs of the critics, so the same sympathy is not extended to them as to their homicidal foes.

Answer 9

'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.'

Technically, a freedom fighter is someone who fights against a foreign occupation (or colonizer or empire). An insurgent is someone who fights against their own government (like the US rebels), and a terrorist is someone who targets civilians to achieve a political goal (like the Palestinian suicide bombers).

As to your question, Washington was an insurgent, as was the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Answer 10

Yes because they used non traditional covert war tactics to further their cause including "disguising" themselves as civilians and that sort of technically correct stuff. But in my seriously lame pedestrian knowledge of the subject, I kinda believe freedom fighters and terrorists are one and the same and I would love to hear what other people think. I also think that if GW lost his cause, he probably would have been hung in England instead of a hero.