Why were American slave masters called hero's and Iraqi's are being called insurgents & terroist?

Question

During the American Revolution, the Americans expelled the British forces by using "unconventional" tactics and militia forces. The same can be said about the Iraqis that are fighting against the occupation of US forces in Iraq, but they are called terroist, insurgents and evildoers.

Answer 1

Did you actually give your question any thought at all before you posted it?

Answer 2

These unconventional tactics were fighting techniques used against soldiers not civilians and were taught by Native Americans like hiding behind trees to avoid being killed and to wound rather than kill your enemy if you kill one they lose one if you injure one you take out 5
Maybe you should study your history a little more and stay away from move on dot org

NEXT to compare out revolution to the Iraqi insurgents is idiotic and offensive. You show nothing but hatred for your country and ignorance on your part there is not occupation we are there because we are asked to be It is clear policy that if their freely elected government asked us to leave we will pull out. The way I see it is you are either a Al Quidea sympathizer or a far left democrat (same thing) You as well as anyone else know the insurgents are not from Iraq but from Syria and Iran as well as other countries know to harbor terrorist. Why don't you go sign up for their army to try and defeat us? or are you a coward who can only sit and whine

Answer 3

AT THAT TIME the British were as the insurgents. They came from another country to fight just like the insurgents. They fought against the Americans. Now the Americans are fighting FOR the Iraqis against the insurgents. Same thing in a different time and a different country.

Answer 4

First, not all Americans were slave owners. Slave were expensive and only the rich could afford them.

Second, you need to compare the tactics used by the American colonists to those of the Iraqi insurgents.

Warfare during the time of the American Revolution consisted of the two sides lining up in ranks across a field and firing volleys at each other then charging with bayonets. The unconventional tactics used by the American militias consisted of hit and run attacks, snipers, fighting from within forests and cover and ambushes of military forces. Basically, what is considered conventional fighting today.

The Iraqi insurgents are killing indiscriminately. They don't care if they kill civilians and often target civilians. They use terror tactics, such as torture and beheadings of civilians. They use bombs against both civilian and military targets. They strap bombs on to children.

You mention the militias of the American Revolution (MAR) and the Iraqi militias (IM).

The MAR were citizen solders raised by the individual colonies because they colonies did not have armies. They rose up to fight a common enemy who was oppressing them.

The IM are citizens who have armed themselves to support a person or group vaying for power. The are fighting more among themselves than they are resisting the U.S. The U.S. is not trying to oppress the Iraqi people. The IM groups are oppressing the people they consider different or undesirable. This can be seen in the Sunni and Shiite militias forcing people of other sects out of neighborhoods to make single sect only neighborhoods. They are forcing people out by threat of violence and murder. This would be the equivilent of the KKK forcing black and hispanic people out of mixed neighborhoods to make white only neighborhoods and the Black Pathers or Nation of Islam forcing white and hispanic people out of black neighborhoods to make black-only neighborhoods.

Answer 5

During the American Revolution, the Brits called the Americans Rebels and Guerilla's and all sorts of things like that. My point is. The winner of the war defines the terms. If we had lost to the Brits then it would have been the American rebellion not the American revolution and G. Washington would be remembered as a insurgent. Once there is a "winner" in Iraq, the terms will be finalized (by the victors) as to what title everyone has to wear.

Answer 6

There is a difference between a war for independence and terrorism. Let me tell you a story to illustrate the point. This one's about George Washington. Unlike the cherry tree incident, this one is true.

While the Americans were in camp during the winter in Valley Forge, PA and the British occupied Philadelphia, General Howe's beloved little dog ran away. Somehow it wound up near Valley Forge. A soldier found it and spotted the identification collar it was wearing, saying that the dog belonged to Howe.

What did Washington do when the soldier brought the dog to him. Did he mistreat it, even kill it? No. He fed it and bathed it, then arranged for a flag of truce so that one of his soldiers could return the dog to Howe without being threatened. He did so. Howe sent Washington a note thanking him for his kindly deed.

This was not the act of a terrorists. Americans did not fight the American Revolution or any other war as terrorists.

Answer 7

"Unconventional' tactics do not make you a terrorist.

Bombing schools, makes and mosques in an attempt to kill large numbers of civilians does.

And the occupation of Iraq ended on the day the Iraqi people held their first UN-certified election.

If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that Iraq has an independent government elected by the Iraqi people.

Answer 8

First of all, who exactly has America enslaved recently?

Secondly, 3 very important things distinguish the American revoluntionary soldiers from today's islamic terrorists.

1. The American revolutionary soldiers were in fact soldiers, dressed in uniforms. They may have employed different tactics, but they were identifiable as soldiers, and most importantly engaged in combat wearing their uniforms, just as our soldiers do today. In WWII, anybody engaged in combat not dressed as a soldier was deemed a spy and had NO rights under the Geneva Conventions of war.

2. The American revolutionary soldiers did not attack civilians deliberately as part of a terror campaign.

3. The American revolutionary soldiers did not murder their captives in a savage fashion, such as sawing their heads off, like we've seen the terrorists do.

Answer 9

The only real terrorists in Iraq are Al Quaeda, the rest of the unsurgency is financed and trained by Iran... It is why the US consider them ennemies... Do you think Iran want the good of the US...
During the independance war against the British, their collony and some natives have fight together against the British, at the time, the Frenchs have help YOU by suppliying weapons, and blocking trade routes to British...

Anyways, history is a wheel that turn, now you know who will win in Iraq...

Answer 10

with the aid of fact the terrorist fighters are entering into the rustic from different countries alongside with Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. people who might combat against (or for) a authorities of a u . s . they're from would not be insurgents. the U. S. and GB are sacrificing a great deal to deliver democracy to a u . s . that has been, for too long, below the thumb of a relentless, genocidal dictator. the only subject that Islamofascists comprehend is tension and, brother, they're seeing fairly some it. right this is hoping for their decimation.

Answer 11

Well, let's see... Washington did not behead captured British soldiers he did not bombed churches or markets and colonial soldiers did not targets civilians on purpose.

That's the difference between the War of Independence and the War in Iraq.