In order to defeat Great Britain, did the American troops use what was considered terrorist tactics to defeat the highly organized British troops? Are these tactics acceptable when used to fight for democracy?
2007-07-05 02:53:47 · 20 answers · asked by wooper 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
For those who say citizens weren't killed, what about those citizens who supported the British who were killed.
2007-07-05 04:03:05 · update #1
They fought the British Soldiers, and I don't recall reading anything about suicide bombers in the revolutionary war. Actually if the truth was known the majority was actually against the war.
2007-07-05 02:57:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, terrorists instill fear to accomplish an objective- such as blowing them self up in front of many innocent civilians. They use this tactic to scare. We just fought the British using new smarter fighting tactics, not so much to cause them to fear us. At the time it was probably considered cowardly by the British but we weren't so desperate that we didn't consider the lives of the others around us.
2007-07-05 03:10:43 · answer #2 · answered by James 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No more like Guerilla tactics.. mostly though we fought small battles and ran away till the British wore down and public opinion turned against the British (most people in the US actually didn't want to be independant at the beginning of the war).
2007-07-05 03:00:30 · answer #3 · answered by John L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is one of the better questions on the nature of independence and the means used to achieve it.
The goal was not democracy as we know it today. The miracle that is the Constitution was a bloody compromise that still has enemies in parts of this nation.
The war against England was one of desperate measures. The tactics were better focused. Battles were not as laced with collateral damage as today's wars are.
But what was interesting and not as well known is the birth of techniques that are used today to finance the war. Both George Washington and Ben Franklin were closet economists, developing credit principles everyone knows now.
You are right to question the nature of violence in the name of democracy. But I can point to other so-called revolutions that came to nothing but misery for the people who suffered them.
2007-07-05 03:08:50 · answer #4 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they used guerilla war fare tactics not so much terrorists tactics. However, based on the current definition of terrorism then our country was founded upon terrorist acts.
Was it right? Watch the movie national treasure it should clear a lot of questions about what we did being right or wrong.
2007-07-05 02:59:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guerilla tactics are what the americans used. and 'technically' the answer is YES.
While the brits lined up against a handfull of americans, the rest would hit them from ambush positions. ie from tree's behind rocks etc. It was like nothing the brits had ever been up against. They DID use 'terror' tactics, "boston tea party" They let the real indians hang for it, Instead of stepping forward.
They made IED's of their time, mini powder kegs with nails tacked to them, etc.
ACCEPTABLE is opinion and nothing more.
2007-07-05 13:33:30 · answer #6 · answered by Mr.TwoCrows 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you ever heard "there are no rules in love and war". That is because there is no right way to fight. Do what you must to win. When it comes to terrorism, there are those that want to kill to make a point and those who want to protect their people from senseless harm. There is no "right" in how each side accomplishes its goal...the answer to "right" always depends on what side of the arguement you are on. The British LOST because they stuck to "acceptable tactics" and the revolutionaries did what they had to do to win. What would you do?
2007-07-05 02:59:57 · answer #7 · answered by drinnt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They certainly did, though it wasn't official policy. 'Terror' was used against Tories to force them to flee to Canada. 'Terror' was used against certain British officials as well. While almost all of the battles between colonists and British regulars were stand up affairs there were many incidence where ambush, assassination and crude 'IED's' were used. Early in the war uniforms were in short supply for the enlisted ranks so military actions were taken by irregular forces wearing civilian garb....illegal combatants. Also, there was the ideology of the day. To be in revolt against the king and to be in favor of representative democracy was a stomach churning belief for the British aristocracy. In our day, to be against the rule of US and western interests and to favor theocracy sets us off in much the same way. Some things don't change. Great question!
2007-07-05 03:12:54 · answer #8 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Either way, the London city state, AKA "the Crown" had already set up their financial system in the colonies via the banking and legal system. I don't know if it was by design, but allowing these colonies to have their "independence" would have been a clever way of controlling them while letting them think they are free..
2016-05-18 22:16:22 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some did on both sides. The British, in particular, got Indians to scare, kill and what not, many of the colonists.
2007-07-05 03:22:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋