It was probably a higher population, word is the right wingers didn't participate because they thought the census was a conspiracy to find out where they live so the Crown could come kill them.
Because they didn't have clean burning propane grills, and therefore, no gas tanks.
That's absolutely not true. They are getting kids started earlier and faster with basic reading and writing than they ever were.
My 6 year old is doing things now in 1st grade that I wasn't doing until 3rd grade such as story writing and fractions in math..... , she was reading in kindergarten while my teacher was having us finger paint, take naps and leave at noon...
not to mention the advanced classes high schools offer in line with local colleges to get them started early and actually get them some college credit.
The problem is not what is being taught....the problem is that we have a country full of lazy ass teenagers that have all the necessities of life at their disposal, (thanks in part to apathetic parents) that are forced to be in school, and find it easier to just get by instead of taking full advantage of the resources that the public school system is giving them.
Hmm. You should probably read about how Al Qeada works. Its a very loose network yet we still consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist. According to you we shouldn't.
Especially in the case of 9/11. Osama Bin Laden had pretty much zero tactical control over the actions of the hijackers, yet we consider him responsible. I wonder how someone with your line of thinking would reconcile that?
Note, I'm not saying the Founding Fathers were terrorists, or that they should have been considered so. I'm merely pointing out the extreme flaws your logic.
I'm not saying z0sa is linguistically impaired or that he should be considered so....
but it's common knowledge that many around here do consider him to be so
the Northern Aggressors, according to South.
Some revolutionaries are terrorists.
Not all revolutionaries are terrorists.
Being a terrorist doesn't require being a revolutionary.
The founding fathers were not viewed as terrorists, because the widespread media networks that fuel terrorism did not exist (nor did terrorism). You can't subjugate a population when it takes 3 weeks for the news of your crazy antics to get across colony lines.
Terrorism generally implies violence, fear, and targets consisting of civilians.
The British crown viewed revolutionaries as traitors and usurpers. Even in the modern world it isn't clear that they would be considered terrorists. Most revolutionary groups may be labeled as such by their overlords for propaganda, but that hardly forms consensus. The patriots were popularly supported and fought a military campaign against an organized army. History generally favors these types of conflicts and the revolutionaries are usually never labeled as terrorists when they win. Failed revolts, attacks on civilians, and going against the majority are FAR more likely to label a group as terrorists.
Just look at history the past few centuries... the victor writes history in the end.
If the American revolution failed and say opened with a massive civilian loss, then the group would be looked at MUCH differently than it is today. The words are all subjective, there is no definition of terrorism. It doesn't matter how you word it because it is influenced by the facts I outlined (who won? do the people support it? etc)
ehh the sons of liberty were closer to being terrorists back then
My apologies if this hasn't been covered, but did the American revolutionaries attack civilian targets like schools or markets?
I thought they were closer to guerilla fighters since they didn't fight in straight lines, like gentlemen, when the accepted technique was to form up on opposite sides. Them s hid in the trees and ambushed fools yo.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
