Would the Founding Fathers be Considered 'Domestic Terrorist'?

So my question is with our new broad definition of domestic terrorism would the founding fathers have been considered such by today's standards? I think they would, but they were also considered patriots. In my opinion we are backing ourselves into a corner by calling people who with just cause fight against the tyranny of the bloated, authoritarian Government of today.

I think one could justly accuse the current office holders of treason and therefore be in the right if they were to fight against them. Now, I think attacking civilians is cowardly, but if the action were directed at political and military targets could it be considered just?

If the founding fathers were alive today to see the Government that has become do you not see them taking a fight to the current politicians and policy makers? If so, then civil war would be justified.

Anyway, I am just asking questions because I wonder if we have the will to defend ourselves like the brave men that founded our nation 200+ years ago. If someone were to fight would we all just dismiss them as terrorists?

I am curious and thank you for all responses that add to the discussion. I don't need to agree with you to appreciate your thoughtful replies.

~ Metallicus

Well it depends, if you trow a rebellion and win you are a patriot, if you lose you a terrorist rat, history is written by the winers

originally posted by: Indigent
Well it depends, if you trow a rebellion and win you are a patriot, if you lose you a terrorist rat, history is written by the winers

That sounds about right actually.

The more I think about this topic the more I realize I might just need to keep my mouth shut because I do have some very strong views here and I am not sure I am interested in being on any government list. When I see a movie like Fight Club or V for Vendetta I feel like they are right on point.

a reply to: Metallicus

If the "freedom fighters" were to go on the offensive and blow up some government office building.... then yes. Slap that domestic terrorist label on 'em.

However, remember that rancher from about a year ago? (Sorry, I forget where exactly). Even though he hadn't paid the "fees" or taxes to let his cattle graze on government owned land, when the Feds showed up with full weaponry... and even though some "militias" that were also armed.... it appeared that the overall public opinion saw the rancher as the good guy. A hero even, to some.

a reply to: eluryh22

So you would say Tim McVeigh is bad, but Bundy ranch good?

I see the difference, but would you consider any offensive action terrorism? Tim McVeigh attacked a Government target, but obviously all of the civilian deaths were tragic.

I am actually really anti-war and I don't believe in killing except in self-defense, but it is getting to the point where we are being backed into a corner by Globalists and Socialists. It almost seems like self-defense at this point.

Anyway, thank you for your reply.

Really man, if some foreign country that overpower your country in every way invades, and you fight the occupation at all cost, some may consider you a true patriot a hero perhaps, others would call you an insurgent, not even a soldier, just an enemy combatant that don't deserve any treatment in some convention, that's any Iraqi fighter the last decade, if you use a mirror and put that same guy in america Hollywood would made him a freedom fighter fighting for justice and the American way.

If Hollywood would made a movie of an Iraqi sniper I bet it would be a degenerate bastard, lurking in the shadows to cowardly kill innocent soldiers, peeing in bottles and not moving for days just to have the pleasure of killing a poor 20 something from the Midwest that was fighting the good cause.

A hero for some is a villain for the others.

a reply to: Metallicus

I should have been more specific. I didn't intend to say that "I think" McVeigh is bad/Bundy good. My intention was more to say how I think the public would perceive it.

(Although, to be candid, my personal opinions don't differ that much).

As far as your views on killing and all that.... I'm in agreement. I'm not sure we're all backed into a corner quite yet, but I think I understand what you are saying.

a reply to: eluryh22

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I was trying to understand your post and didn't do a very good job of it so my apologies.

I mean come on, what is the difference ideologically between a patriot and a terrorist, in their mind I bet they both think they are fighting the right cause, the only difference perhaps is one is not willing to cross a line to win at any cost, but I bet if ISIS in 200 years control the world their propaganda will paint the current scum as wonderful heros that shaped their world.

The american revolutionaries did not intentionally shoot or blow up innocent civilians including women and children like the savage muslim terrorists.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

ISIS history books will omit those little details. Heck I bet most books don't even cover the massive rape of German women by the allies, or if they do they put more weight in the Russian rape of German women.

Every tribe has to kick ass fair and square to establish their boundaries. Boundaries are usually where two opposing groups got tired of fighting.

a reply to: Indigent

I was thinking from a British perspective. If such atrocities occurred against british woman and children we definitley would know about it. It is not as if the British Empire were wiped out.

Now from american indians perspective...that would have to be a yes if the question were just "terrorist" without the "domestic" part added.

a reply to: Metallicus
I know that quite a few American Indian nations would think so. Some called George Washington the Village burner for having their villages put to the torch.

Terrorists use terror to effect political or social changes, or sometimes revenge.

The colonists tried to use reason and logic. They declared independence, the british denied it and declared them traitors of the crown to be punished by death. The revolutionaries defended themselves against the crown's aggression and won.

a reply to: Metallicus

According to FEMA yes.

i have a funny story about this. i was visiting my friend's mother in law on the 4th of july. she was an older woman, very christian, apparently very patriotic (her son, my friend's husband, was deployed in iraq at the time). it was in mississippi, a state not generally known for a high level of tolerance of cultures or religious views, and this woman exemplified the typical mississippi views. so i was walking through the kitchen and stumbled upon a document, opened to the second page, that seemed very radical. it was talking about all the injustices of the government and how they were reasons for a revolution. i could only glance at it at first, because i didn't want her to realize i saw it. i was shocked this person would have such radical material just laying around. so at the next opportunity i snuck over to have a closer look. and it was talking about some king? lol it was the declaration of independence!!! hahaha!!!!

there isn't a government anywhere in the world that would accept its own overthrow, no matter what reason or justice is behind it.

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (i learned this young, growing up on the texas border. in texas pancho villa is a terrorist and in mexico he's a freedom fighter, i saw the dichotomy very young, and it confused me as a child).

so it's technically impossible to create a u.s. government today that would accept a new crop of "founding fathers".

The British thought they were. And they quite clearly did terrorist-type attacks, ambushing single soldiers simply traveling, for example. But these "terrorists" were fighting on what they considered their home ground, their own territory. Of course, the British thought they owned it, too, but there is a distinction. If the Americans were bombing the Tower of London and taking out targets in England proper for the American cause, that is undoubtedly terrorism. But are you sure you want to call people fighting for their homeland ON their homeland terrorists?

There was a skit done many years ago by Bill Cosby where he postulated that wars could be fought by the toss of a coin. The winner of the toss could make the rules of the conflict. In this case the Colonials won the coin toss, so they stated that the American revolutionaries could wear anything they wanted to, shoot from behind trees and stones, the run away. But the British had to wear red and march in a straight line.