4 ms·

Who did he terrorize?

mindstab 14y ago
The British?
excuse-me 14y ago
There was the 20% of the population that actively opposed the revolution many of whom were attacked had their property seized and were eventually forced to move to Canada. As well as the majority who really just wanted everything to carry on peacefully Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!
- rmc 14y ago
  The records show 100% of the population were on board.
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Yes they always do!
  - pyre 14y ago
    If 100% of the population was on-board, then who did they rise up against? Even if it's a single leader, he/she is still part of the population of a country.
    - rmc 14y ago
      I was satiring totalitarian states that tend to produce fake nonsense statistics about how popular they are. e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    And that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
- scarmig 14y ago
  A partisan wouldn't find it hard to call what happened after the war as a sort of ethnic cleansing, though more on political lines than ethnic. On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies. This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause. Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.

The British?

There was the 20% of the population that actively opposed the revolution many of whom were attacked had their property seized and were eventually forced to move to Canada. As well as the majority who really just wanted everything to carry on peacefully Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!

rmc 14y ago
The records show 100% of the population were on board.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Yes they always do!
- pyre 14y ago
  If 100% of the population was on-board, then who did they rise up against? Even if it's a single leader, he/she is still part of the population of a country.
  - rmc 14y ago
    I was satiring totalitarian states that tend to produce fake nonsense statistics about how popular they are. e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )
- jlgreco 14y ago
  And that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
scarmig 14y ago
A partisan wouldn't find it hard to call what happened after the war as a sort of ethnic cleansing, though more on political lines than ethnic. On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies. This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause. Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.