Professor Bainbridge seems to be taking Williams side on this argument. I'm thinking he has some interesting points, but I also think these are questionable in their conclusion.
I'm not going to quote the whole thing, since you can click and read it yourself. I'll just speak to a couple specifics that I found questionable.
First Bainbridge points to the actions taken against the Tories. The removal of Tories in many cases were in many cases was brutal. Even terroristic in technique. The issue I have is that Tories may have been neighbor colonists, but they were also collaborators. Removal of collaborators is a common activity in any conflict. It's strategically a wise move. Tolerating long term spying or assistance for the enemy isn't wise. Can we call this terroristic? I say no. The reason being that there was no actions of systematic murder of innocents during the purges of Tories. Not to mention that the focus of the actions were removal of collaborators, while terrorists kill systematically with no focus. Setting off a car bomb in a market isn't anything like the removal of collaborators. You could argue that they are similar, but I don't think that gives you an equivocation of the founding fathers and Iraqi terrorists.
Next, the quote that seems to come to the conclusion that mob actions won the revolution. I see no indication of mobs driving out British regulars from the colonies. In fact the revolution was won due to a couple of major battle victories by the militia/regular army and the intervention of the French navy. I also take exception to the conclusion implied that the mob actions were terroristic. The mobs were harassing and fighting the British regulars, not the public in general. I don't see this as having any relevance to the topic at all.
Last is the use of O'Brien's book The Long Affair. I haven't read it, but I suppose I will for an interesting view point. I will say that I have found nothing in the writings of Jefferson or any of the founding fathers that would justify the murder of innocents as in the Oklahoma bombing. Hinting at the Terror in France I haven't seen any indications of, but I don't know how he gets there. I would say the Terror did get out of control and was terroristic. Though I'd say that the focus of the Terror wasn't random like the Iraqi terrorist are using.
I guess I can see how they come to the conclusion that the actions of the founding fathers can be viewed as terroristic. I just think that conclusion is excessively flawed. I'll also state that in the present context this provides nothing to the present conflict other than provide unjustified moral justification for murderers.
I'm not going to quote the whole thing, since you can click and read it yourself. I'll just speak to a couple specifics that I found questionable.
First Bainbridge points to the actions taken against the Tories. The removal of Tories in many cases were in many cases was brutal. Even terroristic in technique. The issue I have is that Tories may have been neighbor colonists, but they were also collaborators. Removal of collaborators is a common activity in any conflict. It's strategically a wise move. Tolerating long term spying or assistance for the enemy isn't wise. Can we call this terroristic? I say no. The reason being that there was no actions of systematic murder of innocents during the purges of Tories. Not to mention that the focus of the actions were removal of collaborators, while terrorists kill systematically with no focus. Setting off a car bomb in a market isn't anything like the removal of collaborators. You could argue that they are similar, but I don't think that gives you an equivocation of the founding fathers and Iraqi terrorists.
Next, the quote that seems to come to the conclusion that mob actions won the revolution. I see no indication of mobs driving out British regulars from the colonies. In fact the revolution was won due to a couple of major battle victories by the militia/regular army and the intervention of the French navy. I also take exception to the conclusion implied that the mob actions were terroristic. The mobs were harassing and fighting the British regulars, not the public in general. I don't see this as having any relevance to the topic at all.
Last is the use of O'Brien's book The Long Affair. I haven't read it, but I suppose I will for an interesting view point. I will say that I have found nothing in the writings of Jefferson or any of the founding fathers that would justify the murder of innocents as in the Oklahoma bombing. Hinting at the Terror in France I haven't seen any indications of, but I don't know how he gets there. I would say the Terror did get out of control and was terroristic. Though I'd say that the focus of the Terror wasn't random like the Iraqi terrorist are using.
I guess I can see how they come to the conclusion that the actions of the founding fathers can be viewed as terroristic. I just think that conclusion is excessively flawed. I'll also state that in the present context this provides nothing to the present conflict other than provide unjustified moral justification for murderers.
No comments:
Post a Comment