<The male Indians were fair targets>
All of them? Are you saying, it isn't terrorism against civilian populations, to target the entire male military-age population?
I can post some quotes from our campaign 100 years ago, against the Philippine independence movement, where our soldiers were told to kill every male over 10 years of age. Quotes from the commanding officers, reported in U.S. newspapers. That isn't ethnic cleansing?
<...and had already initiated attack against the American rebels>
You're changing the subject. We weren't discussing the Native's methods. We were discussing whether George Washington had ordered acts that met the definition of terrorist, after Nadine proposed the general rule that "old terrorists" shouldn't be allowed to rule new nations.
Or are you saying, it isn't terrorism if They did it first, and we respond in kind? My 6-year-old uses that excuse all the time: "He hit me first!" If it's not an acceptable excuse on the school playground, why is it an excuse for national policy?
<nor do I call it ethnic cleansing. Nor does any responsible historian>
An appeal for me to join the herd mentality.
No "responsible" historian called them "concentration camps", what we did to Japanese-Americans in WWII. Not for about 40 years. Now, lots do. You had the same response, when I called Guantanamo a "concentration camp." But, slowly, I'm hearing that description used, by more and more writers. |
