"Patriots" In The American Revolution Versus "Terrorists" Of Al Qaida

The year is 1775 and the colonies are fed up with British taxes without representation which began with the Sugar Act and Currency Act of 1764. Britain further fueled colonial anger and resentment with subsequent taxes - Quartering Act, Stamp Act, Declaratory Act, Townshend Acts, Tea Act, Coercive Acts (encompassed the Boston Port Bill, the Administration of Justice Act, and the Massachusetts Government Act), and the New England Restraining Act; a total of 11 oppressive taxes from 1764 until the beginning of the American Revolution in 1775. After 11 years of British imposition upon the colonists and being forced to quarter British forces and restricting colonial trade only to Britain things came to a head at the Battle of Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775 when Britain engaged the Minute men while trying to destroy ammunition bunkers at Concord. The situation was made worse when on June 12, 1775 British martial law was declared on the colonies by British General Gage and any individual who helped the Americans were considered traitors and rebels. As members of Americas first Army began to fortify Bunker Hill they were fired upon by British ships anchored in the Boston Harbor.

The battle at Bunker Hill, although a British victory at an extraordinary cost, demonstrated to the British that American revolutionaries were prepared and had the will power to stand up against a much larger force, much like what is occurring in the 21st Century with transnational terrorism. Groups, such as al Qaida are prepared to stand their ground even in opposition to the world's greatest super power - the United States. Al Qaida resolve demonstrates the same determination in facing a stronger force just as American revolutionaries stood their ground against British naval and ground forces at Bunker Hill. However, this is where the similarities stop.

The reasons for early American colonists rebelling against the British were over the issue of taxation without representation; not wanting to be held monetarily and physically subjected to another government. The early Americans not having their interests represented in the British Parliament thought they should not have to be subjected to taxes to support the British government. How could the colonists make known their needs and desires without members from the colonies to represent them in the British Parliament? When these concerns were expressed the British reaction was to send in British troops as enforcement mechanisms for the very issues the colonists objected to.

This brief summation of the American Revolution is important when refuting those who want to justify 21st Century terrorism as similar or the same as the colonies revolting against the British. It is necessary to look beyond just the mere definition of terrorism, which tends to be how some make the comparison that American Revolutionaries were terrorists. Terrorism, according to Executive Order 13224,

"(1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or
infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking."

The actions of American revolutionaries were conducted against British combatants, not against British civilian populations. Today in Iraq al Qaida is targeting Shia civilians as a means of creating an environment conducive for civil war. Would American revolutionaries be guilty of attempting to coerce or intimidate the British government? Not by the above definition. American colonists refused to pay taxes, not threaten the British government through destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking. Sure one could argue that at Lexington the colonists were conducting sabotage against British sites. This is very small in comparison to launching 747's into buildings as occurred on September 11, 2001 and to the beheading of individuals unless the United States leaves Iraq.

What about those who argue that the U.S. presence in Iraq is no different than British forces occupying the colonies? There is a big difference which further separates the early American revolutionaries from terrorist groups such as al Qaida today. For starters the U.S. presence in Iraq is based on eliminating an oppressive regime which did not give fair representation to all Iraqi's, both Shia and Sunni Muslims. Ah, much like the very reason for revolting against the British - taxation without representation the 18th Century version of an oppressive regime.

Al Qaida statements about the US as the oppressor are entirely false. The only act of oppression the US is guilty of is in oppression al Qaida and its organizational goals. Based on a recovered letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi, dated July 9, 2005, (Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI News Release No. 2-05) the stated goals and objectives of al Qaida are:

-The war in Iraq is central for global jihad.
-American departure from Iraq will not end the war for al Qa'ida.
-Al Qa'ida's strategic vision is that "of inevitable conflict" through
recognition of Sunni / Shia / Kurd (political) dynamics and to use such
conflict as a means of achieving al Qa'ida goals - "political action equal to
military action".
-Maintain the support of the populace until the establishment of jihad rule.

The fact that al Qaida jihad is global and that even with our departure from Iraq the war will not end is clear evidence that al Qaida does not see us as an oppressor of the Iraqi people rather as a deterrent to al Qaida establishing jihad rule beginning in Iraq and then spreading throughout the Middle East. Al Qaida and their desire for Iraq to remain an area "of inevitable conflict" through manipulation of Sunni versus Shia stands in stark contrast to US policy when you consider efforts of US military forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. Here you have Al Anbar Sunni tribal leaders working with a Shia majority government against elements of al Qaida. What selfish benefits does the US stand to gain from mentoring this relationship? Other than this being a step towards increased security in Iraq for Iraqi's allowing the US to come home, there are no selfish gains for US presence and efforts in Iraq.

Our presence in Iraq would not be the first time the US stood up against an oppressor. Going back to the year of 1775 we began a path towards lending a hand to those oppressed, first for ourselves, and now in the 21st Century for the people of Iraq. Seeking fair representation for the Iraqi people does not make the US terrorists just as it did not make us terrorists when we sought independence from the former British super power. So what makes al Qaida terrorism different from American revolutionaries of the American Revolution? The US does not target civilian populations, whereas al Qaida does. Al Qaida seeks to establish an oppressive regime under jihadist principles, while the US as it has done from its very beginning tries to hinder or destroy oppressive regimes.