Jujubean has made a really good argument for his side, and I understand many of his points entirely. However, there are a few things I would like to point out.

For instance, he said: "But we also had an army," in regards to the United States fighting using guerrilla tactics. However, Hezbollah has its own militia, that is not all that much different from the American Revolutionary army. He also stated that "we did not deliberately target civilians" during the American Revolution. On the contrary, the Loyalist were targeted during the war. Now, I do have to admit that while the American Revolution did not seek out the Loyalist often, they were frequent casualties of the revolution. Hezbollah does target Israeli civilians, but mostly targets the Israeli military, the same way the American Revolutionaries did.

You are totally correct that we did not seek to destroy England the way Hezbollah seeks to eradicate Israel. However, the Hezbollah resistance began as an organization to remove Israel from Lebanon, thus sparking a similar revolution. In an interview with the leader of Hezbollah this past week, he stated that America is not the enemy. He said that the government of the United States makes some bad political decisions that angers him. Hezbollah does not want all Jews dead, they just want them out of the Middle East, which is a similar view that the American Revolutionaries took against Great Britain. In fact, once the American Revolution ended, a lot of Loyalist left the United States and resettled in Canada. Hezbollah believes Israel does not have the right to exist, which is a different point of view than the American Revolutionaries. The American Revolutionaries just wanted the British out of their territory.

Advertisement

While it is an argument of semantics, we cannot forget the power words have. We get a completely different reaction when the word revolutionary or terrorist is used. For example, while the vast majority of the French Revolution was actually mobs killing unarmed people, we still call it a "revolution." The website you posted refers to the French "Revolutionaries" as terrorists actually. It also states that the word terrorism was coined during the French Revolution, which is false. In a letter from Henry James Smith to the Royal Governor of Massachusetts, Smith refers to the uprising of colonist as "terrorism." More specifically, he outlines an historic case of economic terrorism against the King of England. There are many instances in the American Revolution were colonist specifically targeted civilians, most commonly the Loyalist. There are stories of Revolutionist tarring and feathering British Tax Collectors. There were many cases where mobs ransacked the homes of Loyalist and British government officials in response to higher taxes. While most of these acts of terrorism are precursors to the American Revolution, it is the exact same group of people who became the Revolutionist.

I am in no way supporting the acts of Hezbollah or any terrorist organization. I am just pointing out similarities between the Hezbollah organization and the American Revolutionaries. I just want people to understand that terrorism is the last ditch effort of a defeated people who are subjugated to another group. I am not seeking sympathy for Hezbollah, but rather I am seeking sympathy for the poor innocent Lebanese and Palestinian people who are caught in his power struggle. I also do not think Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. are terrorist, but rather I was pointing out the ambiguity of the definition. I personally think that all terrorist organizations need to be eradicated from the Earth, however, we must evaluate who is a terrorists and who is a legitimate revolutionary.

Jarred James Breaux, New Iberia