SuperNews | May 01, 2009 | 18 comments

Terrorism in 1776

This video is no longer available.
Image
SuperNews
George Washington and a band of rebel patriots are called terrorists when they fight for their freedom against the tyrannical King George who wants to control their New World.

From SuperNews! an animated sketch comedy series airing on Current TV every Friday night at 10 PM E/P

So set your DVRs and TIVOs. Like... now.

For more SuperNews! go to www.current.com/supernews
  1. groups:
    Comedy,   On Current TV,   Best of TV US,   The best of Current,   5 more
  2. tags:
    Comedy,  On Current TV,  Terrorism,  SuperNews,  2 more
  3. credits:
    _gel Animator, b_ball Starring, b_ball Producer, more
  4.     
    |

18 comments // Terrorism in 1776

  • Davis_Manoushagian
  • mustng0sally
  • CommonCents
    • 0
      CommonCents  

    • We are cool right?

      As long as you don't stand in the way of the subjugation of women, the outlawing and execution of homosexuals, and the complete and total rule of religious extremism. God Willing.

    • 3 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
    • 0
      Denica_Cassandra  

    • lol the english/colonists actually were terrorists. ironic that the "sons of liberty" dressed as native americans (the people that taught them to bathe and not stand in a line during war) to "fight for freedom." germ warfare, rape, genocide and land grabbing are the accomplishments of the fore-fathers. :)

    • 3 years ago
  • dognose
  • TheDudeDean
  • BKsaysAction
    • 0
      BKsaysAction  

    • Well the militia did target civilians that supported the english or didn't want to succeed so technically thats not true. Like the end of the video says we caused a lot of horrors in history along the way to where we are now so this is just as true as whats happening now in Iraq. I say this is spot on.

    • 3 years ago
  • djpr
    • 0
      djpr  
    • BKsaysAction:

      "the militia did target civilians that supported the english or didn't want to succeed so technically "
      If the militia did wontonly use violence against innocents non-combatants than that's an act of terrorism. I wouldn't doubt any militia (of any stripe) targeting civilians who helped the other side, but please share any links regarding egregious acts against non-combatants. Another commenter brought up the issue of tarring and I'd like to know more about how that was used.

      "we caused a lot of horrors in history along the way "
      This maybe true, but the SuperNews guy choose the worst example possible. It's like trying to to point out the racism in the US by stating that's why lots of people think OJ is guilty.

      "so this is just as true as whats happening now in Iraq"
      The conflict in Iraq right now involves various groups - from Sunnis to former-Baathists and Shias to Kurds. And don't forget outside state actors like Iran, United States and others.

      The complexity of that conflict in no way reflects the war between the former-Colonialists-turned-Americans and the British Empire.

    • 3 years ago
  • djpr
    • 0
      djpr  

    • RaceBannon,

      While the media and propogandist of all stripes loosely exchange the words "freedom-fighter", "guerillas" and "terrorists" as it suits them, there are technical and even legal differences.

      Indeed, there are a few legal definitions by the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions that define what a guerilla fighter and a terrorists is. Human rights groups have been critical that some post-9/11 government laws blur the two terms together. And this is something we should all be critical of, including you RaceBannon.

      The traditional definition of a guerilla group differenties from terrorist groups because guerilla groups do not target civilians and usually seek to hold territory (and thus replace the government it is targeting). Terrorist do not seek to replace governments, as much as simply influence them, by tageting the civilian population.

      To put in another way, a group of successful guerilla fighters can be legitamitly seen as overthrowing a corrupt government to help the people. A successful terrorist "succeeds" in nothing more but being guilty of committing war crimes and human rights violations.

      Here's an example:
      A Guerilla fighter, fighting to "liberate" people from a corrupt government, would target the bombing of government instruments of power: police stations, government-owned media etc. The guerilla groups would eventually take over afew small city and set-up its own "people's police station" and "people's newspaper."

      A religious terrorist, seeking to destory "secular facism" may choose to target what they deem as "dens of deprevity", so most likely malls, night clubs and the local indie cafe frequented by athetistic hipsters. This is all in attempt to persuade people - via fear - to find their way back to God.

      Of course, this is not to say that a guerilla fighter can use tactics of terrorism. Like the use of rape camps by guerilla fighters during the Yugoslav Wars of Independence. This is where the line gets blurry, but never let anyone tell you that a guerilla fighter is the same thing as a terrorist.

    • 3 years ago
  • djpr
    • 0
      djpr  

    • By all measures and standards of intellect, this cartoon is "epic fail" to use Internet slang.

      Terrorism is the act of threat or use of violence for ideological purpose that *deliberately targets non-combatants*.

      Cynic2 said: "The rebel patriots didn't wear uniforms, had non-governmentally-issued weapons, fought "dirty", blended in w/the general population, etc, etc. Sound familiar?"

      Yes, but Washington didn't direct his troops to deliberately and wantonly kill unarmed civilians did he? What you've described is called guerilla warfare.

      You can wear uniforms and have government issued weapons and be a terrorist. Indeed, the word "terrorism" in English came from the French to describe "la Terreur" era, specifically under Robespierre's dictatorship.

      Nice try, SuperNews. Please revisit your Poli 101 class notes and try again.

    • 3 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  
    • djpr:

      hmpph anyone can be defined as a "terrorist" under any pretense. Terrorism is usually a poor mans way of fighting, actually on second thought it is the poor mans way of fighting. Sometime they're called "rebels", "guerrillas", but essentially the tactic is the same. Washington would have been by todays standard a terrorist with standards.

    • 3 years ago
  • quixotic12
  • Ijusthatemoney
    • 0
      Ijusthatemoney  
    • djpr:

      I think you got the wrong website. Future failure politicians site is somewhere else.
      Who cares what the correct definition of terrorism is? and who taught you that, Bush?
      give me a break and start thinking why "terrorism" is happening.
      American governments love to invent new threats so they can fulfill their imperial foreign policy agenda, like underdeveloped countries, communist threat or war on terror.
      But I have a new threat for you: my foot on your butt intellectually telling you that wasps like you suck.

    • 3 years ago
  • Cynic2
    • 0
      Cynic2  

    • How soon we forget! Let's see--the rebel patriots didn't wear uniforms, had non-governmentally-issued weapons, fought "dirty", blended in w/the general population, etc, etc. Sound familiar? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

    • 3 years ago
  • Liquidmark
    • 0
      Liquidmark  
    • Cynic2:

      Definition of terrorism.

      terrorism |ˈterəˌrizəm|
      noun
      the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

      Terrorism doesn't need to target civilians in order to be terrorism.

    • 2 years ago
  • cynker
  • JasmineMcGregor
  • jonelison
more from SuperNews:
from the community

top videos