Yeah. Guy blows up school. Blows up self. Kills wife. Destroys farm and injures horses. Just your average normal guy. No mental health problems evident at all.

The poster you are replying to wrote;

“The British Army called the minutemen of the colonies “terrorists”". I do not believe Phaedrus was attempting to make a moral judgement on the American Revolutionaries, he was making a very valid point, that “One government’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”.
The Boston Merchants et. al. were fighting principally for freedom from British taxes. Words like “freedom” and “equality” had only a very limited meaning at the time, especially to slave-owners.
Also, the main war-winning tactic employed by the Colonists was forming an alliance with the French.

You refuse to see the point. School children were not the enemy here for Kehoe yet they were the ones who paid the price (their lives). The city government is who he should’ve been terrorizing not the school. Early Americans fighting against the British who murdered “high level British loyalist officials” killed those whom they had identified as the enemy. This guy was a terrorist and could in no way be considered a freedom fighter because he instigated the fight against people who had nothing to do with his cause, they had no power over him, the government did. As you said “If you are a young man, it is understandable and I should be less severe…if you are older than 25, you are naive.”

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the moral perspectives surrounding the American Revolutionary War (and you would be surprised to hear that both the traditional as well as the revisionist views have relevant things to say), it’s a bit narrow-minded to insult Mr. Harding’s perspectives as “moralist” and “naive,” while ignoring the most basic moralist and naive fallacies in your own post.

First off, you consider the American colonial forces a “terrorist” organization because they, according to the British, didn’t fight fair according to the unspoken gentleman’s standard of the age. Ironically, just a few centuries earlier, the French considered the English dishonourable because at Crecy, they chose to use terrain, superior-ranged arms, revolutionay (at the time) tactics, and simple common sense to their advantage in order to overcome an overwhelmingly superior foe. This is precisely what the Americans did to the British, no more, no less–something the Brits themselves did long before they called themselves British. It also bears mentioning that the Americans *did* field a true European-style army, in the same fashion as the British, as the war went on. This is because the skirmishers who the British called “terrorists” lacked the firepower, and manpower, to capture and hold ground. They were effective at harassing and disrupting enemy positions, but had little staying power. However, these skirmishers remained useful all throughout the war, remaining as dense-terrain support troops for the open-field armies they would later fight alongside.

Also, if you were not aware of this, I should probably inform you: The British made use of these same skirmishers you call “terrorists,” in the form of the Queen’s Rangers. They were, in fact, a very effective British-Loyalist regiment, and used the same fighting tactics as the colonial skirmishers–the so-called “terrorists.” And the rest of the world adopted skirmishing tactics as well. For the next decades on, however, the American skirmishers–especially the Longriflemen–would retain their reputation as the world’s best. Even among the British, who weren’t as simple-minded as your portrayal of them implies.

You would have learned this had you chose to actively research the American Revolutionary War, instead of merely simplifying the moral complexities of the conflict in order to meet your simplistic moral code. Instead of choosing to objectively view history through the perspectives of both sides, you chose only one as the basis of your opinion–the British. The irony of it all should escape no-one at this point.

Phaedrus, if you are a young man, it is understandable that you should seek simple and moralizing answers to the world’s issues and I should be less severe. If you are older than 25, however, then you are naive.

And to Comment #13:

Mirage_GSM, I’ll agree with your practical assessment except on one point–the “stand there and shoot” tactic actually *was* very effective in the age of inaccurate firearms. Muskets were notoriously inaccurate, and short-ranged. However, accuracy matters little if enough muskets are directed in the same general direction. In effect, a line of musketmen acts as a giant, organized human shotgun/scattergun. And when standing in those lines, while rotating out with reserves behind them in rhythm, they could maintain a relatively fast rate of fire. The British redcoats were the most disciplined of their time, and could reload and fire faster than any other standing army. Against another an army on the open field, they could, and did, cut their enemies down with terrifying speed.

The reason they viewed the American skirmishers with such loathing was because the skirmishers used tactics that could effectively counter them. Frankly, they were just being prissy over the fact that their enemies used tactics that counteracted theirs and they didn’t want to adapt in turn. After they lost, though, they began to see the point of a non-regimented light infantry force.

When the Prussian “needle gun” was developed in the 19th century, guns became fast-reloading and very accurate. For a while, it was a closely guarded secret that made the Prussians nearly unstoppable. Naturally, this made the “firing line” tactic obsolete. From then on out, militaries didn’t have to treat entire units as “walking shotguns,” instead each man was a potentially dangerous combatant on his own. Like the sharpshooting skirmishers of the American Revolutionary War, come to think of it.

So when Jason says “a small historical revival” (note the word “small”), he and a few historians that have come across it made the connection and mentioned it.”[/quote]

Actually, Purdy killed five. He wounded another 30, but never climbed a tower during his assault.

As for Columbine, there were a number of people who countered the claims being made at the time of the worst school massacre in U.S. history by pointing to Bath.