Bedwetting Cosmonaut, the tone of your posts is incredibly condescending and belittling. You are free to argue whatever points you wish based on your knowledge of history. But to belittle what you perceive to be others' lack of knowledge of history is just a personal attack, plain and simple. That needs to stop.
Actually bosk, if you don't mind me saying, while I agree about your call on his tone, BC was correct that the British storming the capital and burning the White House down was during the War of 1812, which is a totally separate conflict from the Revolutionary War, and that it would be wrong to think either a President or White House existed during the actual Revolutionary War. I can see why he'd be surprised (and perhaps a little
) by tick's response. I'm not saying his way of handling it was that great, but factually he was spot-on and there's no arguing against what he said without contradicting the facts.
Why is 911 called a terrorist attack and Pearl Harbor isn't?
BC
9/11 wasn't committed by a state, and was intentionally designed to kill civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack by a state on military targets.
Though Pearl Harbour (not really the attack itself, but rather how American society before it is remembered) is another example of a whitewashing of American history.
Yeah Barto sorry to say it, but it has nothing to do with FDR not having a label like 'terror.' Terror is an attack carried about by non-state actors on non-military targets with the intention of achieving political effects, and Pearl Harbor is only one of those things.
Although GP I'm curious as to what you're referring to with that latter comment? The one about how American society before PH is remembered, I mean.