American Revolution: Patriots or Terrorist??

          In the american revolution many acts, or laws, were passed to benefit the mother country or England herself. The colonist had no voice in the parliament at all because they had no representative to represent them but still England didn't allow the colonist to join in due to them in favor of VIRTUAL representation.

          So what did the colonist do? They started a group called the sons of liberty to fight against the British and its acts. They would boycott British customs and beat-up taxation officers. They were still loyal but this was just unreasonable.

           An example of something like this would be the current violence in Damascus, Syria. A group of rebels (Arab League) are rioting due to their current leader, President Bashar al-Assad. The people their wants their president to stop violence against civilians, free political detainees, remove tanks and weapons from cities, and allow outsiders, including the international news media, to travel freely in Syria. [For more information; http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/28/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=wo_c1] Even though some people call these terrorist, basically those people are Loyalists, people also call them heros (*cough* *cough* patriots *cough*).
        
            So, would they be classified as patriots or terrorists? From my perspective they would be classified as PATRIOTS. They fought for their rights and their demand for equality. If they were terrorist, they would have one leader in charge of everything. But the sons of liberty didn't. They came together and discuss plans even without talking together they still know what to do. They were brave and stand up toward an opposition with weapons and highly-trained soldiers while they had nothing yet they made due to their supplies. If you think they would be terrorist then I think you would be on the British perspective.