- Reaction score
- 7,569
- Points
- 1,360
True enough, for sure. The "traitor" vs. "patriot" political narrative pigeonholing comes into play, though, based on how much people agree or disagree (and how much) with aims of the party in question.That's pretty much it. Of all the national or quasi-national political entities which have ever existed, how many of their ruling establishments didn't essentially outlaw forms of anti-loyalty in order to protect themselves and perpetuate their enlightened un-improvable deity-given comfortable status quo?
Using the American Revolution as an example, while Tarleton & Co. made a bit of a name for themselves working outside the "laws and customs of war," I'm going to guess the dial on sticking to all the rules was well above zero on the "colouring within the war lines" scale for the American/separatist forces.The main difference is where each sits on the spectrum of methods between "anything (anyone) goes" and "limited by laws and customs of war". It's an important difference.
See also U.S. civil war, and Yugoslavia troubles: who's the "terrorist/ethnic cleanser" depends very much on how much one agrees with the aims of said fucker, with the same going for how much agrees with the "freedom fighter/purifier of the land".

