Was The Boston Tea Party Terrorism?

beretta304

Rookie
Aug 13, 2012
8,664
76
0
A Saner Place
A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed.

The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country’s government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.


Texas Schools Teaching The Boston Tea Party Was Terrorism | TheBlaze.com
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
no. it was vandalism.

were innocent people targeted?

Good point. Is terrorism always physical though?

"....believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens"

There are many ways "to terrorize" a person over different issues.
 
Last edited:
From the British standpoint it probably was viewed as rebel activity.

I doubt the terms guerilla or terrorist were even thought of back then. Rebel?? Definetely.
 
no. it was vandalism.

were innocent people targeted?

Good point. Is terrorism always physical though?

"....believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens"

There are many ways "to terrorize" a person over different issues.

terrorism is the targeting of civilian populations with violence to achieve a political end.

so i'd have to say yes.

the term shouldn't be cheapened. vandalism is about 'stuff'. no one should be terrorized by 'stuff'.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
no. it was vandalism.

were innocent people targeted?

Good point. Is terrorism always physical though?

"....believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens"

There are many ways "to terrorize" a person over different issues.

terrorism is the targeting of civilian populations with violence to achieve a political end.

so i'd have to say yes.

the term shouldn't be cheapened. vandalism is about 'stuff'. no one should be terrorized by 'stuff'.


You're still batting a 1000.

Just for clairty...


Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Good point. Is terrorism always physical though?

"....believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens"

There are many ways "to terrorize" a person over different issues.

terrorism is the targeting of civilian populations with violence to achieve a political end.

so i'd have to say yes.

the term shouldn't be cheapened. vandalism is about 'stuff'. no one should be terrorized by 'stuff'.


You're still batting a 1000.

Just for clairty...


Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i guess that's a good thing.

my issue is that certain words shouldn't be used generically. slavery is slavery. the holocaust is the holocaust. genocide is genocide. apartheid is apartheid.

and terrorism is terrorism.

if someone dumps a batch of tea i own into a harbor, it's stuff... and life goes on...albeit in less economically satisfactory position.

but if someone is sitting on a bus in tel aviv and some lunatic hamas-nick blows themselves up, that's terrorism.
 
It's more on the order of the demonstrations and riots we've seen when they have G8 conferences and the like. No, nobody would be going to Gitmo.
 
terrorism is the targeting of civilian populations with violence to achieve a political end.

so i'd have to say yes.

the term shouldn't be cheapened. vandalism is about 'stuff'. no one should be terrorized by 'stuff'.


You're still batting a 1000.

Just for clairty...


Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war.

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i guess that's a good thing.

my issue is that certain words shouldn't be used generically. slavery is slavery. the holocaust is the holocaust. genocide is genocide. apartheid is apartheid.

and terrorism is terrorism.

if someone dumps a batch of tea i own into a harbor, it's stuff... and life goes on...albeit in less economically satisfactory position.

but if someone is sitting on a bus in tel aviv and some lunatic hamas-nick blows themselves up, that's terrorism.

The Israelis are far too patient and showing too much restraint. No one wants violence or war but to have to live surrounded by hatred is not a position that I would want to find myself in.

As to the tea, that's a lot of Iced Tea that went to waste.
 
The Boston Tea Party was the kind of politically motivated lawlessness that modern day tea partiers condemn as the kind of thing only leftists do.

Ironically...
 
Who knows what the citizens of Boston thought at the time. Many left with the British when they abandoned the city and British soldiers were acquitted of the Boston Massacre.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top