The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, it was political terrorism.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes, it was political terrorism.

It was justified civil disobediance and nothing more

 

[Unkotare]

Violence for political purposes.

It was the very definition of terrorism, like it or not.

Civilians were not targeted and killed for the purpose of instilling fear for political purposes. NOT "terrorism."

 

[Crepitus]

Civilians were not targeted and killed for the purpose of instilling fear for political purposes. NOT "terrorism."

That's not the definition.

Sorry. It was terrorism.

That said I certainly agree with what they did, and I appreciate the fact that they were quite restrained about it.

But I cannot hide from realities like some folks seem to be able to. It was indeed terrorism.

 

[bodecea]

Tar and feathering WAS terrorism.

 

[Soupnazi630]

That's not the definition.

Sorry. It was terrorism.

That said I certainly agree with what they did, and I appreciate the fact that they were quite restrained about it.

But I cannot hide from realities like some folks seem to be able to. It was indeed terrorism.

It was not terrorism

And yes the correct definition was given.

 

[AZrailwhale]

From your own reference:



I rest my case, even your own reference admits it does have a constitution. It is simply not a single document but composed of many documents.

God, I love it when people do not even bother to read their own damned references.

By definition a constitution IS a single document. The US constitution is a document that LIMITS the government. The UK's "constitution" is a conglomeration of laws that can be changed at the whim of the government.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

By definition a constitution IS a single document. The US constitution is a document that LIMITS the government. The UK's "constitution" is a conglomeration of laws that can be changed at the whim of the government.

Whose definition? There isn't one.

 

[Crepitus]

Tar and feathering WAS terrorism.

Nope, that was vigilantism.

 

[DudleySmith]

Nope, that was vigilantism.

What you get when there is no law and order, and you fans of banana republics destroy any credibility the govt. had with your racism and looting and kangoroo courts you're so proud of. You vermin are going to be very unhappy with the results of your deviant scumbaggery and feckless infantile petty destructiveness, and sooner than you think.

 

[Crepitus]

What you get when there is no law and order, and you fans of banana republics destroy any credibility the govt. had with your racism and looting and kangoroo courts you're so proud of. You vermin are going to be very unhappy with the results of your deviant scumbaggery and feckless infantile petty destructiveness, and sooner than you think.

 

[DudleySmith]

View attachment 874619

One of your new spouses?

 

[Mushroom]

A "written" constitution.

They have a written constitution!

It is simply not a single document, but a collection of documents.

Holy hell, where does it demand that a Constitution be a single document? Hell, not even the US Constitution is a single document, it is a collection of 29 documents. Which can get confusing, because literally one of those documents is just nullifying another one. So is that really 28 documents since was no longer counts?

But trust me, the UK Constitution is written. Have you never heard of the two most important documents that make it up? The Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights?

 

[Mushroom]

.

As typical, reposting your own reference that was already proven wrong does not make you right.

And in response, I once again quote you from your own freaking source.

Britain's constitution has developed in haphazard fashion, building on common law, case law, historical documents, Acts of Parliament and European legislation. It is not set out clearly in any one document. Mr Straw said yesterday: "The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law."

Holy hell, once again you need to read your own freaking reference, as it says you are wrong.

 

[Crepitus]

One of your new spouses?

Nope, neighbor kid that keeps hearing your dog whistles.

 

[Mushroom]

Civilians were not targeted and killed for the purpose of instilling fear for political purposes.

Actually, they were many times.

Which is one reason why I to this day will not drink Sam Adams Beer, and hold the "Sons of Liberty" largely in contempt. But they did indeed attack many Tories who were civilians.



If you want, I can give you a lot of examples like the above. Oh, and it also worked both ways as when it continued, the Tories started to tar and feather Sons of Liberty and their supporters.

And yes, by both sides that was entirely to instill pure political fear. To cause any that stated opposition to their beliefs to remain silent.

 

[Mushroom]

By definition a constitution IS a single document. The US constitution is a document that LIMITS the government. The UK's "constitution" is a conglomeration of laws that can be changed at the whim of the government.

Oh really?

Tell me when they revoked the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

And can our own Constitution not also be changed? And in fact has been changed.

 

[DudleySmith]

Nope, neighbor kid that keeps hearing your dog whistles.

So you sent it back to its owner after sex. Okay, just a one night stand then.

 

[Crepitus]

So you sent it back to its owner after sex. Okay, just a one night stand then.

If you want to insult me you're gonna hafta do better than that. Random meaningless crap doesn't bother anyone, much less me.

 

[Mushroom]

It was justified civil disobediance and nothing more

This is interestingly where I often split from many when discussing the American Revolution.

Now I am fully on the side of those like Franklin, Adams, Washington, and others. All of whom considered themselves loyal Englishmen and fought hard to try and reach some sort of compromise.

However, I am also largely against his cousin, Samuel Adams and most of his "Sons of Liberty" who did indeed use violence to try and achieve their goals.

I have no issue with "Civil Disobedience", so long as it is just that, Civil.

I have an issue with those that want to cause harm as part of their disobedience. And that is harm to people or property.

"Civil Disobedience" when it is civil and does not harm is not "Terrorism". Dr. King and his marches were about as civil as one could get, there the terrorism was used against them. And yes, I do indeed call what was done to the marchers in places like Selma and Montgomery "Terrorism", because that is exactly what it is. And if a group wants to have a peaceful march, I do not care who they are I support them and their right to have their march. Be they the KKK, the League of Women Voters, ANTIFA, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Everybody in this nation has a guaranteed right to protest, so long as it is civil and peaceful. But the moment any groups starts to harm property or others, they have immediately lost all of my support and I think they should be put down.