Terrorists really anger me!!

[vlad321]

Kasz216 said:

vlad321 said:

Kasz216 said:

vlad321 said:

Kasz216 said:
It should also be noted.... that the actual leaders of the revolution did not condone tarring and feathering.

Though once again... it was a very mild situation.

Did they also tie together British Soldiers shoe laces and put shaving cream on their hands while tickling their faces with feathers?

Actually there are a number of ways to drive a person insane without actually doing anything physical to them. That still counts as terrorism. Also keep in mind that killing dozens of people back then with a small handful of people back then was infinitely harder than it is today. They had to make do with what they could do. I'm willing to bet anything that if they had the means, the colonialists would have had their own ETA.

Tarring and feathering =/= terrorism.

Corporal punishment of that kind was actually fairly common... everywhere.  It was rather benign and didn't hurt anyone.

They could of you know... actually killed people if they wanted to actually instill terrorism in people.

At that day and age, with the techonology available how do you propose that some civilians go and kill some other civilians on a larger scale than one by one? I don't think you realize that that stuff was just not physcailly possible to pull off. They had to do what they could. Going by the amount of weight people gave dignity and honor, tarring and feather on the other hand has a hell of a lot mre meaning. You can't just look at acts and put them in contect in today's times, you need to look at them at their respective times. What the colonialists did was terrorism, plain and simple, for their time.

A) What pyro bill said.

B) Who said it had to be more then one by one?  Killing a person would instill a lot more terror then something tamer then most corporal punishment used during that era... such as say, branding peoples thumbs.

You are comparing the murder of civilians with, really tame forms of corporal punishment... that didn't hurt people... and proprerty desctruction.  That was offered to be paid for.

C)  These were large masses of 300+ people.  If they really wanted to do damage... they could have.

I'm well aware of Guy Fawkes, and as shown, he succeeded BRILLIANTLY.... oh wait.... no.

I still don't think you realize that terrorism has evolved over the years or taking context in mind. If they kill a person or two up in Massachustes what the hell is the chance that it will be heard past New York, at best? Marginally close to zero. If they dump 3 shiploads of Tea, or if they somehow magically got some semtex or C4 during those years, then the news would have spread much farther.

Also for the 300+ people, they would have easily been caught and killed. Don't forget that even during the war the loyalists were about 45-50% of the population. Terrorism isn't about going around killing people, it's about going around causing psychological damage with as few casualties as possible. When looked in context of the time what the colonialists used was indeed terrorism.