Terrorists really anger me!!

[vlad321]

Kasz216 said:

vlad321 said:

Kasz216 said:

 

It's not just "Violence".  There has to be a significant level of violence.  Otherwise you could argue any school bully who harrasses another kid for having a different politcal view or different religion is a terorist.  That is asinine.

You are taking a dictionary definition without any actual context involved within.  If death or SERIOUS injury isn't a part of it you can't consider in terrorism.  Otherwise, a good 40-50% of the population has probably been a "terrorist" at some point in their lives.

Though, yeah lets analize these.

 

Tea Party - Not supported by any of the revoluitonary leaders.  A common occurence of protest at the time... everywhere.   Happened all the time.  completly harmless... merchants were offered to be repaid. 

 

Tarring and Feathering - Done to protest taxes, not supported by any revolutionary leaders, completly harmless.

 

Militia Tactics - How wars were fought afterwords.  How war was fought in the colonies at the actual time... were Blitz tactics by the Germans terrorism then?  Planes?  The development of new weapons?  Every development that increase your opponents deaths and minimizes yours is suddenly terrorism now?

 

You're grasping at straws... straws that aren't even there.

Except that tarring and feathering goes beyond just harming. As I said earlier, back then people put a lot more weight on dignity and honor. Hell, the japanese even killed themselves back then over something like that.

Tea Party was supported by Alexander Hamilton, actually. I also don't recall anyone being repaid for the Boston Tea Party.

Tarring and feathering was indeed not supported, as far as I can remember, by leaders, but given the whole BS they had going on with honor/dignity it was obviously done to terrorize tax collectors from collecting taxes. It was doen to protest taxes, yes. Also today's terrorists are protesting something as well. ETA is protesting Spanish rule over the Basque Country, IRA protest the same ovewr in Northern Ireland. All these groups just happen to have the ability to inflict many casualties far more easily than anyone did back in the 18th century.

As for military tactics, I don't remember the Blitz being covert at all, or airplanes for that matter. Today's roadside bombs and ambushes were 18th century's shoot from the bush or attack at night.

A) No.  People weren't repaid for the Boston Tea Party.  The offer was made... but it was refused because of the bungling of the local govonor.

This kind of thing happened often back then.  It went like this.

1) Prorperty is destroyed.

2) Representitives of the merchants go to the local leaders demand repayment and listen to the complaints.

3) The product is paid for.

 

B) Also, no physical violence still meant more then "honor and dignity".  Scalping someones children would of been much worse then tarring and feathering them... it would of gotten a much bigger reaction and would of stirred things around.  (for one matter.  People are actually more honorable now then they were then.  Wars have laws now.)

You've admitted defeat already yourself when you stated that they didn't do worse things because they were afraid of the authorties.

That clearly shows just how small those actions were when you suggested that they didn't escalate because the British would take it seriously.

Terrorists do not care about upsetting the authorties.  As you can tell by the fact that they are suicide attacking people... and not say... throwing paint on people to represent blood.

 

That is the difference between protest and terrorism.

 

As for using cover being the equivlent of roadside bombing of civilians and pretending to be civilians who people won't shoot... then attacking.

Just no... seriously... your flailing here.  Using cover is an act of terrorism?  So... Castle warfare was an act of terrorism then?

See now I just call bullshit on the offer, because if an offer hd been made then Great Britain wouldn't have had Boston Harbor closed until the Teas was repaid to begin with.

The fact that they just didn't go and scalp people shows that they indeed were afraid they'd get caught. Also last I checked fear of authority is a huge part of terrorist groups, otherwise the ETA, IRA, Al Queda, and what not would already be gone. They fear authority to the point where they don't get caught. Back in those days they would be much much more hardpressed to commit something and then not get caught, much less have a whole organization going around commiting acts of terror.

Also the destruction of the Tea was a direct cause to the Intolerable Acts, which means that it was obviously a pretty big deal to the British back then. Would it have been any less striking if Al Queda had just destroyed the 2 towers without killing anyone? I doubt it since everyone would have still placed it down as an act of terrorism.

As for the cover thing. It's not about the cover, it's about using tactics which would have been seen as dirty at a given time. Everyone expected castles, no one expected to be shot at while sleeping. Same thing today, no one expected so many bombs and people dressed as civilians. They are the same thing, you can call it terrorism, I call it tactics. However you cannot call oe terrorism and the other good tactics.

You have to take terrorism into its historical context. Just liek everything terrorism has escalated over the centuries. Also you keep bringing up Indians, you have to realize they were a foreign entity using military tactics (some of which militia later used on British actually). They weren't just a band of people fighting for ideals, they were "soverign" entities. Meanwhile terrorists by definition aren't a soverign entity. That also goes for the honor and dignity thing. It didn't exist during war mostly because it wasn't needed. They didn't have gas or phosphorus or anything  mor damaging than a cannon. Furthermore they weren't at war, and the honor and dignity played a huge role in social life. Today's society places far far less value on it than they did back then, I can't believe you can even argue that point.