Yes, terrorism is bad.

Especially the kind which involves starting an illegal war of colonial annexation by sending 150,000 troops and 200,000 mercenaries to bomb, blast and permanently colonize two Central Asian countries which were no threat to the invading country or to the world, and thereby murdering at least 1 million human beings just to make some politicians look good and keep those military-industrial contracts flowing.

And then there's the inconvenient truth that this act of terrorism is just the latest in a long line of Imperial crimes against humanity:

http://www.efn.org/~dredmond/Empire.html

Next question.

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.

Scarily, this latest botched act of terror was done by someone who was at my Uni (UCL, he graduated in 2008, even has a little article on him on the homepage), in my faculty and shared the same building as myself. Kinda scary thought.

Anyway, American forign policy really has reignited and fueled the fires that were already present. Fuel being the operative word. However, the fear mongering is also really stupid. You are far more likely to die crossing the road than from a terrorist attack. The more fearful you become of the terrorists the more successful they've been in their plots.

Vlad believes that the Boston Tea Party is the same kind of act as suicide bombing a marketplace?

It's laughable on its face. But, if we concede his point and say that they're both "terrorism," then "terrorism" ceases to be a meaningful category. We'll then need some *more helpful* way of distinguishing between those who fly planes into buildings in order to terrify a civilian populace and those who dump tea into a harbor as a protest over taxation, an act from which--according to Wikipedia--Gandhi took some inspiration.

To speak to one thing in a recent post: "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."

But the thing is, not only would Al Qaeda not care whether anyone got killed... it is part of their very plan to *ensure* that people got killed. And not just people, but innocents, as a way of maximizing the terror caused, hence "terrorism."

The Boston Tea Party, in contrast, was not meant to strike terror into the hearts of the ordinary British civilian. It's a different beast.

Words ought to be helpful. By trying to stretch "terrorism" to mean a whole bunch of unrelated things, we rob it of its usefulness.

Vlad... your just tilting and windmills here... just give it up. Your wrong. Walk away... take a deep breath.

Either way, look up the name Robert Murray.  He was a merchant who offered to pay for the tea.

The sad thing is that vlad could actually make a decent case for terrorism by the revolutionaries ... against the Indians.

Washington was actually called "the town burner" by the Iroquois, and the reason why may be illustrated nicely by this letter:
http://greensleeves.typepad.com/berkshires/sullivans-expedition-against-the-iroquois/
"The inclosed letter from Major General Sullivan, and the other papers herewith transmitted, came to hand on the 6th instant. I have taken the first moment of leisure since their receipt to send them forward. I congratulate Congress on his having completed, so effectually, the destruction of the whole of the Towns and settlements, of the hostile Indians, in so short a time, and with so inconsiderable a loss in men."

Basically Washington sent Sullivan on a campaign whose sole goal was the complete and utter destruction of Indian settlements so that they could not possibly sustain themselves there, and therefore could not help the British. Maximum damage with apparently minimal loss, just what vlad said.

Since the goal was ultimately military instead of political, I wouldn't say it was "terrorism" -- however brutal the method of resource-denial or how damaging to civilians it was, terrorizing them was simply ... collateral damage. But that's the best evidence I'm aware of for vlad to try to make a case with, not this junk he's been trying. But it's also not an example of "weak vs. strong" which is also one of his criteria, so whatever.

Oh yeah, what they did against the Indians was definitnly crimial.  Not exactly terrorism but it was a very brutal and well horrible act.

To say the country was founded on terrorism is stupid.

To say it was expanded with war crimes... that I doubt anyone would refute.   Well outside the fact that technically war crimes didn't exist back then.

I would say I am surprised that so far not more stuff happened..

Well if a country would kill some of my family even if it was an incident (that can happen in wars) I can see myself acting that way.

You can blame the terrorists;...But people are not born as a terrorist they become one.....Why they become one? Sometimes I can understand the terrorists.