I'd say that depends quite a bit on ones perspective on terrorism and what it entails. Since there isn't a single, general definition of terrorism at the moment, that might be somewhat disputable.

If that's disputable... i'd say that definition of terrorism is quite silly. 

You would have to consider things like Highschool hazing terrorism in such a case.

Tarring and Feathering is about as harmless as you can get.

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.

Well, schoolyard bullying does include certain elements that are commonly used to define terrorism...

Good thing my country never gets attacked by these lunatics xD.

Oh, I also think this terrorism thing is being used way to much, to the point its getting cartoony, I think people dont like thinking and just say "oh, another terrorist" instead of analyzing each case and really thinking this is not as common as the media makes it look.

Oh yes, by dumping the tea and then PAYING for it.  That's really teaching them.

I mean, maybe you're the one who hasn't done his research... however the Boston Tea Party was actually a pretty common event.  People, angry over the taxes would throw some product overboard... then a week or so later, colonial merchants would pay for the property damage.

The only reason the Boston Tea Party because the government decided to act differently in that case.

The truth is... you don't have any clue what terrorism is.  Additionally that wasn't "What the country was founded on."  Since such acts were actually looked down opon by the rebels.

Also, no not a 300 would of been caught and killed.

In rebellions as many with as 3,000 something like 4-5 people were excuted and the rest were given clemency via apologizing.

If you want acutual terrorism of the era.  Try scalping civilians like some bands of Indians did.  This is something Americans were very familiar with... and if their goal was terrorism is what they would of done to scare the British.

Scalpings DID actually spread across America quick...

It's very clear, you have no idea what your talking about.

Just admit your wrong.

Vlad, they didn't need semtex, they could have used fire to achieve the same ends but they didn't.

We love our tea but I'm not sure it would cause us psycholigical damage (unless it was PG tips).

See I think you have no idea what terrorism actually is:

the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature

Also to define violence before you start again with the killing:

an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)

So let's analyze the two examples given, the Tea Party and the tarring and feathering.

Tea Party:

I dubt the people on the ships just willingly let the colonialists throw the tea away. Also the goals of the colonialists were clearly political. By definition.

Tarring and Feathering:

The violence is clear, and if you tell me that their goals still weren't political (removal of taxes) than I just call bullshit. That, again, by definition is terrorism.

So maybe you just need to check your own definition of terrorism. Also by killed I didn't mean everyone in a given party. I'm well aware generally the leaders of a rebellion get the axe.

Even ignoring that, the early militia tactics followed the same exact idea that people labeled as terrorists in Iraq currently use. Which is, kill as many as possible with the fewest casualties by acting covertly. People just happen to have smart explosives these days so it's much easier to kill people without showing oneself than it was back then.

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.