Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
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.
|
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.
|
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.
