Interesting Tibit Off the Radio: Boston Tea Party Was Terrorism - Jets Insider.com Forums

Warfish · 11-20-2012, 01:13 PM

Reported on one of the right-winger radio shows this morning (Glenn Beck if I recall), a claim that in Texas, children are now being taought in public school that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

Agree or disagree with that descriptor?

DDNYjets · 11-20-2012, 01:23 PM

Depends on what your definition of terrorism is. And also what side you are on. I am sure radical muslims do not view themselves as terrorists.

Quote:

an act of sabotage by a non-state actor (a group called the Sons of Liberty) designed, by its symbolism, to draw attention to a political cause.

That sounds like it could be terrorism.

palmetto defender · 11-20-2012, 01:38 PM

It actually more fits the descripton (in my thinking) of vandalism.
To me terrorism injures or threatens to injure people.

This pales in comparison to many of the anarchist events seen in the U.S. today. G8 summits. Frankly, activities after a Super Bowl or World Series win are worse. LOL

21st Amendment · 11-20-2012, 01:42 PM

George Washington was a "terrorist"

palmetto defender · 11-20-2012, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21st Amendment

George Washington was a "terrorist"

And a pretty good one. And a slave owner and an Indian killer. And who cares anyway. Good leader.

Warfish · 11-20-2012, 01:57 PM

What is the dividing line between Terrorism and an internal Rebellion/Civil War?

Was the Tea Party designed to inspite terror in.....who, British subjects? Did it succeed?

I'm well aware of the old saying, "One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Perspective clearly plays a role.

But should we not have somewhat strict definitions of some things based on the action, the target, and the purpose?

By that kind of definition, would the Tea Party be Terrorism? I don't think so.

quantum · 11-20-2012, 02:00 PM

I've done a lot of thinking about this because people love to compare the IRA to the Palestinians, Red Brigades, Shining Path , et al.

Its not an easy subject.

Is the group in question:

trying to liberate their homeland from a colonial power/occupying army/oppressor (ie, "enemy")?

do they target anyone, or part of the enemy's power structure?

have their been atrocities committed by the enemy that forces the group into no-traditional warfare tactics?

Admittedly, the above criteria may be a product of my attempt to justify the IRA, or at least, the IRA prior to the early 90s when they became more of a criminal organization.

SafetyBlitz · 11-20-2012, 02:07 PM

Modern terrorism is not in the Tea Party mold. Suicide bombings and mass killings via hijacked planes does not equate to what the Boston Tea Party was.

The Sons of Liberty tarring and feathering loyalists? That's more like terrorism - but even so, the scale and destruction is just not on the same level as the global jihad.

Either way, targeting civilians is never justifiable - and that's where the line must be drawn.

VonRotten · 11-20-2012, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

It actually more fits the descripton (in my thinking) of vandalism.
To me terrorism injures or threatens to injure people.

This pales in comparison to many of the anarchist events seen in the U.S. today. G8 summits. Frankly, activities after a Super Bowl or World Series win are worse. LOL

From the 18th C. British perspective vandalism, especially destruction of property, was equivalent to or worse than, injury of the threat of injury to people.

palmetto defender · 11-20-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

What is the dividing line between Terrorism and an internal Rebellion/Civil War?

Was the Tea Party designed to inspite terror in.....who, British subjects? Did it succeed?

I'm well aware of the old saying, "One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Perspective clearly plays a role.

But should we not have somewhat strict definitions of some things based on the action, the target, and the purpose?

By that kind of definition, would the Tea Party be Terrorism? I don't think so.

The Boston Tea Party was not to inspire terror but a GFY message.
It succeeded in that there was some lessening of excessive taxes.
Not terrorism. Protest/vandalism.

palmetto defender · 11-20-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VonRotten

From the 18th C. British perspective vandalism, especially destruction of property, was equivalent to or worse than, injury of the threat of injury to people.

Your observation is NOT unfounded. The British hierarchy had a very low estimation of human life and subjected their citizens ( and others) to very shabby treatment - on both sides of the Atlantic.

Axil · 11-20-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

But should we not have somewhat strict definitions of some things based on the action, the target, and the purpose?

I think that's the issue really. the label's "terrorist" and "terrorism" have become political buzz words with fungible meanings.

Merriam-Webster: defines terrorism as: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion "

This is perhaps overly broad as most attacks within the confines of a war would fall under this definition. Personally i would probable define it something like this:

"The use of terror against a civilian target in order to achieve an objective."

This would preclude the use of terrorism to describe things such as military action or psychotic killings, where terror is a part of the attack, but not necessarily the means to the ends.

As far as the Boston Tea Party goes, i don't believe it was a terrorist act, because i don't believe the objective was to "terrorize" the British. Nor to i believe the British experienced terror as a result of the actions. I think it was vandalism by a rebel militant group against the lawful government.

PlumberKhan · 11-20-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

Reported on one of the right-winger radio shows this morning (Glenn Beck if I recall), a claim that in Texas, children are now being taought in public school that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

Agree or disagree with that descriptor?

I just finished that level on Assassins Creed 3.

It was pretty brutal. There were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.

VonRotten · 11-20-2012, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Your observation is NOT unfounded. The British hierarchy had a very low estimation of human life and subjected their citizens ( and others) to very shabby treatment - on both sides of the Atlantic.

Indeed. I am no Marxist by any stretch of the imagination, but the Marxist historians of the period make a pretty compelling argument that crimes against property (especially those committed by the lower classes against the ruling classes) were punished more severely that crimes against persons.

Mohegangreen · 11-20-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

Reported on one of the right-winger radio shows this morning (Glenn Beck if I recall), a claim that in Texas, children are now being taought in public school that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism.

Agree or disagree with that descriptor?

No way, it was a bunch of blasted guys in a bar, and someone said, "Fvck the king! Lets dump the Tea in the river! It was drunkard vandalism,lol...

HessStation · 11-20-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

I just finished that level on Assassins Creed 3.

It was pretty brutal. There were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.

Death by trident FTW!

quantum · 11-21-2012, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

I just finished that level on Assassins Creed 3.

It was pretty brutal. There were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.

oh noes - you made him swallow his gum?!

I've read on this very site that that's very bad.

Trades · 11-21-2012, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohegangreen

No way, it was a bunch of blasted guys in a bar, and someone said, "Fvck the king! Lets dump the Tea in the river! It was drunkard vandalism,lol...

The thing that is being left out is there were no intentional injuries during the Boston Tea Party. Tea was dumped overboard from ships into the ocean. No one was hurt (despite PKs revisionist reenactment).

Winstonbiggs · 11-23-2012, 08:25 AM

I view the destruction of private property as a terrorist attack in much the same way that taxing private property is a terrorist attack.

If the intention of the transfer was for the socialist good of the community not terrorist. If the intention of the transfer was for the good of capitalist pigs it's terrorism.

Soberphobia · 11-23-2012, 09:13 AM

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, strictly speaking. I think describing someone as terrorist is really about how oppressive the regimes they were fighting against were. For example, the British Empire was quite oppressive to the "territories" - it wasn't just the USA that threw off the yoke of the British Empire - India did it as well for example, as did the Irish. Under that definition, Mandela did carry out "terrorist attacks" but wasn't really a terrorist, more a freedome fighter.

Whereas, someone like Usama Bin Laden - how oppressive was the USA to him? They gave him arms and $ for Gods sakes. Usama had no reason to attack the USA apart from some imagined delusion that he was under seige from Western culture while stuck in the mountains in Afghanistan.

I think someone like Che Guevara was not a terrorist while he fought for Cuban independence, but afterwards when he tried to stir up crap across the globe as well as turning into a blatant murderer under Castro's rule definitely was.

So for me there is a line there between who is and who isn't.

11-20-2012, 01:13 PM	#1
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	Interesting Tibit Off the Radio: Boston Tea Party Was Terrorism Reported on one of the right-winger radio shows this morning (Glenn Beck if I recall), a claim that in Texas, children are now being taought in public school that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. Agree or disagree with that descriptor?

11-20-2012, 01:38 PM	#3
palmetto defender All League Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 4,657	It actually more fits the descripton (in my thinking) of vandalism. To me terrorism injures or threatens to injure people. This pales in comparison to many of the anarchist events seen in the U.S. today. G8 summits. Frankly, activities after a Super Bowl or World Series win are worse. LOL

11-20-2012, 01:42 PM	#4
21st Amendment Banned Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 576	George Washington was a "terrorist"

11-20-2012, 01:57 PM	#6
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	What is the dividing line between Terrorism and an internal Rebellion/Civil War? Was the Tea Party designed to inspite terror in.....who, British subjects? Did it succeed? I'm well aware of the old saying, "One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Perspective clearly plays a role. But should we not have somewhat strict definitions of some things based on the action, the target, and the purpose? By that kind of definition, would the Tea Party be Terrorism? I don't think so.

11-20-2012, 02:00 PM	#7
quantum GFY Snatchez! Hall Of Fame Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: LI Posts: 17,894	I've done a lot of thinking about this because people love to compare the IRA to the Palestinians, Red Brigades, Shining Path , et al. Its not an easy subject. Is the group in question: trying to liberate their homeland from a colonial power/occupying army/oppressor (ie, "enemy")? do they target anyone, or part of the enemy's power structure? have their been atrocities committed by the enemy that forces the group into no-traditional warfare tactics? Admittedly, the above criteria may be a product of my attempt to justify the IRA, or at least, the IRA prior to the early 90s when they became more of a criminal organization.

11-20-2012, 02:07 PM	#8
SafetyBlitz Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,997	Modern terrorism is not in the Tea Party mold. Suicide bombings and mass killings via hijacked planes does not equate to what the Boston Tea Party was. The Sons of Liberty tarring and feathering loyalists? That's more like terrorism - but even so, the scale and destruction is just not on the same level as the global jihad. Either way, targeting civilians is never justifiable - and that's where the line must be drawn.

11-23-2012, 08:25 AM	#19
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,933	I view the destruction of private property as a terrorist attack in much the same way that taxing private property is a terrorist attack. If the intention of the transfer was for the socialist good of the community not terrorist. If the intention of the transfer was for the good of capitalist pigs it's terrorism.

11-23-2012, 09:13 AM	#20
Soberphobia All League Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 3,440	Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, strictly speaking. I think describing someone as terrorist is really about how oppressive the regimes they were fighting against were. For example, the British Empire was quite oppressive to the "territories" - it wasn't just the USA that threw off the yoke of the British Empire - India did it as well for example, as did the Irish. Under that definition, Mandela did carry out "terrorist attacks" but wasn't really a terrorist, more a freedome fighter. Whereas, someone like Usama Bin Laden - how oppressive was the USA to him? They gave him arms and $ for Gods sakes. Usama had no reason to attack the USA apart from some imagined delusion that he was under seige from Western culture while stuck in the mountains in Afghanistan. I think someone like Che Guevara was not a terrorist while he fought for Cuban independence, but afterwards when he tried to stir up crap across the globe as well as turning into a blatant murderer under Castro's rule definitely was. So for me there is a line there between who is and who isn't.