Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Interesting Tibit Off the Radio: Boston Tea Party Was Terrorism

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955

    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?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,761
    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.

    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.

  3. #3
    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

  4. #4
    George Washington was a "terrorist"

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by 21st Amendment View Post
    George Washington was a "terrorist"
    And a pretty good one. And a slave owner and an Indian killer. And who cares anyway. Good leader.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    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.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,375
    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.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    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.

  9. #9
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by VonRotten View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Undrafted Free Agent
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    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...

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    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!

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,375
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Mohegangreen View Post
    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).

  19. #19
    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.

  20. #20
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us