News Boston Tea Party Activists Were Terrorists

[klimatos]

It tickles my funny bone to note that the U. S. Code of Federal Regulations defines the original Boston Tea Party activists as terrorists! 28 CFR Section 0.85 defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence . . .to intimidate or coerce a government . . . in furtherance of political or social objectives." This makes the Libyan insurgents all terrorists, and any attempt to assist them could well be called "aiding terrorism". Moreover, the Zionist movement that fought the British under the mandate were also "terrorists" under the U. S. Code, as were the anti-Nazi resistance fighters during WWII.

If you think the law is ridiculous, I agree. Tell it to your legislators who wrote it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It tickles my funny bone to note that the U. S. Code of Federal Regulations defines the original Boston Tea Party activists as terrorists! 28 CFR Section 0.85 defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence . . .to intimidate or coerce a government . . . in furtherance of political or social objectives." This makes the Libyan insurgents all terrorists, and any attempt to assist them could well be called "aiding terrorism". Moreover, the Zionist movement that fought the British under the mandate were also "terrorists" under the U. S. Code, as were the anti-Nazi resistance fighters during WWII.

If you think the law is ridiculous, I agree. Tell it to your legislators who wrote it.

Why do you think the law is ridiculous? It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. No secret there. As far as the Brits were concerned, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. It is all a matter of which side you're on.

 

[cristo]

It tickles my funny bone to note that the U. S. Code of Federal Regulations defines the original Boston Tea Party activists as terrorists!

Absolutely they were. Why do you think Wills and Kate are on their way over? Come on colonialists, time to pledge your allegiance to the Queen.

 

[klimatos]

Why do you think the law is ridiculous? It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Because it also defines George Washington and the rest of our founding fathers as terrorists. I believe that any law that makes that assertion is a ridiculous law for the country that they founded to adopt.

 

[Alfi]

Because it also defines George Washington and the rest of our founding fathers as terrorists. I believe that any law that makes that assertion is a ridiculous law for the country that they founded to adopt.

slightly rewritten. ... ( or .. as I read this sentence )

I believe that any law that also defines George Washington and the rest of our founding fathers as terrorists, is a ridiculous law for the country that they founded to adopt.



That's a mighty tall pedestal to be putting simple people on.

 

[klimatos]

That's a mighty tall pedestal to be putting simple people on.

Our founding fathers were not simple people by any stretch of the imagination. They were extremely complex people. Read their writings.

Nor were they admirers of the "common man". They distrusted the common man's ability to govern himself. That is why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. None of the first six presidents were voted into office by the public. Andrew Jackson was the first president to be elected by the citizens, and look what that got us--a corrupt and bigoted leader of the worst kind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think you are missing something here. If a person commits an "act of terror" against say an invader of the US, they might be considered a terrorist by definition, but according to US law they wouldn't be guilty of a crime. The law would only apply if the act was committed against the US government.

As I indicated, when the terrorist is on your side you call them a freedom fighter.

 

[klimatos]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

This equivalence has a glib surface appeal, but fails utterly when carried to its logical conclusion. Surely you wouldn't say that there is no significant difference between Thomas Jefferson and Osama Bin Laden?

A well-written law would distinguish between a democratic group that seeks redress of unjust wrongs from an oppressive government and an authoritarian group that seeks to impose a single set of social constraints on the public.

Thomas Jefferson despised religious authoritarianism and advocated democracy. Osama Bin Laden promoted religious authoritarianism (as long as it was his own brand of religious belief) and considered democracy to be Satanic.

Any law that cannot distinguish between the two is--in my opinion--a bad law. And any law that lumps the founding fathers in with Al Qaeda as both being terrorists groups is a law not worth of respect by any thinking American.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This equivalence has a glib surface appeal, but fails utterly when carried to its logical conclusion. Surely you wouldn't say that there is no significant difference between Thomas Jefferson and Osama Bin Laden?

That is an obviously cherry-picked example where the terrorist is a bad guy. But if you were to ask some radical Muslims, they might think the example applies to Bin Laden just as well.

A well-written law would distinguish between a democratic group that seeks redress of unjust wrongs from an oppressive government and an authoritarian group that seeks to impose a single set of social constraints on the public.

How are you going to include broad concepts like "oppressive" and "authoritarian" in a simple law. What you are suggesting is impossible.

Right or wrong, good or bad, if I commit an act of terror against the US, I'm a terrorist. This is true even if the government is corrupt beyond hope and needs to be overthrown. And it would still be a crime, which is why you have revolutions in the first place - oppression isn't fair or just. The oppressor will never admit that he is the villain and the terrorist is fighting for justice.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In order to make the distinction between terrorists, and freedom fighters, we have the Constitution and esp the Bill of Rights. That is how you know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. But it takes a Constitution to make that distinction.

 

[klimatos]

In order to make the distinction between terrorists, and freedom fighters, we have the Constitution and esp the Bill of Rights. That is how you know the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. But it takes a Constitution to make that distinction.

I have a copy of the Constitution in front of me now. I see nothing in it that distinguishes between freedom fighters and terrorists. That was not and is not the purpose of that document.

If having a law on the books that defines our founding fathers and other patriots as terrorists does not bother you, then there is little I can say. It bothers me.

 

[russ_watters]

Ugh I hate this pointless discussion. We do it way too often. Its great for people who love to propagandize, but for people who prefer being objective it is painful to watch

Please use the whole quote klimatos: you edited out qualifiers and are overinterpreting some of your examples, including Washington and the Libyan rebels.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do you think the law is ridiculous? It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. No secret there.

You're trying to have it both ways Ivan. Either it has an objective definition or it doesn't. It can't be both at the same time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You're trying to have it both ways Ivan. Either it has an objective definition or it doesn't. It can't be both at the same time.

I thought it was explained pretty well. What part do I need to explain to you?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have a copy of the Constitution in front of me now. I see nothing in it that distinguishes between freedom fighters and terrorists. That was not and is not the purpose of that document.

Yes, it is. It defines the rights and protections that we enjoy. When you take office or join the military, you swear to defend the Constitution with your life. This might make you a terrorist to some but a freedom fighter to the US.

If having a law on the books that defines our founding fathers and other patriots as terrorists does not bother you, then there is little I can say. It bothers me.

Why? As far as the Brits were concerned, they WERE terrorists. But they weren't acting against the US government. That's the difference.

 

[cristo]

Why? As far as the Brits were concerned, they WERE terrorists. But they weren't acting against the US government. That's the difference.

This argument really doesn't make any sense, since the US did not exist back then. Perhaps the constitution was written with hindsight to try and stop traitorous acts of overthrowing the government in the future.

 

[klimatos]

Please use the whole quote klimatos: you edited out qualifiers and are overinterpreting some of your examples, including Washington and the Libyan rebels.

I was quoting from Wikipedia, which itself did not include the entire statement. Here is the Wiki quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#United_States_Code_.28U.S.C..29

"The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."

It turns out that Wiki's reference to Section 0.85 is erroneous. Section 0.85 has nothing to do with terrorism.

As to my "overinterpretation", I fear that you must be more specific.

 

[klimatos]

The law would only apply if the act was committed against the US government.

Not true. The law specifies "a government", not the U. S. government.

 

[mege]

This argument really doesn't make any sense, since the US did not exist back then. Perhaps the constitution was written with hindsight to try and stop traitorous acts of overthrowing the government in the future.

There was a quote from the early years of the US - Jefferson, I think, said that he expected there to be rebellion every generation or two.

 

[russ_watters]

What irritates me so much about what Ivan posted is that it's terrorist/terrorist sympathizer propaganda designed to sabbotage rational discussion of a pretty important and frankly not all that complicated issue.

At it's best is it as useless as saying 'one man's plumber is another's union member': the two aren't discussing the same issue and aren't even mutually exclusive. So it's pointless to say it.

It's meant to point out that the same action can mean different things to different people and if that were all there was to it, it wouldn't be so bad, but there's more to it than that: to those on the wrong side of the issue, it isn't just a matter of using a different definition, but rather of flip-flopping and messing with definitions for different scenarios, for the sake of propagandizing. As seen in Ivan's post, those on the wrong side of the issue will gleefully accept one of the standard definitions when it allows them to criticize actions of Americans. But then when looking at the actions of other's, the term is rejecected in favor of a more romantic/nostalgic one. It's intellectually dishonest to not objectively apply definitions and it plays right into the hands of the modern-day terrorists.

And yes, it is true that there are a lot of people that think this way, but that doesn't make it a useful basis for an intellectual discussion to say it any more than it is a useful basis for an intellectual basis for a discussion of crime and punishment to go to a prison and ask the inmates. Odds are, most of what you'll get is similar nonsense, that doesn't help one learn about how the legal system works. So why do it?

It also bothers me because as I said above, this is a pretty important issue. It informs as to the logic behind much of the West's foreign policy for the past 10 years, so shouldn't people be trying to understand - rather than just attack - the basis for it?

Now, the Tea Party: For those who have never considered one of the accepted definitions of "terrorism" - perhaps becasue of the type of intentional obfuscation discussed above - it sometimes comes as a shock that it fits the definition. But it is important to note that just as not all speeding is the same (5mph over won't get you noticed, 100mph over will land you in jail), not all terrorism is the same either, particularly when it comes to the property crimes as aspect of the definition. There's an important example with ecoterrorism that informs as to the importance of making the definition broad at that end of the spectrum: In the '90s, sabbotage by arson was a popular modus operandi of ecoterrorists and if no one gets hurt, it's just a property crime or sabbotage similar to the Boston Tea Party. But in one case, someone died and that turns the same act into murder. Since the act is the same, there needs to be a way to categorize it the same for different outcomes. It's really as simple as that. But don't make the mistake of thinking that since the label is the same, the Boston Tea Party is equivalent to 9/11. They're oceans apart.

Now a quick note on Washington to hopefully quell that sidebar: Washington was a military general and afaik, wasn't at the Boston Tea Party. Afaik, nothing he did during the revolution qualifies as "terrorism" under any accepted definition. You can certainly use other words such as "treason" and "insurgent", but they aren't the same thing at all. Don't fall into Ivan's trap of tossing the definitions in the trash and labeling him based emotion. This thread is about one of the accepted definitions, so use it faithfully. If you use the definitions of words faithfully/honestly/objectively, they shouldn't scare you. It shouldn't even scare you to recognize that the basic crime of all of our founders was treason - a pretty big crime, up until recently punishable by death. Yes, the founders were all criminals. But if you understand what that really means, it shouldn't be too troubling.

 

[cristo]

I agree with Russ, that the boston tea party activists were not terrorists in the commonly used sense of the word (such as 9/11). They did, of course, commit treason and the only reason that is celebrated is because the (now) US won the war. We all know that history and laws are written by the victors.

I think every American should be aware of the crimes of their founding fathers, but equally the reasons for their actions. If forgotten, there is always a danger that history might repeat itself, with America perhaps being on the opposite side.

 

[daveb]

First, can people please stop using Wikipedia as a source? Wikipedia is not an accurate source. 28 CFR 0.85 has to do with the organizational structure of the FBI.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bf12dab0612a303d1f76cf8f6b4adf0e&rgn=div8&view=text&node=28:1.0.1.1.1.28.1.1&idno=28"

Despite that, we are talking about legal definitions of terrorism (and for the moment I'll assume Wikipedia at least got that right), so trying to separate ecoterrorism from murderous terrorism is disingenuous. Ivan is right in that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. However, the courts will use the legal definition, and if the founding fathers fall under the legal definition (which I believe it would), then it is terrorism. Whoever is in charge gets to determine afterwwards whether or nor not it was "warranted" (as Jefferson pointed out in the Declaration).

However, Russ is right in saying that you still have to separate the two. Just as civil disobedience is considered by the courts as acceptable in the face of an unjust law (and by no means am I equating terrorism with civil disobedience), then terrorism, by our current legal definition, could theoretically be considered acceptable under certain conditions, such as those that sparkd the Tea Party and Revolution.

 

[nobahar]

Thomas Jefferson despised religious authoritarianism and advocated democracy...

He didn't advocate Democracy, unless of course the population were all free men; I think there may have been women, Natives, and slaves there at the time.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with Russ, that the boston tea party activists were not terrorists in the commonly used sense of the word (such as 9/11). They did, of course, commit treason and the only reason that is celebrated is because the (now) US won the war. We all know that history and laws are written by the victors.

I think every American should be aware of the crimes of their founding fathers, but equally the reasons for their actions. If forgotten, there is always a danger that history might repeat itself, with America perhaps being on the opposite side.

When modern day terrorists start sneaking aboard cargo freighters loaded with Chinese-made goods headed to the US (they must not shoot anyone or blow up the ship) and dump the cargo into the water to protest increased interest payments on the national debt - then a comparison might be fair. Please label - IMO.

 

[Alfi]

When modern day terrorists start sneaking aboard cargo freighters loaded with Chinese-made goods headed to the US (they must not shoot anyone or blow up the ship) and dump the cargo into the water to protest increased interest payments on the national debt - then a comparison might be fair. Please label - IMO.

oh oh - now that you let your plans out ... if/when this comes to pass ... I'll remember who said it first.
lol


you made a 'If ..then' statement ... with a mythical if.

 

[BobG]

Why do you think the law is ridiculous? It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. No secret there. As far as the Brits were concerned, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. It is all a matter of which side you're on.

You're trying to have it both ways Ivan. Either it has an objective definition or it doesn't. It can't be both at the same time.

It doesn't have an objective definition that everyone can agree upon.

I still think it would take a real stretch to treat the Boston Tea Party as a terrorist act. Usually, the primary goal of the act is terror. The act serves no other tactical or strategic purpose. And it should also either target or recklessly endanger non-combatants. Plus, it has to play a part in some bigger political effort, religious effort, but be conducted by non-government players.

I think the Boston Tea Party would only meet the last two conditions.

The goal was to boycott tea and that goal was met peacefully in other ports (ships returned to Britain with the tea still on it). While the Boston Tea Party wound up destroying property, the property destroyed was specifically related to the goal of the effort. I'm not sure how far one could push that line of logic, but I think there's some legitimate room for debate in the particular incident.

The Boston Tea Party didn't recklessly endanger non-combatants.

Interestingly, after the Boston Tea Party, one shipowner did try to set up a situation where the boycott would endanger non-combatants. The Peggy Stewart contained other cargo besides tea, including over 50 indentured servants. The way the dispute was running, no cargo could be unloaded from ships carrying tea until the taxes were paid. Doing the same with the Peggy Stewart had a good chance of resulting in the death of the indentured servants, plus the loss of cargo not included in the embargo, since the ship was barely seaworthy and could only cross the ocean when weather was likely to be good. Returning to Britain wasn't a very realistic option given the season. I don't think the victim can intentionally cause an act to cross the line into terrorism, though. (In any event, the other partners in the company weren't very happy with the partner that set up the shipment and they reached a compromise where the humans and other cargo would be unloaded, with the company burning the ship and tea themselves.)

 

[mege]

So, also using the definition for terrorism - doesn't that make union worker protests terrorism? Not working and destroying goods - both cost a company/government money and depending on who's striking, it could cost lives because of safety concerns if someone isn't doing their job in a critical position (air controller strike if the 80s?). What's the difference?

I think russ_waters analogy regarding the speeding tickets is probably the best way to look at it, and in the end it's all a matter of perspective.

 

[Al68]

So, also using the definition for terrorism - doesn't that make union worker protests terrorism? Not working and destroying goods - both cost a company/government money and depending on who's striking, it could cost lives because of safety concerns if someone isn't doing their job in a critical position (air controller strike if the 80s?). What's the difference?

I might buy the "destroying goods" part, but "not working" clearly isn't terrorism. In fact, that's what I'm doing right now.

Union members, like all other private citizens, have no obligation to servitude. They work voluntarily, and are (legally) free to not work anytime they want, just like everyone else.

 

[russ_watters]

It doesn't have an objective definition that everyone can agree upon.

Well that's trivially obvious and unhelpful - of course you can never get "everyone" to agree on anything! So let me explain/expand:

Criminals of all types tend to be unreasonable and irrational when it comes to legal and moral concepts. That should be obvious - it's part and parcel of what makes/enables them to be criminals. So it shouldn't be surprising, nor should it be troubling to reasonable people that they see the world through twisted glass. But we shouldn't just throw up our hands and agree to view the world through the same glass. Reasonable people need to insist on being reasonable.

Governments - particularly democracies - by their nature have to write things down and because of that, they are forced to be both precise with their wording and objective in their application. While individual politicians can and do sometimes play fast and loose with definitions and legal matters in general, they tend to get crucified for it (see: Bush on torture). But perhaps more to the point, western governments and the UN as a body tend to agree pretty well on the definition of "terrorism".

Then there's the rest of us - the people in this forum. By and large, we are non-terrorist westerners. We can either choose to view the issue through the rational/objective framework set up by our scholars and governments or we can choose the irrational/non-objective way of the terrorists. In free societies, people can of course choose either path, but that doesn't mean both paths have equal merit - even less when one tries to play both ways at the same time. It's disingenuous and wrong. Without going too far down a path of discussing moral relativism vs absolutism, everyone in here lives, by choice, in a country ruled by laws and set up under a logical philosophical framework. At the very least, for such people, holding the non-objective view is "wrong" as a matter of practical reality.

So to sum up: all this says to me that it really isn't difficult to have a clear and objective definition that rational people should agree with.

Now all that said, not all examples fall neatly into the definitions, so there is room for reasonable people to disagree in some cases - such as with the Boston Tea Party. But people shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that the difficult examples make the whole issue nebulous. They don't. Many, if not most examples, including some of the other examples given (Washington, Bin Laden) clearly fall into one box or the other.

I tend to make unusually broad interpretations to avoid the possibility of legitimate questions about my objectivity.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with Russ, that the boston tea party activists were not terrorists in the commonly used sense of the word (such as 9/11).

We basically agree, but a minor clarification (I know I was long-winded...): I do think one could logically apply an accepted, modern definition of terrorism to the Boston Tea Party. I just think it is thin because it is far down on the spectrum of actions that qualify, so it isn't intellectually useful to do it. And just as the police wouldn't bother charging someone 5mph over the limit with "speeding", I also doubt they'd charge modern reincarnations (al la whowee's post) with "terrorism". Heck, we recently had a thread about physical intimidation and violence utilized by unions - they never get charged with terrorism for it.

They did, of course, commit treason and the only reason that is celebrated is because the (now) US won the war.

Well, celebrated in the US. Not sure they celebrate it in the UK.

We all know that history and laws are written by the victors.

I don't like that cliche either. I suspect at one time it was literally true, but I don't think it's very true or useful today. Perhaps the Romans would so decimate their enemies that they could prevent the full history from being told, but modern, western examples would be hard to come by. The US Revolutionary War is a good [counter]example. Britain is still around and I'm sure schoolchildren are taught about the US Revolution from a perspective different from what Americans learn. I'd be fascinated to learn that perspective. Or, for that matter, the French and German perspectives. I'd be surprised if many of the facts are different, but perhaps the characterizations and emphasis are. I don't see any lingering bitterness on either side that might cause one to want to twist the history too much.

Another example is the Civil War. There is a pretty vibrant alternate history of it surviving even today. But is that history more accurate than the Northern history? I doubt it - it's fueled by quite a strong lingering bitterness about the war and IMO, such strong emotion drives the history to be more slanted.

Another counterexample, fueled by the information age, is the 2nd gulf war. The US won, but few people outside the US have a favorable impression of the US's actions and so much was covered real-time on the internet I'd be surprised if many people believed there was a significant suppressed history there.

Now certainly, to the victor goes the spoils and the winner gets to make the new rules, but I don't think history really is written by the victor.

I think every American should be aware of the crimes of their founding fathers, but equally the reasons for their actions. If forgotten, there is always a danger that history might repeat itself, with America perhaps being on the opposite side.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

I was quoting from Wikipedia, which itself did not include the entire statement. Here is the Wiki quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#United_States_Code_.28U.S.C..29

"The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)."

It turns out that Wiki's reference to Section 0.85 is erroneous. Section 0.85 has nothing to do with terrorism.

As to my "overinterpretation", I fear that you must be more specific.

You originally said this: "the unlawful use of force and violence . . .to intimidate or coerce a government . . . in furtherance of political or social objectives."

The missing pieces speak to who the definition applies to. In other words, it's against the government or people or their property. It does not apply to military-on-military fighting, so such military actions don't qualify as terrorism. That disqualifies the Libyan rebels and George Washington from being terrorists for such actions.

Caveat: There may well be some Libyan rebels engaging in terrorism (I haven't heard of any, but it is possible), but by and large, they appear to be a fairly basic rebel force.

 

[russ_watters]

So, also using the definition for terrorism - doesn't that make union worker protests terrorism? Not working and destroying goods - both cost a company/government money and depending on who's striking, it could cost lives because of safety concerns if someone isn't doing their job in a critical position (air controller strike if the 80s?). What's the difference?

A basic strike/protest, no. There isn't necessarily a violent component to it. But I think you are probably aware that while there doesn't have to be, there often is. If a union protest becomes about physical intimidation, then it starts to inch toward the definition of terrorism.

Safety concerns...? Nothing resembling that in the definition of terrorism.

 

[mheslep]

Late to the game: where was the violence in the Boston Tea Party? They tossed some cargo. They did not blow themselves or others up, shoot up kids, etc.

 

[klimatos]

Late to the game: where was the violence in the Boston Tea Party? They tossed some cargo. They did not blow themselves or others up, shoot up kids, etc.

It is my understanding that they roughed up the ship's crew when the crew tried to stop them. In legal terms, however, violence does not necessarily involve hurting people.

 

[WhoWee]

It is my understanding that they roughed up the ship's crew when the crew tried to stop them. In legal terms, however, violence does not necessarily involve hurting people.

Do you believe "roughing up" could ever be the standard for "terrorist"?

 

[klimatos]

Do you believe "roughing up" could ever be the standard for "terrorist"?

No, I don't. But then, I didn't write the law. If you don't like our founding fathers being defined as "terrorists" under US law, then take it up with the inept legislators that came up with that legal language. To me the wording verges on legislative incompetence.

However, when I see what our legislators are doing today on the debt issue, incompetence seems too mild a word!

 

[mheslep]

I'm not concerned with the legal definition, but with the English definition. In today's context of violence used against states - 7/7, 9/11, Ft Hood, etc, the original Boston Tea Party members may have been criminals but not even remotely were they terrorists.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you believe "roughing up" could ever be the standard for "terrorist"?

Violence against people is not required by the accpeted definitions of terrorism. That's kinda the whole point of the thread...

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not concerned with the legal definition, but with the English definition.

Could you give us the definition you are using then? Mine says this:
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " (dictionary.com)

I think their use of the word "and" is a little gramatically cumbersome, though - I think it should be "or" (as it is in the legal definition). Regardless, it requires either, but not necessarily both. So if terrorism requires only the threat of violence, then it doesn't require violence.[edit] further clarification: "violence" doesn't have to be against people either. Violence against property is still violence. Sabbotage and arson are violent acts.

M-W has a more generic definition, which implies the same thing: " the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"

In today's context of violence used against states - 7/7, 9/11, Ft Hood, etc, the original Boston Tea Party members may have been criminals but not even remotely were they terrorists.

Who's context? According to the media, our President, and some of the liberals in this forum, Ft Hood wasn't terrorism either. I don't think it is useful to allow people who abuse definitions to corrupt the definitions we use.

The entire point of terrorism is terror. That's what distinguishes it from just being murder in the examples you gave. Obiously, it tends to be more effective if there is some murder associated with it (it makes the threats more tangeable), but it is not required. That's why eco-terrorism, which is mostly sabbotage, fits both the legal and dictionary definitions of terrorism. That's why cross burning is terrorism: http://calcoastnews.com/2011/07/cross-burning-suspects-plead-not-guilty/

 

[mheslep]

Could you give us the definition you are using then? Mine says this:
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. " (dictionary.com)
...

I don't think the tea dumping in Boston in anyway threatened, intimidated, or coerced the 18th century British crown even in part. Nor was it even intended to have such an effect by the actors. Nor was the slight violence to the crew coupled to the political act. The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion, a political symbolism of non-compliance. To my mind the event is thus entirely different from the terrorism we see today which does indeed meet the dictionary definition.

The entire point of terrorism is terror.

Agreed. No terror, no terrorism. And so ...

That's what distinguishes it from just being murder in the examples you gave. Obiously, it tends to be more effective if there is some murder associated with it (it makes the threats more tangeable), but it is not required. That's why eco-terrorism, which is mostly sabbotage, fits both the legal and dictionary definitions of terrorism. That's why cross burning is terrorism: http://calcoastnews.com/2011/07/cross-burning-suspects-plead-not-guilty/

Good disparate cases to help define the point. I agree that murder is not required, but the threat of murder or grievous harm is, else there's no terror. Cross burning is terrorism because it terrorizes by specifically threatening murder, and in a flagrant matter that implies the threat is beyond a law enforcement remedy. Eco terrorism to my mind is only terrorism when it resorts to tree spiking and the like that randomly threatens the lives of labor. The other criminal acts of breaking and entering here and there, destroying property and such 'terrorizes' nobody, and I would say is merely criminal.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think the tea dumping in Boston in anyway threatened, intimidated, or coerced the 18th century British crown even in part. Nor was it even intended to have such an effect by the actors. Nor was the slight violence to the crew coupled to the political act.

I'm completely confused - all of that sounds exactly opposite of what I think are the facts of the incident and its legacy. The British responded by clamping down with both physical and political force. Additional, similar unrest eventually coerced the British into reversing course. And it should be trivially obvious that the intent of the "tea party" was to coerce the British into repealing the "tea act" -- which they did.

These sorts of things seem to me to be exactly what the definitions of "terrorism" intend as a motive and [political] effect.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of rebellion, a political symbolism of non-compliance. To my mind the event is thus entirely different from the terrorism we see today which does indeed meet the dictionary definition.

I guess what you said above is intended to be an explanation of how it differs, but it sounds to me like you were describing similarities. I'm just not seeing the differences you see.

Agreed. No terror, no terrorism. And so ...

You don't think British government officials were terrified by the developments leading up to the Revolution, including the Tea Party? Really? How 'bout the governor, who'se house was ransacked during follow-on protests?

Good disparate cases to help define the point. I agree that murder is not required, but the threat of murder or grievous harm is, else there's no terror. Cross burning is terrorism because it terrorizes by specifically threatening murder, and in a flagrant matter that implies the threat is beyond a law enforcement remedy. Eco terrorism to my mind is only terrorism when it resorts to tree spiking and the like that randomly threatens the lives of labor. The other criminal acts of breaking and entering here and there, destroying property and such 'terrorizes' nobody, and I would say is merely criminal.

Well, that's where you and the definition differ...and me, frankly. If someone ransacked my property (purposely, my property) - much less, burned it down, I'm reasonably certain I'd be fearing for my life.

 

[mheslep]

I grant that there are all kinds of extenuating circumstances on behalf of both the actor and the victim that could change the definition, so I won't claim my interpretation is the One True Definition of Terror. That said,

I'm completely confused - all of that sounds exactly opposite of what I think are the facts of the incident and its legacy. The British responded by clamping down with both physical and political force.

Response to the act doesn't change my definition. The British did as any oppressor might. If I blatantly run a red light in front of Cop he's going to 'clamp down' on me, but it doesn't make my crime terrorism. Extenuating circumstance: I run the light nearly clipping a minivan w/ soccer mom and kids. Both the mom and the cop might accuse me or terrorizing ...

Additional, similar unrest eventually coerced the British into reversing course. And it should be trivially obvious that the intent of the "tea party" was to coerce the British into repealing the "tea act" -- which they did.

I'd say the British mindset was indignant and condescending in crafting a response, not coerced, given statements from Parliament and British newspaper opinion. I reserve the term 'coerced' for something else, say an imaginary American armada appearing on the Thames.

These sorts of things seem to me to be exactly what the definitions of "terrorism" intend as a motive and [political] effect. I guess what you said above is intended to be an explanation of how it differs, but it sounds to me like you were describing similarities. I'm just not seeing the differences you see.
You don't think British government officials were terrified by the developments leading up to the Revolution, including the Tea Party? Really?

Well for the developments taken together see my opening sentence. As to the Tea Party act itself, no.

How 'bout the governor, who'se house was ransacked during follow-on protests?

Different case, a personalized attack intended like a cross burning specifically to create fear via "we know where you live, we are not beyond making this personal, and we can act at will." And, if the ransacking was truly random, uncoordinated mob violence then intent becomes murky.

Well, that's where you and the definition differ...and me, frankly. If someone ransacked my property (purposely, my property) - much less, burned it down, I'm reasonably certain I'd be fearing for my life.

Well me too perhaps. But ransacking my office after hours, which has been the circumstance I think in some eco cases? Not so much. I'd be irate, not terrorized.

As for the British officials in the Americas at the time, no doubt the circumstances of many events taken collectively caused fear, or terror if you like, just as it would have for the loyalist colonists. Of course it would, because they were at threat of being caught behind enemy lines should war come, as it did. Is the threat of war to those who may be included in it also terrorism?