The Boston Tea Party?

Question

Wasn't this an act of terrorism, by our present definition?

Didn't the Militia of the Continental Army operate as a non-uniformed force that "hid behind the skirts of women and children" when not fighting?

Wasn't the Boston Masscre fomented by unruly mobs rioting in the streets in an anarchic manner?

Did not foreign fighters (who came b/c of their hatred of the British) from France and Germany participate, bringing in Arms as well as people?

Did not our "Militia's" seek retribution against Tories and their sympathizers?

Did our Militia's not fight unconventional warfare through guerilla tactics (euphemistically called "Indian style - {not a sex position, btw})?

Our "Freddom Fighters" were terrorists, had help from foreign sources, tormented their internal foes (tories), and fought, unconventionally and by hiding behind their civilian garb...

Perspective.....

Answer 1

The Boston Tea party was an terrorist act!. It was part of the bigger picture that eventually brought about the birth of a nation. Counties that helped (France in particular) helped because it was also fighting the British at the same time in India (and loosing). Helping the American continental army was seen by France to be a way of getting even for its losses in India and a cunning antagonism which they hoped would spread its influence further and deeper into the emerging state! weakening the English who's had up until that time been overwhelming.


The tactics used are the very same tactics used by virtually every other militia fighting for freedom, including the insurgents in Iraq! and were very effectively used in Vietnam!.

Answer 2

An interesting point and perfectly valid in some areas.

Parrallels could also be drawn with the situation regarding Iran and the accusations that the Iranian government are supplying arms to the insurgents in Iraq. Could not the same be said of the US and their supplying of arms and cash to the Irish Republican Army to kill British soldiers and cause explosions in London that killed many innocent civillians?

Despite filling all the criteria for what is commonly thought of as terrorism the IRA were never thought of as such in the US.
Many have defended them by claiming "they just wanted the Brits out of Ireland". Well, in that case the islamic terrorists just want the US out of Saudi...

Answer 3

Our militia did. But we weren't trying to destroy a country, rather to free ourselves from tyranny.

Al Quaida in Iraq will still have reasons to exist if we pull out.

they'll fortify and then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks, like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The revolutionary war occured after decades of protestation and petitioning the King of England for a seat on the British Parliament. MAJOR taxes were being leveed(sp) on the Colonalists because there was no one who would speak their point in Parliament.

watch 1776 when you have some time. I'ts a fairly accurate movie about the lead up to the Declaration of Independence.

Answer 4

Technically, those involved in the Boston Tea Party dressed as Native Americans, so "hiding behind women's skirts" applies only marginally, but I understand and completely agree with your point.

I have asked Republicans several times in Y/A what they would do if another country just pre-emptorily invaded the US? Would they resist the occupiers or would they cooperate? I always hear, "I would fight to the DEATH!" from them, but never do I see any understanding of a connection between THEIR patriotism and the average Iraqi's patriotism in resisting and fighting who they perceive to be invaders and occupiers, namely, the US.

If Republicans TRULY wanted to end recruitment for al Qaida in Iraq, they could do it very simply:

Withdraw the troops completely and you remove the reason for al Qaida in Iraq to exist.

But, as far as Bush and the Right Wing War Machine are concerned, you can't fight a "War on Terror" if you don't have terrorists, so staying in Iraq ensures a steady supply of young Iraqis willing to strap on explosives and run into crowded streets to make a political statement, and ensures we will BE in Iraq, pissing away money AND American lives, for the foreseeable future.

Answer 5

Considering that if you were charged with treason... you were immediately shot or hung from the nearest tree... not sent to Guantanamo to wear panties on your head. I don't think the American revolutionist hid behind religious persecution, or killed civilians. Terrorist today don't hide in women dresses... they hide behind the woman wearing the dress.

the Saying goes "Give me Liberty of give me death!" not "Death to America!".-- America only wanted to be free from England, not destroy it.

If Iraq wanted the US to leave... act like a civilized free democratic Nation... the US would leave. Then after wards they can go back to the sad state of a nation they are now! Simple... but know they are not known for taking the easy way.. they have to kill and maim many people they can in the process.-- Actually maybe the people of Iraq wants this... ever think that this is Palistine on a larger scale... The problem is Iran and Syria sending terrorist into Iraq using it as a battlefield... Then you Revolutionist theory is wrong... we are dealing with Invaders not "freedom fighters".

Answer 6

Yes, but we also had a sane side...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition

Answer 7

YES but needed!~!