XPost: rec.arts.tv, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nf.general   
   From: me@privacy.net   
      
   On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:44:47 -0400, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"EGK"  wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:32:13 -0400, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >>>So, you have to cut off their heads rather than burn down their businesses   
   >>>in order for it to be terrorism?  You seem to be under the impression that   
   >>>*all* people living in the Americas wanted freedom from English rule.   
   >>>That   
   >>>wasn't the case at all and the people that did want freedom most   
   >>>definitely   
   >>>committed many terrorist acts against those that continued to support the   
   >>>legitimate government.  Threatening the destruction of any business entity   
   >>>that continued to support the government IS terrorizing the populous.   
   >>   
   >> I thnk you're really stretching trying t omake a comparison.   Bombing and   
   >> killing citizens is terrorizing the populous.   Okalahoma city qualifies.   
   >> Driving Combines and tractors to close down the Capitol of Washington DC   
   >> like farmers once did is more akin to the Boston tea party.  Not everyone   
   >> supported them and they certainly hurt businesses at the time.  It still   
   >> wasn't terrorisim   
   >   
   >How is it not an act of 'terrorism' to burn down the businesses and homes of   
   >people that support the legitimate government of the land in an effort to   
   >keep them from continuing that support?   
      
   That's not what they did at the Boston tea party.  They threw tea in to the   
   ocean to protest taxation without representation.  If the original colonists   
   had been granted representation we might still be part of the British   
   Empire.   That's why I would equate what they did more to those farmers   
   shutting down transportation in and around DC to protest government   
   policies.   That hardly terrorized civilians.   Unless city-dwellers are   
   terrorized by heavy farm machinery.  :)   
      
   I understand your point though.  Scholars have argued it.   I'm sure you can   
   find cites that support what you believe just as I can.  A lot depends on   
   how you define terrorism.   
      
   http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/boston-tea-party4.htm   
   Was the BTP eco-terrorism?   
   Some contemporary commentators have equated the Boston Tea Party with   
   eco-terrorism, while others refute the idea. The term eco-terrorism is   
   defined differently at times, but in our How Eco-terrorism Works article, we   
   used the FBI definition of eco-terrorism as "the use of violence against   
   victims or property by an environmentally-oriented group for   
   environmentally-political reasons." By that standard, the BTP was likely not   
   an act of eco-terrorism, and it certainly wasn't in the environment's best   
   interests.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)