5 ms·

Sorry just to clarify, why would the Boston tea party be terrorists in some eyes? Did they attack civilians for political reasons?

by 6nf 6y ago

cozzyd 6y ago
Destroying property for political reasons is still terrorism (like blowing up a parking lot of SUVs).
- happymellon 6y ago
  Destroying property for political reasons is not terrorism. You have to incite terror, if civilians are not scared then it isn't terrorism it is vandalism.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Imagine having to drink coffee. Its pretty terrifying, especially for a Brit. More seriously - the people who own that property were civilians and probably scared. In usa terrorism is defined currently as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents". (Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f) The boston tea party was premeditated, politically motivated, the tea was not military (so non combatant) and it was done by a subnational group. Seems to fit to me.
    - lovetocode 6y ago
      Non-combatant targets isn’t physical goods.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        The law pretty explicitly disagrees with your interpretation [0] if we've decided we're going to take the US govt definition as gospel. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-763651625-782330727&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:113B:section:2332b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
      - bawolff 6y ago
        Based on what? IANAL, but just reading that, it sounds like non-combatant would mean someone non military, and violence against their "stuff" would be considered violence against that person.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Your syllogism is resting on an unstated argument about what frightens civilians that you haven't justified.
londons_explore 6y ago
They were deliberately destroying a cargo of tea that they didn't own...
- 6nf 6y ago
  Sure but that’s not ‘terrorism’ under most definitions
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Why not? > the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Violence: > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So, as the use of physical force intended to damage something for political aims, it seems definitionally "terrorism"

Sorry just to clarify, why would the Boston tea party be terrorists in some eyes? Did they attack civilians for political reasons?

by 6nf 6y ago

Sorry just to clarify, why would the Boston tea party be terrorists in some eyes? Did they attack civilians for political reasons?

cozzyd 6y ago

Destroying property for political reasons is still terrorism (like blowing up a parking lot of SUVs).

happymellon 6y ago
Destroying property for political reasons is not terrorism. You have to incite terror, if civilians are not scared then it isn't terrorism it is vandalism.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Imagine having to drink coffee. Its pretty terrifying, especially for a Brit. More seriously - the people who own that property were civilians and probably scared. In usa terrorism is defined currently as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents". (Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f) The boston tea party was premeditated, politically motivated, the tea was not military (so non combatant) and it was done by a subnational group. Seems to fit to me.
  - lovetocode 6y ago
    Non-combatant targets isn’t physical goods.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      The law pretty explicitly disagrees with your interpretation [0] if we've decided we're going to take the US govt definition as gospel. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-763651625-782330727&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:113B:section:2332b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
    - bawolff 6y ago
      Based on what? IANAL, but just reading that, it sounds like non-combatant would mean someone non military, and violence against their "stuff" would be considered violence against that person.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Your syllogism is resting on an unstated argument about what frightens civilians that you haven't justified.

londons_explore 6y ago

They were deliberately destroying a cargo of tea that they didn't own...

6nf 6y ago
Sure but that’s not ‘terrorism’ under most definitions
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Why not? > the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Violence: > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So, as the use of physical force intended to damage something for political aims, it seems definitionally "terrorism"