Reply With Quote
I'm not familiar with the first case but I'm sure there are a lot of differences.
You said it was common knowledge they "were considered terrorists."
The actual truth is, it is common knowledge that the US Founding Fathers being terrorists was propaganda.
Thanks for avoiding the question and blaming it on reading comprehension.
I have a new queston:
Which liberal professor taught you that our Founding Fathers were terrorists? Because he's wrong.
Besides compliment it? Nope. I actually get outstanding marks and input from my professors, but I'm ready for you to call me stupid; I know it's coming soon because you don't like me and need to compensate.Tell me, in your college level history classes did your professors ever comment on your reading comprehension?
No thanks. Reading your garbage about the Founding Fathers commonly being referred to as terrorists is enough for me.Perhaps you should go back and reread my statement and rethink your post. When you are able to read my post properly I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. Until then I'm not sure what the point of me addressing questions you have about statements I never made were.
I'm not familiar with the first case but I'm sure there are a lot of differences.
I never said that.
El Al Flight 1862 was an Israeli flight that crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam. Was a mechanical problem. They didn't crash into the building on purpose.
I think even by the common defintion you could label the founding fathers terrorists...
Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
I would say the Tea Party would be considered a threat to intimidate and coerce the Crown into giving them representation.
got a link?
No thanks. Reading your garbage about the Founding Fathers commonly being referred to as terrorists is enough for me.I wanna post a "U Mad?" picture.
Don't get mad at me because you can't read what I write. You can put it quotes all you want, but I wrote what I wrote and when you make statements based on something completely different.
I have no need to call you stupid. Others here will read what you and I posted and make up their own minds.
You and I don't like each other. That being said, he's stupid.
So then whats the point of comparing it?
That's called rebelling.
No it isn't.
Main Entry: 3re·bel
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈbel\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·belled; re·bel·ling
Date: 14th century
1 a : to oppose or disobey one in authority or control b : to renounce and resist by force the authority of one's government
2 a : to act in or show opposition or disobedience <rebelled against the conventions of polite society> b : to feel or exhibit anger or revulsion <rebelled at the injustice of life>
Unless you're trying to say the Tea Party is a rebellious movement.
You wrote that the Founding Fathers were commonly considered terrorists, which is untrue.
The Founding Fathers and the 13 colonies' peoples were rebels, not terrorists, and everyone from USA to France to England's King knew it.
In fact, if anyone was terrorizing, it was British soldiers.
That's a lie.I have no need to call you stupid.
So the Boston Tea Party was an incident that involved terrorists or rebels?
Says who exactly?
Where did you learn this?The Founding Fathers and the 13 colonies' peoples were rebels, not terrorists, and everyone from USA to France to England's King knew it.
In fact, if anyone was terrorizing, it was British soldiers.
So then their ideology isn't terrorism, but their acts, right?
I think I need some primary sources from a different en y than the British government, which state directly or indirectly the American Founding Fathers were terrorists and not rebels, before I answer who says what on my end.
That was an act of rebellion. Doesn't change the fact many "rebels" were also seen as terrorists before and during the war.
You didn't answer my question. Was the Boston Tea Party staged by terrorists or rebels?
While we're at it, why don't you list me which Founding Fathers were directly involved with this "terrorist act".
Also, explain to me why the "terrorists" at other major harbors simply denied the their Tea shipments from being unloaded.
What was their ultimate goal? Representation.
How did they do this? With violence and threats...like dumping tea into a harbor and destroying property.
Hence they are terrorist by the common definition.
LOL@ debating if the founding fathers were terrorist!
That, um , like, well, you know, I think ,it's kind of like, witch trial girl in the youtube video really did a number on some of you dumbasses.
Check.
Which Founding Fathers directly were involved?How did they do this? With violence and threats...like dumping tea into a harbor and destroying property.
"They" being the Founding Fathers? Which Founding Fathers were directly involved with the Boston Tea Party event, specifically?Hence they are terrorist by the common definition.
What violence and threats of violence did the Founding Fathers make in this context?
al qaeda is simply rebelling.
According to whom?
How about I don't because that's not at all what we're talking about.While we're at it, why don't you list me which Founding Fathers were directly involved with this "terrorist act".
Also, explain to me why the "terrorists" at other major harbors simply denied the their Tea shipments from being unloaded.
I'll ask you this. What would you call violence against loyalists and tax-collectors? Hate crimes?
"That was an act of rebellion"
Colonial tea smugglers paid the Tea Partiers to dress up as Indians and dump the tea because the King gave East India Company exclusive tea importing rights AND cut the tea tax, which made smuggling less profitable.
"Resisting the Tea Act
This 1775 British cartoon, "A Society of Patriotic Ladies at Edenton in North Carolina", satirizes the Edenton Tea Party, a group of women who organized a boycott of English tea.
In September and October 1773, seven ships carrying East India Company tea were sent to the colonies: four were bound for Boston, and one each for New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[35] In the ships were more than 2,000 chests containing nearly 600,000 pounds of tea.[36] Americans learned the details of the Tea Act while the ships were en route, and opposition began to mount.[37] Whigs, sometimes calling themselves Sons of Liberty, began a campaign to raise awareness and to convince or compel the consignees to resign, in the same way that stamp distributors had been forced to resign in the 1765 Stamp Act crisis.[38]
The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protestors were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies, remained prominent.[39] Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights.[40] This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented.[41]
Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business.[42] Legitimate tea importers who had not been named as consignees by the East India Company were also threatened with financial ruin by the Tea Act.[43] Another major concern for merchants was that the Tea Act gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade, and it was feared that this government-created monopoly might be extended in the future to include other goods.[44]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party
So it was the REDUCTION in tea tax that really pissed off the "American" smugglers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
