Origanally posted by lasersailor184
I don't believe you really can argue about points of view. You have the terrorists actions, and the results of those actions.
Those two things are very objective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right there-Under common definition, they were both terrorist acts.
But, I doubt the Founding Fathers' looked around at each other and said, "Our best recourse, at this point in time, it to resort to terrorism to meet our ends."
It was more like, "Let's show King George what we think of his taxes! Dress up as indians, so that we can't be identified, And so that there won't be reprisals against us. Let's strike a blow against the tyrant...."
That's what I meant by point of view. The British did'nt consider the Boston Massacre of 1770 a terrorist act, even though there were deaths, They considered it riot control. Yes, The Officer and his men responsible, were arrested and charged with murder, but they were aquitted. To me, this would mean that the British gov. did'nt think much of this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origanally posted by AKIron
Dumping tea into the harbor and flying planes into buildings killing thousands while hoping to kill tens of thousands aren't quite the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There again, you're correct. But Terrorism can't be defined by the number of deaths, or the $ damage done. There's been terrorist actions' for Millenia. 9/11 was the worst on U.S. Soil to date. However, any malicious act that is carried out in the name of a cause, would fit the definition of terrorism.
