If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Houston)   Texas schools now teaching Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. Subby scared to find out what they're calling the Tea Party Tea Party   (houston.cbslocal.com) divider line 180
    More: Interesting, tea party, Texas, Texas schools, for-profit schools  
•       •       •

4021 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Nov 2012 at 3:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-24 11:12:56 PM
So we're calling a 230 some odd year old case of vandalism terrorism now. What next making funny faces at babies as a terrorist act.
 
2012-11-24 11:13:29 PM
Really, I don't have a problem with this.

John Brown was a terrorist.

Jesus was regarded as a terrorist by the Romans.

The Irgun and The Stern Gang were not materially different from the PLO and Hamas.

/yeah, I know, I'm gonna piss off a lot of people with this
//BFD
 
2012-11-24 11:14:08 PM
It's only terrorism if you don't drop the bombs from airplanes.
 
2012-11-24 11:18:12 PM
I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh
 
2012-11-24 11:20:00 PM
See? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
 
2012-11-24 11:20:54 PM
What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?
 
2012-11-24 11:24:02 PM
well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.
 
2012-11-24 11:26:39 PM
Texas schools now teaching

I stopped reading at that. I call BS.
 
2012-11-24 11:27:31 PM
OHH FOR F*CK'S SAKE


AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH
 
2012-11-24 11:31:25 PM

Aulus:
John Brown was a terrorist.


John browns body lies a-mouldering in the grave
 
2012-11-24 11:31:33 PM

Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.


Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought
 
2012-11-24 11:32:36 PM

ToxicMunkee: See? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.


Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.


That terrorism is a matter of perspective is obvious to some -the others are neo-conservatives.
 
2012-11-24 11:35:04 PM

Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?


Obama's USS Cole.
 
2012-11-24 11:35:09 PM
Texas you say? Is there a way for a person to be so not-surprised, the level of surprise dips into the negative?
 
2012-11-24 11:38:08 PM
enacted by the occupying country's government

This is where they screwed up the lesson. This appears to set the stage for the government to be able to punish future freedom fighters within the U.S., but since the Boston Tea Party was against a government from another land the analogy doesn't quite hold true.

The troubling thing to me is that I think that Texas believes that D.C. is "occupying" their state, yet here they are warning its citizens not to try any funny business with the feds. Is there a need to warn citizens, and if so, it seems like the Texas government wants to be part of the union even if individual citizens don't agree.
 
2012-11-24 11:38:58 PM

Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.



So, instead of closing the Port of Boston, Parliament should have had the colonists stand at the end of Dorchester Neck holding a sign: "We destroyed Ye Olde Tea in the Harbour and Disrepected the King and Mother England".
 
2012-11-24 11:41:13 PM

ToxicMunkee: See? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.


Funny how that works.
 
2012-11-24 11:47:18 PM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Aulus:
John Brown was a terrorist.


John browns body lies a-mouldering in the grave


He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord
 
2012-11-24 11:53:01 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Texas schools now teaching

I stopped reading at that. I call BS.


Well played, sir.
 
2012-11-25 12:04:25 AM
The word 'terrorism' gets used lately for a lot of things that have nothing to with 'terror'. Who exactly was 'terrorized' by the Boston Tea Party?
 
2012-11-25 12:04:28 AM
Why did they wait so long to call it an act of terrorism? What are they covering up? How many Americans had to die because they wouldn't admit it was terrorism right from the start?
I demand a Congressional investigation into Teapartygate.
 
2012-11-25 12:07:22 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
12/16 NEVER FORGET
 
2012-11-25 12:21:08 AM
Um it was? When an animal rights extremist burns down an expensive unoccupied building for political reasons we call it domestic terrorism, why would dressing up and destroying a valuable cargo for political purposes be any different? Calling it terrorism is keeping consistency with the modern definition of the term.
 
2012-11-25 12:33:31 AM

Frederick: That terrorism is a matter of perspective is obvious to some -the others are neo-conservatives.


QFT
 
2012-11-25 12:45:48 AM
You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view


Can't believe I'm the first to say that.
 
2012-11-25 01:00:18 AM

SilentStrider: You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view


Can't believe I'm the first to say that.


blog.thetarotlady.com
 
2012-11-25 01:07:41 AM
It technically was terrorism. It was an act of a select few against an existing power structure for solely personal gain at the expense of the majority that has been utterly blown out of proportion by history. The entire American Revolution is a perfect example of the phrase 'One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter."
 
2012-11-25 01:10:07 AM

GAT_00: It technically was terrorism. It was an act of a select few against an existing power structure for solely personal gain at the expense of the majority that has been utterly blown out of proportion by history. The entire American Revolution is a perfect example of the phrase 'One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter."


History is written by the winners.
 
2012-11-25 01:28:38 AM

Meet Us at the Stick: How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.


And that was cost a farkton of money for the British Empire. Primarily because it was actually a worldwide conflict with one of the theaters being in North America. Supply chain management especially along colonial boarders was dammed expensive. And Parliament had long claimed the right to represent all members of colonial Britain as well as metropolitan Britain.
 
2012-11-25 01:32:43 AM

Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?


That really depends. In your hypothetical scenario, was the ship docked in a Muslim country's port and did they just dump the cargo into the water? If so, then no, I don't think it would be called an act of terrorism.

If the ship were docked in a US port and it was blown up with explosives then yes it would be called an act of terrorism.

See the difference?
 
2012-11-25 01:35:22 AM
Also, a local CBS affiliate is reporting that this is what TheBlaze claims.

I'll wait for a more reliable source on this.
 
2012-11-25 01:35:29 AM

jaylectricity: but since the Boston Tea Party was against a government from another land the analogy doesn't quite hold true.


At that time and place it is highly unlikely that Great Britain was perceived as "another land." The collective idea of being "Americans" was quite foreign--even after the Revolutionary War most people thought of themselves as citizens of individual states first in some kind of loose confederation--rather than units in a primarily Federal system.
 
2012-11-25 01:36:36 AM

Happy Hours: Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?

That really depends. In your hypothetical scenario, was the ship docked in a Muslim country's port and did they just dump the cargo into the water? If so, then no, I don't think it would be called an act of terrorism.

If the ship were docked in a US port and it was blown up with explosives then yes it would be called an act of terrorism.

See the difference?


I do, but I'm guessing more than a few people would not follow your first example. It is just a guess though.
 
2012-11-25 01:37:00 AM
i.imgur.com

Nat Turner laughs at your fauxrage shenanigans, "The Blaze."
 
2012-11-25 02:12:46 AM

Relatively Obscure: I do, but I'm guessing more than a few people would not follow your first example. It is just a guess though.


That's only because anything a Muslim does in this country is considered terrorism by some.
 
2012-11-25 02:25:07 AM

RedPhoenix122: Relatively Obscure: I do, but I'm guessing more than a few people would not follow your first example. It is just a guess though.

That's only because anything a Muslim does in this country is considered terrorism by some.


A guy in a turban cut in front of me at Baskin Robbins today and took the last scoop of Rocky Road...it was like 9/11 all over again
 
2012-11-25 03:23:24 AM
I think the dividing line between "FREEDOM FIGHTER" and "TERRORIST" is about 2 million dollars.

The Boston Tea Party cost an estimated 1.7 million dollars in today's money. These brave patriots were clearly doing their civic duty to protest against unfair taxation.

This RADICAL ECO-TERRORIST cost car dealerships a whole 2 million dollars in damage, at least. He's clearly evil and should be locked away for life.
 
2012-11-25 03:26:30 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: Aulus:
John Brown was a terrorist.


John browns body lies a-mouldering in the grave


With nothing on at all.
 
2012-11-25 03:32:04 AM

Happy Hours: Also, a local CBS affiliate is reporting that this is what TheBlaze claims.

I'll wait for a more reliable source on this.


Glenn Beck. I'm assuming the opposite of everything in this story is the truth.
 
2012-11-25 03:34:50 AM

Lansydyr: I think the dividing line between "FREEDOM FIGHTER" and "TERRORIST" is about 2 million dollars.

The Boston Tea Party cost an estimated 1.7 million dollars in today's money. These brave patriots were clearly doing their civic duty to protest against unfair taxation.

This RADICAL ECO-TERRORIST cost car dealerships a whole 2 million dollars in damage, at least. He's clearly evil and should be locked away for life.


Actually he was sentenced to 8 years and released after six. He has to pay for his shenanigans but is in perpetual appeal, so not even that, yet. Sounds like he got off pretty easy.
 
2012-11-25 03:41:00 AM
Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.
 
2012-11-25 03:46:06 AM

Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.


You'd think so, but go take a look at what people have done to be charged with terrorism or "terroristic" activity.
 
2012-11-25 03:48:56 AM

Somacandra: Meet Us at the Stick: How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

And that was cost a farkton of money for the British Empire. Primarily because it was actually a worldwide conflict with one of the theaters being in North America. Supply chain management especially along colonial boarders was dammed expensive. And Parliament had long claimed the right to represent all members of colonial Britain as well as metropolitan Britain.


Which is where they ran in to trouble with the American colonies because they wouldn't allow the colonies to represent themselves in Parliament. So while the taxes levied against the colonies may have been fair, the colonies had no say in the matter which was the main problem.
 
2012-11-25 03:52:03 AM

Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought


I recall reading that the American colonists were taxed at a higher rate than people in England, supposedly because the war most directly benefitted them. Also, no colony was allowed to trade with any other colony, only with English merchants (who jacked up their prices while offering less than the free-market value for American goods.)

The worst thing was, the colonists had no representation in Parliament at all, so they had no legal means of protesting these policies. They were treated as second-class citizens with all of the responsibilities of British subjects but none of the rights.

Basically, the mother country was milking the colonies for as much as they could get and not giving a whole lot in return. (They did help defend the colonists from the French, so there is that.) These policies were set by King George himself (who, it was later discovered, was certifiably insane.)
 
2012-11-25 03:57:53 AM
I would like to create a ride similar to "It's a small world". It will show every language in the world, saying:

Fark Texas
 
2012-11-25 04:01:01 AM
It sounds like the teachers in question are slightly dimwitted and have heard the word "terrorist" all too often.
 
2012-11-25 04:01:29 AM
there are probably a lot of brown people around the world who can point to their destroyed homes, villages and show pictures of their dead loved ones that consider the USA government military responsible for these actions are terrorists.
 
2012-11-25 04:03:32 AM
Sure. If, by 'terrorism' you mean they politely destroyed property and treated the British officials with the utmost respect. In other words it's like Basque ETA calling in their bomb targets ahead of time and deliberately detonating empty buildings. Hell, the Sons of Liberty paid for the tea afterwards.

The Boston Tea Party was NOT terrorism. Tarring & Feathering tax collectors, however, was terrorism.

Oh, and if anyone's interested in the semi-official British opinion of all this there's a hilarious and boneheaded counterargument written in response to the Declaration of Independence. Check out the 1776 version of Bill O'Reilly.
Link
 
2012-11-25 04:10:26 AM
I just got done watching a few episodes of The Wonder Years on Netflix. I'm pretty sure there were a few counts of terrorism, domestic violence, child abuse, felony assault, inciting a riot, rape, legitimate rape, manslaughter in there.
 
2012-11-25 04:13:24 AM
It wasn't vandalism. It was economic sabotage which, since it was performed not by a non-state actor, falls under the definition of terrorism


Since the tea was delivered on consignment (e.g. money had yet to change hands), The East India Tea Company lost 3 vessels (342 crates) worth of merchandise worth approximately £900k today.

If an action by Earth First or Greenpeace cost a company that much money, politicians throughout the west would be decrying the act as terrorism
 
2012-11-25 04:13:41 AM

Darth Macho:

Oh, and if anyone's interested in the semi-official British opinion of all this there's a hilarious and boneheaded counterargument written in response to the Declaration of Independence. Check out the 1776 version of Bill O'Reilly.
Link



England Prevails!
 
2012-11-25 04:14:07 AM
Better add The Boston Tea Party to the List Of People Conspiring Against The G.O.P. And Therefore America. (LOPCATGOPATA)


Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Community Organizers
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Climatologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Little Green Footballs
Video Games
The Bible
CBO
Bruce Springsteen
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity
Comedy Central
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is
Small Business Owners
Math
CPAC
Navy SEALs
The Economist
Reality
Standard and Poor's
Warren Buffet
Lightbulbs
81 CEO's of Major US Corporations 
The Boston Tea Party
 
2012-11-25 04:17:43 AM

Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.


I'd say it's really neither. Though it can be viewed as both.

Anything that incites fear for political outcome/gain is terrorism. It's a really really broad stroke that boils down to perception.

As for vandalism, the perpetrators of the act would have disagreed. In fact, they went to great lengths to avoid any unneeded damages to the ship. It was an act of speech (protest), from their viewpoint.

What the school should be teaching instead of political slant is historical truth.

The number one lesson of the Boston Tea Party was this: fark with people enough and they will get pissed and send you a message that may or may not come at a great personal cost to you.
 
2012-11-25 04:20:22 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh


And Sergent York was a mass murderer. If you look at if from the German's perspective.

The difference between a Religion and a Cult? The following. The difference between a Patriot and a Terrorist? Well, I can't name any countries founded by Terrorists.
 
2012-11-25 04:25:16 AM
The tea party is nothing but a bunch of whiny old teabaggers.
 
2012-11-25 04:25:28 AM
All done to stop the Templars.

Too bad someone had to stab a biatch, after all.

In all seriousness, did anyone notice that the lesson plan hadn't been used in two years, and was taken off the website in January?

WHERE IS THE APPLICATION OF OLD NEWS IS SO EXCITING?

/Just finished reading Woodward's American Nations, which put the Revolution in a new light, so getting a kick.
 
2012-11-25 04:31:01 AM
One thing I've noticed lately is that the "regular media" is now reporting using blogs as their source. I don't care if TheBlaze is right (heh) about this; they're wrong (typically deliberately) about damn near everything else.

I fully expect to see a CNN article sourced solely by InfoWars.
 
2012-11-25 04:32:51 AM
Secede already!
 
2012-11-25 04:36:16 AM
 
2012-11-25 04:41:19 AM

dickfreckle: One thing I've noticed lately is that the "regular media" is now reporting using blogs as their source.


They get more attention that way when it's later proved to be all lies.

log_jammin: Since our original posting of this story, TheBlaze has received a flood of emails from educators and parents in Texas providing more information that will be included in our follow-up story next week. One teacher claimed that our report about the "Boston Tea Party being taught as terrorism" was incorrect and that the lesson is currently not on the CSCOPE website.


See?
 
2012-11-25 04:43:15 AM
Which only goes to show how badly the word "terrorism" has been bastardized by today's media and politicians.

Strictly speaking, I suppose that the Boston Tea Party would have been terrorism IF such a term had been in use back then; and IF it had been described in the British press; using Great Britain's definition of 2000 which does include "serious damage to property."

The United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.[51]

(They added the property damage most likely because the IRA had begun extensively bombing buildings while being extra careful to call in the attacks with plenty of time to evacuate the property; hence, nobody got killed except the insurance salesmen who died of grief)

However, nearly all international and national definitions of "terrorism" as they now exist pretty much require either an act which causes or intends to cause serious harm to civilians (as separate from combat actions) and which are motivated by political or religious ideology, to constitute terrorism. So tossing some bales of tea into a harbor, no matter how politically motivated, just wouldn't cut it nowadays and no matter how bad it soaked the insurers at Lloyds. Although the British might disagree based on their own Terrorism Act.
 
2012-11-25 04:43:58 AM

Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.


I thought it was the use of fear for political purposes that was terrorism. Of course, Fox News meets that standard..
 
2012-11-25 04:45:03 AM
it was an act of terrorism.
that wasn't the worst part.
the worst part was that it was a group of european men dressing up like native american men in order to commit the crime. it's no different, in execution, than some white dude rolling up on a bank with shoe polish on his face.
 
2012-11-25 04:46:02 AM

Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought


And still are to this day. Thank you very much.
 
2012-11-25 04:46:47 AM
Terrorism is the use(or threat) of force to create a state of fear for political purposes. You don't have to be a guerilla or insurgent to be a terrorist; national armies or dictators can do it just fine. It can be as intimate and personal as a suicide bomber or as cold and calculating as a foreign drone patrolling your sky.

While the British were, and still are, quite attached to tea, I don't think they were that attached to it.
 
2012-11-25 04:46:52 AM

Darth Macho: Check out the 1776 version of Bill O'Reilly.
Link


I won't listen to derp in English, why should I attempt to read derp in Old English, while heavily buzzed?

/it was probably written by Bill O's great-great-grandaddy
 
2012-11-25 04:47:10 AM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 400x280]

Nat Turner l
aughs at your fauxrage shenanigans, "The Blaze."


Hero.
 
2012-11-25 04:51:40 AM

Alphax: Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.

I thought it was the use of fear for political purposes that was terrorism. Of course, Fox News meets that standard..


How does dumping tea into the bay induce fear? Rage over loss of money, YES, but not fear.
 
2012-11-25 04:58:09 AM

Smoking GNU: Alphax: Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.

I thought it was the use of fear for political purposes that was terrorism. Of course, Fox News meets that standard..

How does dumping tea into the bay induce fear? Rage over loss of money, YES, but not fear.


Perhaps the East India Tea Company feared it would happen again?

I don't have a good answer.
 
2012-11-25 05:02:35 AM

Smoking GNU: Rage over loss of money, YES, but not fear.


"The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over"

that's not "rage over loss money".
 
2012-11-25 05:04:11 AM

Alphax: Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.

I thought it was the use of fear for political purposes that was terrorism. Of course, Fox News meets that standard..


The whole "use of force" aspect is fairly important, otherwise basically every politician in history would be a terrorist. Plus every lawyer, school board member, and elementary-school teacher, probably.
 
2012-11-25 05:05:37 AM
I'm sure this was not designed to enrage neocons from the start.
 
2012-11-25 05:06:53 AM

Jim_Callahan: You have to actually threaten violence against civilians


Jim_Callahan: The whole "use of force" aspect is fairly important,


so which is it?
 
2012-11-25 05:07:33 AM
Ah, Texas. Racing for the bottom at the speed of plaid.
 
2012-11-25 05:16:31 AM

log_jammin: Jim_Callahan: You have to actually threaten violence against civilians

Jim_Callahan: The whole "use of force" aspect is fairly important,

so which is it?


Do you speak a different variant of English where violence doesn't involve the use of force or something?
 
2012-11-25 05:25:49 AM
I'm sure those ships were unguarded and the cargo was taken control of without a fight.
 
2012-11-25 05:29:08 AM

powhound: Darth Macho: Check out the 1776 version of Bill O'Reilly.
Link

I won't listen to derp in English, why should I attempt to read derp in Old English, while heavily buzzed?

/it was probably written by Bill O's great-great-grandaddy


They spoke Anglo-Saxon in 1776? Who knew?
 
2012-11-25 05:32:58 AM

Jim_Callahan: Do you speak a different variant of English where violence doesn't involve the use of force or something?


No. I speak a language where the threat of something and the act of doing are two different things.

First you said it wasn't terrorism unless they threatened civilians, then you said it wasn't terrorism unless there was a "use" of force. I'm just trying to figure out what your definition of terrorism actually is. To most people it's the use of fear to achieve a political goal. Hence the name. How that is done is irrelevant. Be it "threatening civilians",just spreading rumors to scare the people, or dressing up as indians and attacking some ships and dumping the cargo into the sea.

especially when attacking the ship was just one thing in a long string of incidents, all designed to use fear to achieve a political goal.
 
2012-11-25 05:39:23 AM

propasaurus: Why did they wait so long to call it an act of terrorism? What are they covering up? How many Americans had to die because they wouldn't admit it was terrorism right from the start?
I demand a Congressional investigation into Teapartygate.


i1222.photobucket.com

Investigation Complete!
 
2012-11-25 05:41:36 AM
Sounds like the lesson was to imagine the conservative, royalist reaction to the Boston tea party.

And either the lesson did not mention that, or (MUCH more likely) the new reports failed to mention that.
 
2012-11-25 05:42:29 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh


No, it was vandalism.

That is unless there was some kind of eventdesigned to inflict as much damage and death to as many unsuspecting civilians as possible.
 
2012-11-25 05:54:23 AM

Mikey1969: That is unless there was some kind of eventdesigned to inflict as much damage and death to as many unsuspecting civilians as possible.


again. terrorism is the use of fear to achieve a political goal. Death to tons of unsuspecting civilians is one way to achieve that goal. it's not an end in and of itself.
 
2012-11-25 06:01:01 AM
So I guess if this isn't terrorism then Bill Ayers isn't a terrorist. Just a vandal.
 
2012-11-25 06:16:44 AM
They're right. What's the issue...?
 
2012-11-25 06:19:16 AM

Frederick: ToxicMunkee: See? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

That terrorism is a matter of perspective is obvious to some -the others are neo-conservatives.


Yes. Perspective is not something that comes easily to thickheaded Americans.

This story involved Glenn Beck. Poutrage. Done.
 
2012-11-25 06:21:28 AM

GhostFish: So I guess if this isn't terrorism then Bill Ayers isn't a terrorist. Just a vandal.


True.
 
2012-11-25 06:43:17 AM

log_jammin: Mikey1969: That is unless there was some kind of eventdesigned to inflict as much damage and death to as many unsuspecting civilians as possible.

again. terrorism is the use of fear to achieve a political goal. Death to tons of unsuspecting civilians is one way to achieve that goal. it's not an end in and of itself.


Sorry, you're reaching. I do hope that you're tied off with an OSHA-approved safety harness, because you're really hanging your ass out there trying to equate this with terrorism. One slip and you could be in for quite a fall.
 
2012-11-25 06:45:57 AM
The Boston Tea Party is John Adams's Benghazi.
 
2012-11-25 06:47:02 AM
It was terrorism. Also, interesting bit of historical perspective, if you still believe that no taxation without representation bullshiat you might be interested to know several members of the founding fathers deliberately fast tratcked the revolution and antagonized britsh interests to avert then fact that england was on the verge. Of just giving the colonies an equal, IE one third stake in parliament.

\American
\\but I got passing grades in college history.
\\\eh, fark the English anyway, we won.
 
2012-11-25 06:48:20 AM
Blasted phone typing.
 
2012-11-25 06:55:28 AM
Goldurnit, turrism is whatever the prezdent sez it is.

I mean the *real* president. Buncha traitors!
 
2012-11-25 06:56:54 AM

Mikey1969: Sorry, you're reaching.


I'm not reaching. That is what terrorism is. a simple peak in the dictionary proves that to be true. If I'm so wrong, it should be very easy for you to prove it.

here, I'll start

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. "

If you don't like that source we can check what the FBI says.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Guess what the Boston Tea party was? It was an unlawful use of force and violence against property to intimidate or coerce a government, in furtherance of political or social objectives. was it not?
 
2012-11-25 07:03:43 AM

log_jammin: Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).


the definition of Shock-and-Awe-ism is on the next page. it's basically the same thing, but with sparklers.
 
2012-11-25 07:07:41 AM

heap: the definition of Shock-and-Awe-ism is on the next page. it's basically the same thing, but with sparklers.


sparklers made out of thermite and depleted uranium.
 
2012-11-25 07:13:59 AM

starsrift: Terrorism is the use(or threat) of force to create a state of fear for political purposes. You don't have to be a guerilla or insurgent to be a terrorist; national armies or dictators can do it just fine. It can be as intimate and personal as a suicide bomber or as cold and calculating as a foreign drone patrolling your sky.

While the British were, and still are, quite attached to tea, I don't think they were that attached to it.


No? You might want to read about the Opium Wars. China refused to take British manufactured goods as payment for tea. Thus all the silver drained out of England. They were crazy for tea.

Their solution was to use military force to expand the opium trade in China. The silver flowed back, once they'd created several million addicts. Then they portrayed the Chinese as degenerate rat-eating junkies incapable of governing themselves.

Queen Victoria: the world's biggest drug dealer.

(For tea.)
 
2012-11-25 07:14:02 AM

log_jammin: Mikey1969: Sorry, you're reaching.

I'm not reaching. That is what terrorism is. a simple peak in the dictionary proves that to be true. If I'm so wrong, it should be very easy for you to prove it.

here, I'll start

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. "...

...Guess what the Boston Tea party was? It was an unlawful use of force and violence against property to intimidate or coerce a government, in furtherance of political or social objectives. was it not?


No, it was a protest. It was not intended to be intimidation or coercion; it was expression. There was no intent to create a state of fear or standing threat of more tea to be given to Davy Jones.
 
2012-11-25 07:19:15 AM
Yeah, it was "terrorism", just as the Doolittle raid was designed as an act of terrorism and John Brown was a terrorist without question. There is nothing wrong with terrorism per se. It's the cause and who is being terrorized that matter.
 
2012-11-25 07:24:37 AM

starsrift: No, it was a protest. It was not intended to be intimidation or coercion; it was expression. There was no intent to create a state of fear or standing threat of more tea to be given to Davy Jones.


this wasn't occupy Boston harbor by a bunch of college kids. It wasn't a sit in. It was revenge because the governor didn't give in to their demands.
 
2012-11-25 07:29:29 AM

log_jammin: starsrift: No, it was a protest. It was not intended to be intimidation or coercion; it was expression. There was no intent to create a state of fear or standing threat of more tea to be given to Davy Jones.

this wasn't occupy Boston harbor by a bunch of college kids. It wasn't a sit in. It was revenge because the governor didn't give in to their demands.


'xactly. Revenge ain't coercion.
 
2012-11-25 07:30:19 AM

log_jammin: Mikey1969: Sorry, you're reaching.

I'm not reaching. That is what terrorism is. a simple peak in the dictionary proves that to be true. If I'm so wrong, it should be very easy for you to prove it.

here, I'll start

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. "

If you don't like that source we can check what the FBI says.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Guess what the Boston Tea party was? It was an unlawful use of force and violence against property to intimidate or coerce a government, in furtherance of political or social objectives. was it not?


"Violence against property"? Yeah, once again, that's vandalism. Of course if you want to go there, than the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the assorted 'actions' we've carried out in our country's history have all been terrorist attacks carried out by the US.

Every time, it's been violence and threats against people and property in order to intimidate or coerce government and civilians in furtherance of political or social objectives. The added bonus to your loose definition of "terrorist attack" is that these were all illegal somewhere at the time they happened, fulfilling another part of your claim. Sure, they might not have been illegal attacks according to US law, but not only does your definition not specify that as a condition, but there weren't US laws at the time anyway, so to be a terrorist attack, you'd have to use foreign law as a factor anyway...
 
2012-11-25 07:36:06 AM

starsrift: 'xactly. Revenge ain't coercion.


Ok. since 9/11 was revenge for the US being in "the holy land" I guess it was just a protest. and since Timothy McVeigh set off his bomb as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge he's just a protester too. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2012-11-25 07:37:24 AM

Mikey1969: "Violence against property"?


its not what the violence is against. it's the motivation. I gave you two definitions and this is th best you got?

screw it. I'm out.
 
2012-11-25 07:37:30 AM
I'm sure I'm late to the party, but I have a few things to say about this article.

1. The "reporter" (who has not earned the term) doesn't do his or her own research. Instead, our intrepid writer uses information from THE BLAZE. I don't think I need to continue.

2. The information quoted is clearly from a lesson designed to have the student look at the event through the eyes of the British.

"It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying country's government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens."

Does that sound like a factual recount of a historical event? Or does it sound like something supposed to be written at the time. By the British.

You can argue if the Tea Party was terrorism, and I would bet money that's the discussion that the lesson was meant to provoke. But that's a far cry from what the article claims.
 
2012-11-25 07:45:09 AM

log_jammin: starsrift: 'xactly. Revenge ain't coercion.

Ok. since 9/11 was revenge for the US being in "the holy land" I guess it was just a protest. and since Timothy McVeigh set off his bomb as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge he's just a protester too. Thanks for clearing that up.


According to your broad definition, any property damage sustained in a political riot is terrorism, as is political graffiti.
It takes more than violence and politics to make terrorism... Terrorism is about fear. You seemed to have missed that.
 
2012-11-25 07:50:50 AM

starsrift: log_jammin: starsrift: 'xactly. Revenge ain't coercion.

Ok. since 9/11 was revenge for the US being in "the holy land" I guess it was just a protest. and since Timothy McVeigh set off his bomb as revenge for Waco and Ruby Ridge he's just a protester too. Thanks for clearing that up.

According to your broad definition, any property damage sustained in a political riot is terrorism, as is political graffiti.
It takes more than violence and politics to make terrorism... Terrorism is about fear. You seemed to have missed that.


If you read my other posts you'll see that I specifically say it is about fear.

Not liking the definition doesn't change what it is.
 
2012-11-25 07:56:32 AM

Dr.Zom: Happy Hours: Also, a local CBS affiliate is reporting that this is what TheBlaze claims.

I'll wait for a more reliable source on this.

Glenn Beck. I'm assuming the opposite of everything in this story is the truth.


I saw this on Facebook too. So I'm skeptical.

These are the same folks who wrote this are the ones rewriting the Texas school curriculum because they believe the current one is too liberal.
 
2012-11-25 07:58:26 AM

Jim_Callahan: Um... no, vandalism and terrorism aren't the same thing. You have to actually threaten violence against civilians unless political demands are met to be a terrorist, getting drunk and trashing someone's property is just a riot.


... which brings up the little-known fact that according to consumption figures, the Colonials were serious alcoholics by today's standards -- drinking beer for breakfast and getting hammered on spirits at taverns where they hammered out the founding documents of our nation.
 
2012-11-25 07:59:24 AM

Dafodude: The word 'terrorism' gets used lately for a lot of things that have nothing to with 'terror'. Who exactly was 'terrorized' by the Boston Tea Party?



That's kind of my thoughts on this. A lot of buzz terms usually reserved in the past to describe serious events or issues are now blanket statements for ambiguous references. No doubt it is an effort to demonize anything outside of what those in power want you to think. A political protest of that era gets called a terrorist act, those in the current day tea party are almost in the same bucket with a lot less physical action taken on their part in a lot of people's eyes.
 
2012-11-25 08:06:02 AM

log_jammin: Mikey1969: "Violence against property"?

its not what the violence is against. it's the motivation. I gave you two definitions and this is th best you got?

screw it. I'm out.


No, you just didn't read my post. Either that or you couldn't rebut the rest.

Here it is in a nutshell: Your interpretation of the definition of "terrorism" is so ridiculously broad that if it were applied to the real world, it would include any and all military actions carried forth by the United States ever, and forever.

There is violence(and the threat of violence) against property and people with the intention of bringing about social or political change. It's also "illegal" from the view of whomever the US is "terrorizing". This fits your idea of what the definition means.

Yeah I know, I kinda put you over a barrel on that one. You probably shouldn't have replied, it makes you look like a sore loser, especially when you go on to announce that you're taking your ball and going home.
 
2012-11-25 08:07:11 AM
The Boston Tea Party was actually a frat prank that went awry. See, they were going to smuggle a dead horse into George III's office, but Flounder couldn't get enough marbles. So they did the tea party thing instead, and all things American flowed naturally from that.

(It explains a lot, seriously.)
 
2012-11-25 08:12:54 AM

Mikey1969: log_jammin: Mikey1969: "Violence against property"?

its not what the violence is against. it's the motivation. I gave you two definitions and this is th best you got?

screw it. I'm out.

No, you just didn't read my post. Either that or you couldn't rebut the rest.

Here it is in a nutshell: Your interpretation of the definition of "terrorism" is so ridiculously broad that if it were applied to the real world, it would include any and all military actions carried forth by the United States ever, and forever.

There is violence(and the threat of violence) against property and people with the intention of bringing about social or political change. It's also "illegal" from the view of whomever the US is "terrorizing". This fits your idea of what the definition means.

Yeah I know, I kinda put you over a barrel on that one. You probably shouldn't have replied, it makes you look like a sore loser, especially when you go on to announce that you're taking your ball and going home.


Nah. I'm just trying to remind myself that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

See ya.
 
2012-11-25 08:23:33 AM
It is sort of ironic that the current TEA Party acts to further corporate interest, while the original was an act against collusion between the state and corporate interests...
 
2012-11-25 08:23:34 AM
Here's a little hint for you...

The Boston Tea Party was almost universally condemned after it happened. In their day and time, the people who did it were not highly thought of by any measure after it happened.
 
2012-11-25 08:24:23 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com 

24.media.tumblr.com 

suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com
 
2012-11-25 08:25:24 AM
I always thought the baggers were advocating the British tea company's side of the Boston Tea Party. They dress like colonial British, and worship the power of corporations over the rights of citizens. This is the logical extension of that philosophy. On a related note, raising children in Texas should be considered an act of child abuse.
 
2012-11-25 08:33:16 AM

Kibbler: The Boston Tea Party was actually a frat prank that went awry. See, they were going to smuggle a dead horse into George III's office, but Flounder couldn't get enough marbles. So they did the tea party thing instead, and all things American flowed naturally from that.

(It explains a lot, seriously.)


You also forgot to mention that they went on Double Secret Probation after this as well.
 
2012-11-25 08:33:42 AM
They just don't want eager young minds getting the bright idea that they should attack the financial interests of the 1%.
 
2012-11-25 08:40:01 AM

Lionel Mandrake: RedPhoenix122: Relatively Obscure: I do, but I'm guessing more than a few people would not follow your first example. It is just a guess though.

That's only because anything a Muslim does in this country is considered terrorism by some.

A guy in a turban cut in front of me at Baskin Robbins today and took the last scoop of Rocky Road...it was like 9/11 all over again


Yeah - I saw that biatch, eating ice cream like he owned the place.
 
2012-11-25 08:44:46 AM

Great_Milenko: They just don't want eager young minds getting the bright idea that they should attack the financial interests of the 1%.


That would be worse than terrorism - that would be Class Warfare. Any attempt to establish any form of economic justice is socialism, which is class warfare, which is terrorism.

This, by contrast, is NOT class warfare, or terrorism:

i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-25 08:49:21 AM
WHY DID IT TAKE OBAMA 230 YEARS TO CALL THIS AN ACT OF TERROR WHAT IS HE HIDING FIRST BENGHAZI NOW THIS
 
2012-11-25 08:55:54 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.


Remind me, were any people harmed by the Sons of Liberty during the Boston Tea Party? (I'm too lazy to research it myself.) If they managed to neatly limit it to property damage, then I think we need a different term. The word "vandalism" nowadays implies pointless juvenile destruction of property; did it once apply to more purposeful action by an organized movement? I always associate "sabotage" with equipment of some sort rather than a consumable commodity like tea.

And the American Revolution was treason.

It's only treason if you lose. Remember, winners get to write the history books.
 
2012-11-25 08:57:23 AM

GAT_00: It technically was terrorism. It was an act of a select few against an existing power structure for solely personal gain at the expense of the majority that has been utterly blown out of proportion by history. The entire American Revolution is a perfect example of the phrase 'One man's terrorist is another's Freedom Fighter."


Which is probably the whole point of the lesson.

And considering the kind of people on charge of the education curriculum in Texas, I don't think these Yahoos need to worry about anything that interesting actually being used in a classroom.
 
2012-11-25 09:19:48 AM

Kibbler: starsrift: Terrorism is the use(or threat) of force to create a state of fear for political purposes. You don't have to be a guerilla or insurgent to be a terrorist; national armies or dictators can do it just fine. It can be as intimate and personal as a suicide bomber or as cold and calculating as a foreign drone patrolling your sky.

While the British were, and still are, quite attached to tea, I don't think they were that attached to it.

No? You might want to read about the Opium Wars. China refused to take British manufactured goods as payment for tea. Thus all the silver drained out of England. They were crazy for tea.

Their solution was to use military force to expand the opium trade in China. The silver flowed back, once they'd created several million addicts. Then they portrayed the Chinese as degenerate rat-eating junkies incapable of governing themselves.

Queen Victoria: the world's biggest drug dealer.

(For tea.)


To be fair, they were trading drugs for drugs at that point
 
2012-11-25 09:25:12 AM

Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought


i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-25 09:27:42 AM
Of course it was "terrorism". But it was OUR terrorism.

Somewhere between the "America is the Great Satan" and "America can do no wrong" crowd there lies reality...and not just because of some middle-ground assumption. It's context and perspective.

That said, WHARGARBLE.
 
2012-11-25 09:41:18 AM
I'm fine with it, so long as they start teaching that Davy Crockett and his comrades died at the Alamo in an attempt to continue being slaveholders.
 
2012-11-25 09:43:13 AM

lordjupiter: Of course it was "terrorism". But it was OUR terrorism.

Somewhere between the "America is the Great Satan" and "America can do no wrong" crowd there lies reality...and not just because of some middle-ground assumption. It's context and perspective.

That said, WHARGARBLE.


Sweet farking God this X 1000!

Most reasonable thing I've heard about this stupid story all day.
 
2012-11-25 09:45:21 AM
Funny, I was taught it was an act of terrorism over twenty years ago. In public school. In America. During Reagan.
 
2012-11-25 09:51:42 AM

Snapper Carr:

If an action by Earth First or Greenpeace cost a company that much money, politicians throughout the west would be decrying the act as terrorism


Doesn't mean they would be correct, however. 

/non-confrontational observation
 
2012-11-25 09:52:08 AM
From a British perspective it WAS
 
2012-11-25 09:55:09 AM

Happy Hours: Also, a local CBS affiliate is reporting that this is what TheBlaze claims.

I'll wait for a more reliable source on this.


thanks for reminding us. i'll wait too.
 
2012-11-25 09:55:31 AM
I dislike Texas as much as the next guy, but this seems like a perfectly legitimate lesson to be given within the context of a history lesson about the Revolution. Of course Loyalists and the British would view the Tea Party in terms of which we would now call terrorism (although pretty tame by our standards, like if the Gazans were launching cream pies into Israel). Save your outrage for something more disturbing. God knows Texas will give you plenty of opportunity to use it.
 
2012-11-25 09:57:13 AM

Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought


America won the war (with help from the enemy of the last war). Therefore, America won the right to write the history of said war.
 
2012-11-25 09:58:44 AM
Applying the modern definition of terrorism to the Boston Tea Party is about as smart as applying today's definition of liberal to the founders' political views.

/context and history matter.
 
2012-11-25 09:58:53 AM

clambam: I dislike Texas as much as the next guy, but this seems like a perfectly legitimate lesson to be given within the context of a history lesson about the Revolution. Of course Loyalists and the British would view the Tea Party in terms of which we would now call terrorism (although pretty tame by our standards, like if the Gazans were launching cream pies into Israel). Save your outrage for something more disturbing. God knows Texas will give you plenty of opportunity to use it.


One of my friends on Facebook posted this with a message "I've made up my mind, I'm homeschooling my kids". (She doesn't have any kids yet btw).

I mean she's a real sweet girl but she's also one of those RON PAUL worshipers and sometimes says the craziest things such as what I posted above.
 
2012-11-25 10:01:56 AM

Guidette Frankentits: Better add The Boston Tea Party to the List Of People Conspiring Against The G.O.P. And Therefore America. (LOPCATGOPATA)


Thanks to some diligent Farkers we now have it with linky goodness:

List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):

Liberals Link
Democrats Link
Socialists Link
Community Organizers Link
Geologists Link
Biologists Link
Meteorologists Link
Climatologists Link
Atheists Link
Muslims Link
Jews
Satan
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable news except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions Link
Colleges
Teachers (including kindergarten teachers) Link
Professors
ACORN Link
Planned Parenthood Link
National Endowment for the Arts Link
Fashion Industry Link
Gays
Judges Link
NPR Link
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires Link
The Honolulu Advertiser Link
The Star Bulletin Link
Teletubbies Link
Sponge Bob and Patrick Link
Nobel Prize Committee Link
US Census Bureau Link
NOAA
Sesame Street Link
Comic Books Link
Little Green Footballs Link
Video Games Link
The Bible Link
CBO Link
Bruce Springsteen Link
Pennies
The Theory of Relativity Link
Comedy Central Link
Young People
whatever the hell a Justin Beiber is Link
Small Business Owners Link
Math Link
CPAC Link
Navy SEALs Link
The Economist
The Muppets Link
Iowa Republicans
Low-Flow Toilets Link
Breast Cancer Screenings Link
Chrysler Link
Clint Eastwood. Link
Robert Deniro Link
Tom Hanks Link
Glenn Frey Link
Norman Rockwell Link
James Cameron Link
Dr. Seus
Nuns Link
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Link
Jonathan Krohn at age 17 Link
Fact Checkers Link
Australia Link
Mitt Romney
Rasmussen
Fox News
Lockheed Martin Link
Bureau of Labor Statistics Link
Paul Ryan Link
Debate moderators Link
Ben Stein Link
Soup kitchens Link
Chris Christie Link
Nate Silver (FiveThirtyEight.com) Link
Fox Polling
US Postal Service
Associated Press
Hurricanes Link
Susan Collins Link
Lisa Murkowski Link
Dean Heller Link
Mark Kirk Link
Lindsey Graham Link
Governor Bobby Jindal Link
General Petreaus Link
Saxby Chambliss Link
God Link
Girl Scouts Link
Boston Tea Party Link
 
2012-11-25 10:07:17 AM

Mikey1969: log_jammin: Mikey1969: "Violence against property"?

its not what the violence is against. it's the motivation. I gave you two definitions and this is th best you got?

screw it. I'm out.

No, you just didn't read my post. Either that or you couldn't rebut the rest.

Here it is in a nutshell: Your interpretation of the definition of "terrorism" is so ridiculously broad


It's not log_jammin's interpretation or definition, it's simply the modern legal definition.

that if it were applied to the real world, it would include any and all military actions carried forth by the United States ever, and forever.

It is applied in the real world, people are convicted of terrorism in criminal courts around the world based on that kind of definition. And you must have missed the word "unlawful". Military action taken in defense against an aggressor is not ilegal, and neither are actions authorized by a UN Security Council resolution invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

There is violence(and the threat of violence) against property and people with the intention of bringing about social or political change. It's also "illegal" from the view of whomever the US is "terrorizing". This fits your idea of what the definition means.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq sort of fits the description, but more importantly it fits the definition of a Crime against Peace by international law. The Korean war, the Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan were not illegal.
 
2012-11-25 10:11:15 AM

Richard Saunders: Snapper Carr:

If an action by Earth First or Greenpeace cost a company that much money, politicians throughout the west would be decrying the act as terrorism

Doesn't mean they would be correct, however. 

/non-confrontational observation


By most legal definitions they would be absolutely right.
 
2012-11-25 10:11:52 AM
Get with the program, Texas. it's only terrorism when someone does it to us. Actually Texas- you don't even have a dog in this race as you were an indian nation at the time. Unless that was your tea we had been tossing into the drink.

Hmm.
 
2012-11-25 10:15:09 AM
It was an illegal act of major property destruction with the expressed intent of making a political point.

Not terribly different from bombing an abortion clinic or setting fire to a draft board office.
 
2012-11-25 10:16:35 AM
By the laws and standards of the era: Not terrorism.

By today's laws and standards: Terrorism.

But then, by today's laws and standards you'd have to say that any Native American tribe that fought against the Union was a terrorist cell, and you'd have to say that, because the Union considered them a non-legitimate organization, the Confederacy would also be a terrorist organization.

So Texas might want to pull back the reigns on this whole line of thinking.
 
2012-11-25 10:20:33 AM

mrshowrules: List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefore, America (LOPCATGOPATA for short):


Vegetables Link
 
2012-11-25 10:29:51 AM

ZeroCorpse: By the laws and standards of the era: Not terrorism.

By today's laws and standards: Terrorism.

But then, by today's laws and standards you'd have to say that any Native American tribe that fought against the Union was a terrorist cell, and you'd have to say that, because the Union considered them a non-legitimate organization, the Confederacy would also be a terrorist organization.

So Texas might want to pull back the reigns on this whole line of thinking.


Ummmm.... no, you'd have to first figure out how the Union came by "ownership" of the territory in question. The better description is ethnic cleansing or genocide.

The Confederacy *could* be considered a terrorist movement.
 
2012-11-25 10:32:16 AM
TheBlaze reports...

I stopped reading after that.
 
2012-11-25 10:37:53 AM
142 comments in and nobody has read TFA.....
TFA
As recently as January of this year, the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative included a lesson plan that depicted the Boston Tea Party, an event that helped ignite the American Revolution, as an act of terrorism. TheBlaze reports that in a lesson promoted on the TESCCC site as recently as January, a world history/social studies class plan depicted the Boston Tea Party as being anything but patriotic, causing many people to become upset with the lack of transparency and review for lessons.

Some red flags here. This is not the TEA, Texas Education Agency. TEA is the group which lists the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) which all public schools are required to teach. TESCCC is a group which attempts to provide support to Texas schools. Their lesson plans are unofficial, and the article provided no evidence that the LPs are actually being used by anyone.

If anyone wants it, I live in Texas and can write a lesson plan centered around Glenn Beck and TheBlaze being lying sacks of shiat who murdered and raped a girl in 1990. That doesn't mean that anyone will use it or that it is a lesson in line with the TEKS.
 
2012-11-25 10:39:41 AM
Doesn't somebody have to be terrified for it to be terrorism?
I don't think it was terrorism. But I do think, as a lesson plan, this has merits. The students will look at the event from a different perspective and they will look at the concept of terrorism differently as a result.
I don't have any problem with this lesson plan.
The term "terrorism" is overused and misused.
 
2012-11-25 10:42:20 AM
Just for fun, this is what the TEA says about the boston tea party: 5th Grade Social Studies TEKS
 
2012-11-25 10:44:25 AM

pciszek:
It's only treason if you lose. Remember, winners get to write the history books.


Actually, nowadays everybody gets to write history, including spectators, observers, bystanders and of course enemies and losers.
 
2012-11-25 10:45:14 AM

Great_Milenko: They just don't want eager young minds getting the bright idea that they should attack the financial interests of the 1%.


Tin-foil hat conclusion: Your government is preparing our childrens' minds for the concept that any thought or act of protest and/or dissension is punishable under the "Patriot Act" and will be enforced by administrative rule, not legislative law. 

/to derp or not to derp? 
 
2012-11-25 10:46:46 AM

red5ish: Doesn't somebody have to be terrified for it to be terrorism?


No, it's a question of intent.

I don't think it was terrorism. But I do think, as a lesson plan, this has merits. The students will look at the event from a different perspective and they will look at the concept of terrorism differently as a result.
I don't have any problem with this lesson plan.
The term "terrorism" is overused and misused.


And here ends todays lesson. Class dimissed!
 
2012-11-25 11:10:56 AM

Dansker: Richard Saunders: Snapper Carr:

If an action by Earth First or Greenpeace cost a company that much money, politicians throughout the west would be decrying the act as terrorism

Doesn't mean they would be correct, however. 

/non-confrontational observation

By most legal definitions they would be absolutely right.


Call me a cynic, but I just don't see many legal definitions of words being used in the balderdash that passes for today's political rhetoric.

/depends on what the definition of "Is" is. 
 
2012-11-25 11:23:05 AM

Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh


It's only terrorism if you lose.

Also, for goddamned sake, the Boston Tea Party was not about taxation, it was solely about representation in British Parliament. The damn colonials wanted to actually have the ability to block tariff reductions on East India Tea CO which were removed against their wishes, and started flooding Colonial ports. THAT's why they threw the stuff into the hahbah'

Yup. American was founded on protectionism, against free trade, and on wanting proper representation. Taxes? Not so much.
 
2012-11-25 11:24:38 AM
Richard Saunders:
Call me a cynic, but I just don't see many legal definitions of words being used in the balderdash that passes for today's political rhetoric.

/depends on what the definition of "Is" is.

Can I call you disingenious? Terrorism is a crime. We live in societies under rule of law, so the definition that matters is the legal one, because that is the definition that allows courts to prosecute and sentence to punishment.
Enjoy the rest of your Sunday. Can I call you a cab?
 
2012-11-25 11:25:32 AM
Sorry, didn't mean to speak so boldly.
 
2012-11-25 11:40:26 AM
Didn't read through the comments, so I don't know if this has been posted or not yet; I'm guessing not.

What should we call "The Tea Party?" How about the "American Taliban?" (That's the short version. The long version is here, for those interested.)
 
2012-11-25 11:53:57 AM
There are no "mitigating circumstances" for terrorism against a lawful government.........

....... unless you win.
 
2012-11-25 12:18:31 PM
They were sent by the Coffee Mafia.
 
2012-11-25 12:18:54 PM

vinniethepoo: Meet Us at the Stick: Weaver95: well, from the perspective of the British - yes, it probably WAS an act of 'terrorism'.

Reminds me of a US History class I took as an undergrad where the prof explained things from the British point of view

How the British fronted most of the cost of the French and Indian War. Where there Brits were paying more in taxes to pay for that war than the Americans. And how the British Parliament felt that the Americans should start to pay for their fair share since they were the primary beneficiaries from said war.

Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.

Food for thought

I recall reading that the American colonists were taxed at a higher rate than people in England, supposedly because the war most directly benefitted them. Also, no colony was allowed to trade with any other colony, only with English merchants (who jacked up their prices while offering less than the free-market value for American goods.)

The worst thing was, the colonists had no representation in Parliament at all, so they had no legal means of protesting these policies. They were treated as second-class citizens with all of the responsibilities of British subjects but none of the rights.

Basically, the mother country was milking the colonies for as much as they could get and not giving a whole lot in return. (They did help defend the colonists from the French, so there is that.) These policies were set by King George himself (who, it was later discovered, was certifiably insane.)


If the response from England to colonial petitions in 1775 had been "Send two MPs per recognized colony" instead of STFU and GBTW we'd be in a very different world.
 
2012-11-25 01:14:49 PM

Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?


Burning of the Gaspee? It's still celebrated in Rhode Island.

/Suck it, Boston tea party. Try burning an actual warship.
 
2012-11-25 01:20:15 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh

 
2012-11-25 01:51:16 PM
What the goal of the BTP to create fear (terror) or to destroy merchandise? If the sole purpose was to destroy merchandise then it was sabotage, not terrorism.

But yes, the War of American Secession was treason, of course.
 
2012-11-25 02:07:33 PM

jigger: What the goal of the BTP to create fear (terror) or to destroy merchandise? If the sole purpose was to destroy merchandise then it was sabotage, not terrorism.

But yes, the War of American Secession was treason, of course.


What about dressing as Indians when they did it? I'm not sure how to describe it. Cartoonish Terrorism? Slapstick Indirect Hate Crime?
 
2012-11-25 02:53:11 PM
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
 
2012-11-25 02:54:33 PM
Dear Texas:

You will never be permitted to secede.

There will be a United States, and Texas will be part of it when the Sun burns out.
 
2012-11-25 02:57:45 PM

SilentStrider: You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view


Can't believe I'm the first to say that.


Actually, this is pretty much what I wanted to say. This could have been a wonderful lesson--one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, and you need to do actual research before simply condemning or demonizing people.

And then I read TFA and realized, no, they're just calling it terrorism because it was a private company. Jesus H. Fark, you wingnuts, we are not actually a corporation-controlled oligarchy, can you try and act like you take some pride in that.
 
2012-11-25 03:14:08 PM

Kittypie070: There will be a United States, and Texas will be part of it when the Sun burns out.


Ewwwww. No. Please.

I signed the Texas secession petition and offered every possible assistance. We need to shed the neo-confederates and join the 1st World.
 
2012-11-25 03:14:55 PM

Meet Us at the Stick: Made the colonies sound like a bunch of spoiled ingrates.


Made the colonies sound like a bunch of red-state secessionists.
 
2012-11-25 03:27:34 PM
Wow, not even Texas is immune from hippie teachers.
 
2012-11-25 03:58:42 PM
There is so much one could write about this, but I will just leave it with this:

Are we SURE this isn't an Onion article?
 
2012-11-25 04:14:40 PM

TyrantII: Lionel Mandrake: I guess we'd all have to come to an agreement on the definition of "terrorism," but I think that under most reasonable definitions, it was terrorism.

And the American Revolution was treason.

duh

It's only terrorism if you lose.

Also, for goddamned sake, the Boston Tea Party was not about taxation, it was solely about representation in British Parliament. The damn colonials wanted to actually have the ability to block tariff reductions on East India Tea CO which were removed against their wishes, and started flooding Colonial ports. THAT's why they threw the stuff into the hahbah'

Yup. American was founded on protectionism, against free trade, and on wanting proper representation. Taxes? Not so much.


Yeah, taxes were the original dispute between the motherland and the colonies, but by the time the war rolled around, the only external tax in force was the one on tea, which was like the equivalent of ten cents.

The war was really about a power struggle between the local Colonial Assemblies and Parliament, with the assemblies claiming that the English Bill of Right required that Englishmen be governed by their representatives in Parliament, and since the colonies weren't represented in Parliament, Parliament had no authority over their internal laws and they were answerable to the king only. Parliament's argument was that entire cities and areas in Britain itself had no direct representation, and that Parliament "virtually represented" all British subjects, and was guaranteed by the English Constitution to be legislatively supreme to all other imperial assemblies.

Who was correct in this particular legal dispute is probably not something that can be objectively answered.

You could also probably point to the diverging economic interests of the American colonies and Great Britain as the fuel for that power-struggle, as the colonies thought they were burdened under mercantilist laws, such as their export trade being restricted to Great Britain, which both created an economic incentive for the colonies to split with Great Britain, and for the British Parliament to declare that if the colonies were allowed to gain a quasi-independence where they were connected only to the crown, they would quickly overthrow the trade laws and theoretically throw the British economy into chaos.

Also, the British prime minister at the time didn't necessarily intend at first to plunge headfirst into war with the colonies, he believed that actions like the Boston Tea Party were done by a small number of malcontents, and thought if Parliament got aggressive and showed it wasn't going to back down, those malcontents would give up. Instead, his Coercive Acts threw all 13 colonies into rebellion.

\likes history
 
2012-11-25 04:25:14 PM

Need_MindBleach: You could also probably point to the diverging economic interests of the American colonies and Great Britain


Are their figures for the the importance of the colonies to Great Britain as a percentage of GDP or some vital portion of the economy?

Did they really NEED us? Or was it a matter the need to impose authority.

\ Also likes history
 
2012-11-25 05:07:08 PM

mrshowrules: Guidette Frankentits: Better add The Boston Tea Party to the List Of People Conspiring Against The G.O.P. And Therefore America. (LOPCATGOPATA)

Thanks to some diligent Farkers we now have it with linky goodness:\


Way, way too much time on your hands. Way, way too much mental effort given to this subject. get a life guys.
 
2012-11-25 05:12:45 PM

jaytkay: Kittypie070: There will be a United States, and Texas will be part of it when the Sun burns out.

Ewwwww. No. Please.

I signed the Texas secession petition and offered every possible assistance. We need to shed the neo-confederates and join the 1st World.


Hrm....well, we're just gonna have to disagree like gentlemen, I guess.

To be perfectly blunt I'd much rather see the neo-confederates get the Katie Sackhoff Waterbucket Treatment that they themselves so gleefully endorsed using on overseas brownfolk until they agree to recant and denounce their traitorous stars and bars crap. 

"Neo-confederates". That's a great description, BTW. Can I borrow it?
 
2012-11-25 05:21:59 PM

jaytkay: Need_MindBleach: You could also probably point to the diverging economic interests of the American colonies and Great Britain

Are their figures for the the importance of the colonies to Great Britain as a percentage of GDP or some vital portion of the economy?

Did they really NEED us? Or was it a matter the need to impose authority.

\ Also likes history


Actually, the sugar-producing Caribbean colonies were by far the most valuable colonies in the Americas, but their trade was looped through the 13 Colonies. The Caribbean colonies traded the really valuable cash crops back to Britain, the 13 colonies supplied the Caribbean colonies, and Britain exported manufactured goods to the populous North American colonies. (And of course, in the 1700s, there was also an additional link of trading forts in Africa supplying slaves to the Caribbean and Southern mainland.)

Something like 40% of Britain's trade was through their colonies at the time (I can't remember if the 40% figure was for the New World colonial trade or for all colonies, but I know India didn't overtake the sugar colonies in importance until later), so yes, overall, it was a big deal. Moreover, the British were worried about the Americans actually seizing their sugar colonies if they became independent.

Mercantilist economic theory also held that trade in areas not actually controlled by your country would either dry up, or put the country at an import/export disadvantage. Export to other countries=good, Import from other countries=bad. It's all very complicated.
 
2012-11-25 05:31:10 PM
Actually, technically the American Revolution was a civil war. There might have been treasonous acts, but the war itself was countrymen vs countrymen with the French lending aid because Britain was still their enemy. You could say revolution itself is treason, but every now and again, an unjust government which does not listen to its people's needs and wants deserves a revolution. It's only called treason by the loyalists who want to keep the government together.

Also, BTP was not an act of terrorism in their day (that was more like pirates and corsairs, and the indigenous tribes who sided with the patriots, the French, and the loyalists)) even though it might be called that today. Like another Farker said, history and context. Blanketing the acts of revolution as terrorist acts dismisses the very real complaints the colonists had that they were not represented in British Parliament (never mind that only landed white men counted >.> ). Different time, different context. Stop applying today's standards to historical events (which were as grey then as they are now; neither side was without some fault) or you end up looking quite ignorant.
 
2012-11-26 01:14:03 AM
history as defined by the current ruler.
history 101, Egypt and the rewriting of history, when the pharaoh dies...
 
2012-11-26 01:44:01 AM
When the French created the word "terrorist", they intended it to be a complement. "Those heroic terrorists, fighting against the monarchy", and what not. But this isn't terrorism, this is just a protest.
 
2012-11-26 07:19:40 AM

Relatively Obscure: What would people call it if a gang of Muslims ransacked an American ship in port and destroyed all of the cargo?


I think we can call them ( *drum roll ) The Barbary Pirates.

The main purpose of their attacks was to capture Christian slaves for the Islamic market in North Africa and the Middle East.[2]

Link
 
2012-11-26 10:20:45 AM

ignacio: When the French created the word "terrorist", they intended it to be a complement. "Those heroic terrorists, fighting against the monarchy", and what not. But this isn't terrorism, this is just a protest.


That is some alternative etymology right there.
Robespiere claimed that terror was necessary for the revolutionary government, but the words "terrorism" and "terrorist" were first used after the Dictateur Sanguine had been arrested and beheaded without trial as a traitor to describe his methods. It was not meant as a compliment.
 
2012-11-26 02:00:28 PM

JerkyMeat: I would like to create a ride similar to "It's a small world". It will show every language in the world, saying:

Fark Texas


Anthony Bourdain made a comment about how close minded he was to different segments of the U.S., while he's more than happy to accept differences in cultures from various countries. Something to think about.
 
Displayed 180 of 180 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report