Hacker News Reader

Comment by vageli | Hacker News Reader

> Was the invasion of Iraq terrorism? What about the Boston tea party?

Yes, pretty clearly. Just because you might agree doesn't diminish it. After all, a terrorist is just a freedom fighter depending on the observer.

edit: Instead of downvotes because you disagree, why not point out the error in my thinking?

View on HN

So remind me again why it is wrong or unacceptable to call it "political violence"? I agree that a terrorist is a freedom fighter depending on the observer, your comment seemed to be suggesting taking a specific rhetorical stand however.

I didn't downvote you.

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

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

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.

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.

Non-combatant targets isn’t physical goods.

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...

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.

Your syllogism is resting on an unstated argument about what frightens civilians that you haven't justified.

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

Sure but that’s not ‘terrorism’ under most definitions

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"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com