Actually no, in general we can say shoplifting is done for ones own gain or due to kleptomania. The Boston Tea Party was designed as a direct attack on Britain's foreign influence; it was intended to strike terror into their hearts.
What if someone broke into your house and stole your stuff, because they didn't like you? And the Boston Tea Party could BE a shoplift. You take someone's stuff, and chose to do with it what you will.
It can be designed for what it wants. Essentially they took someone's assets and threw it over board. If this was a 'warning' for a later 'strike' on Britain's lovely tea, a culminating event never came to pass to prove that the tea party was a threat.
And also, this could make Britain itself a terrorist. The Declaratory Act [following the Stamp's repeal] was intended to presume Britain's superiority over American colonies, or, in your words, strike terror into the hearts of American revolutionary sympathizers by telling them that Britain's word is law and will be enforced as such.
Idk, but your definition of a terrorist is a little unclear.
You have to remember that the Native American people were feared as savages at the time, the act of masquerading as them would've terrified many, i.e. terrorism. I'll check with my history teacher too make sure, also there was more than one tea party, while I'm positive no violence was used during the Boston Tea Party, violence may have occurred during the others.
In my opinion Hitler doesn't fall into the category of terrorist because he was a marked combatant, his troops didn't hide among the masses etc. I see terrorists as those who disguise themselves as civilians and then strike from within, the Vietcong and Mujahideen are prime examples of this in my book.
Based on that logic a shoplifter is a terrorist, too...
What? How do you figure that?
Well I knew there was no violence, so the only real way I was able to understand the first post was to assume you meant that the Sons of Liberty were terrorist due to their stealing of someone else's stuff in order to gain support for a political motive.
So, though kinda flawed, it was like this. Boston Tea Partier --> Snags his tea -- > Does whatever he wants with it (Dump it)
Same with a shoplifter, really.
And a shoplifter could do it out of political motive. You could steal a gun and shoot people if you wanted to support your right to bear arms or whatever.
Whatever the case, I stand by my idea -- Hitler = terrorist case closed
if you think a question is stupid, it probably is, i fail to see the discussion here, if the dictionary syas hes a terrorist hes aterrorist, if it doesnt, he isnt, why not use a dictionary next time?
yes but terrorists also kill millions for no reason
They dont kill them for no good reason they kill them for "olitical aim" but, it is indeed wrong even though Hitler did kill millions this is sorta like '2+2=4 but, 3+1 also equals 4' so, its all about the approach and how you get there to where want to get. Al Qaeda for example is a terrorist group why? because they threatened our country and invaded it for political,public and media attention to say that they are angry at the Americans and seeking war but, Hitler he was seeking any sort of political attention in fact the Nazi party started off as a big gang sort of like the Mafia how they have an organization and they make organized crimes later on of course Hitler stepped it up and as master was saying "he used his speech skills" to gain not only attention but, power and if anything the genocide was his personal want it wasn't really necessary but, he took advantage of the power and started capturing jews. But, in that process he conquered countries how? not by bombing them he did them in 1 of 2 ways he could have done it "in war". He didnt make a car bomb or sent a tape saying why he is doing this or anything it was simple manifest destiny.
if you think a question is stupid, it probably is, i fail to see the discussion here, if the dictionary syas hes a terrorist hes aterrorist, if it doesnt, he isnt, why not use a dictionary next time?
if you would have actually read instead of just commenting with absolutely no idea of what was said in the forum you have seen that master did provide a definition in the first page and the first comment
i actually did read the thread, and i saw the comment, and i was pointing out that roflcopter could have just used a dictionary instead of asking a stupid question
Oh, sorry for assuming you didn't but, its not really stupid its actually pretty good i mean the border line of a terrorist and not being a terrorist is quite thin
>.> conspiracy........nah... wait my mercedes rims when spining looks like a swastika!!! oh no!... lol no, just pure coincidence and aslo, whos is to say the founding of the illuminati wasnt earlier they were a secret organization
