The American Revolution Redefined---terrorism?

There was a lot of terrorism committed by Americans from the time of the Stamp Act through the end of the American Revolution, particularly by the Sons of Liberty. However, I do not recall off the top of my head an incident where the intention was to kill. Tarring and feathering someone is about the most I have any recollection of. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism as were the intimidation tactics used against stamp collectors. I would not call burning down Governor Hutchinson's house terrorism, since he was not a non-combatant,

0 Replies

hi

It seems most of us are in (broad) agreement concerning what constitutes terrorism. The next step then is to search for exceptions to our standards and thereby check if it really works. So logical exceptions are requested, I guess. If there are none, then aren't we done :wink: ?

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

So, then, when people (or organizations) like the ACLU, liberals, The Teacher's Association, and other entitites, are labeled terrorists by administration personnel and rapid talkshow hosts, then aren't they undermining the distinction that we here on this thread are trying to determine? And isn't that just plain intellectually dishonest?

My guess is that most here would answer "yes." So then, why aren't we holding these people more accountable for their spoken actions?

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

So, then, when people (or organizations) like the ACLU, liberals, The Teacher's Association, and other entitites, are labeled terrorists by administration personnel and rapid talkshow hosts, then aren't they undermining the distinction that we here on this thread are trying to determine? And isn't that just plain intellectually dishonest?

My guess is that most here would answer "yes." So then, why aren't we holding these people more accountable for their spoken actions?

My answer is a qualified yes. One needs to separate party rhetoric from fact and recognise rhetoric for what it is, talk designed for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of you.

Ofcourse the ACLU and Teachers' Association dont come close to being "terrorists" when subjected to the standard, but I dont think that is what the administration implied.

The reason I gave a qualified yes is that their is a secondary connotation to the word 'terrorist', what I believe the administration meant was the hijacking of an agenda, or the threat of stalling proceedings and causing general inconvenience to the current administration. This doesn't mean that the organizations are engaging in anything illegal. It's just a different connotation.

The use of the word terrorism cannot be modulated by any forum, and personally I believe, that it is too strong a word to use in this context. However, fact is that both sides of the political spectrum use strong and unsubstantiated rhetoric all the time. Liberals are equally guilty of spouting fascist references when talking of the current administration. Do we force them to substantiate their rhetoric as well?

What is a "spoken action"?

0 Replies

The spoken action is the vitriolic rhetoric that falsely labels someone.

I think, though, that in this curren political climate, where the definition of terrorism to many has been clouded for many Americans, these labels become MUCH more dangerous.

Liberals have been guiltyof spouting fascist reference, me being one of them. But this type of rhetoric is historically reflective of a much earlier time in our world history.

There are, IMO, too many parallels...

0 Replies

Holding people responsible for spoken words is dangerous territory.

Their are a few issues to consider in this:

1. Freedom of expression, should be guaranteed, this is an essential human right and a pre-requisite for true democracy.

2. At the same time should people be held responsible for words which incite violence? Or are these words protected by the freedom of expression?

Here we get into censorship issues, and IMO, their is definite need for limited objective censorship. But any such censorship is subject to the personal biases of the censoring institution and then the government. This is a proper mess as then it would amount to government regulation of our right to speak. I don't see a solution acceptable to everyone.

What would you suggest can be done about this?

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

Holding people responsible for spoken words is dangerous territory.

Their are a few issues to consider in this:

1. Freedom of expression, should be guaranteed, this is an essential human right and a pre-requisite for true democracy.

2. At the same time should people be held responsible for words which incite violence? Or are these words protected by the freedom of expression?....

I don't think we need to do anything, because I believe it is clearly covered in the law. My recollection is that the speech is illegal only if the incitement is to imminant violence. In other words, you can say that Group X is evil, but you can't advise people to kill them.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

Holding people responsible for spoken words is dangerous territory.

Their are a few issues to consider in this:

1. Freedom of expression, should be guaranteed, this is an essential human right and a pre-requisite for true democracy.

2. At the same time should people be held responsible for words which incite violence? Or are these words protected by the freedom of expression?

What would you suggest can be done about this?

Holding people responsible AND accountable for their spoken words is by no means dangerous if it is responded to in a civil and substantive manner (blogs, networks, newspapers, op-eds). This certainly has nothing to do with putting people in prison and locking them up. It is all about accountability. If the Secretary of Education decides to call the Teachers Unions "terrorists," then he either must be willing to clarify his statements immediately, otherwise somebody else will call him on it.

In all my years of political interest, I've noticed a steep increase of hateful vitriol coming from the right, and now the left has decided to answer back. The tone has escalated, with no letup in sight, but I side firmly with the progressives who are much more adept at pointing out the contradictions within the neoconservative political rhetoric.

0 Replies

I agree with the substance of what you say, Dookie, but I question the historical accuracy of your statement. You say "In all my years of political interest, I've noticed a steep increase of hateful vitriol coming from the right, and now the left has decided to answer back." Searching to discover who started the verbal melee -- Right or Left -- is as fruitless as speculating on whether the chicken or the egg came first. I well recall that in the 1960s, during the anti-war protests over Vietnam, it was the Left that insisted on calling everyone who disagreed with them a "Fascist." It was the favorite word of the hippies not only for all conservatives but all those in disagreement. Moderates were branded as "reactionary", "antedeluvian," etc. I suppose you could counter that by saying, "Well, the McCarthy era spawned that when all dissenters were branded as 'Commies' or 'Pinkos' or 'Lefties' or other epithets for Communist sympathizers." My point is that the roots of name-calling go so far back it's pointless to try and sort out who started it.

I agree that people should be accountable for the language they use in describing an opponent. Rush Limbaugh, I think, lost a number of conservative female listeners when he started ranting about 'femi-Nazis.' Unfortunate turn of phrase. Just as unfortunate as using the T word to describe one's opponents. The word can be used in jest, however. I have a good friend who consistently refers to his delightful, if impish, young grandson as a 'terrorist,' to the consternation of his daughter who seems to be afraid of the word. Smile

0 Replies

Merry Andrew:

It is not the progressive leftist fringe that should worry us as much as the MAINSTREAM neoconservative fringe that we see on television everyday. THAT is the fundamental concern we face today. Fake newscasts, disinformation propoganda and secrecy, are now the norm with this current administration.

As far as the "origins" of this vitriol is concerned, I'm sure it dates back much further than my historical recollection. But in this modern age of corporate news networks, political blurring between church and state (a Republican cause), and the FCC wielding it's power of censorship utilizing predominatly ONE group's complaints, it becomes readily apparent that the rightwing have utilized the national media in a way never before conceived in modern American history. There is an inherent fear by ALL the major networks, journalists, and the like, to be less critical of this administration.

Rush Limbaugh is just one miniscule example. We've got Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Joe Scarbarough, and many others, who insist on infusing a radical vitriol into the American political discourse, and it can only encourage more hatred amongst those who cannot fully think for themselves, let alone have a grasp of global wisdom in an age of limited resources.

0 Replies

hi,

I agree with brandon, as long as the secey of education doesn't try to lock up the teacher's association, he's on pretty solid legal ground.

However, merry's suggestion wherein public figures are a little more responsible about what they say, from both sides of the aisle, would make arguments a little more constructive.

Also if one wants to condemn baseless rhetoric, isnt it hypocritical to take sides on the issue? Why should the left's rhetoric be acceptable, just because they're currently out of power doesnt entitle them to special treatment.

0 Replies

physgrad wrote:

hi,

I agree with brandon, as long as the secey of education doesn't try to lock up the teacher's association, he's on pretty solid legal ground.

However, merry's suggestion wherein public figures are a little more responsible about what they say, from both sides of the aisle, would make arguments a little more constructive.

Also if one wants to condemn baseless rhetoric, isnt it hypocritical to take sides on the issue? Why should the left's rhetoric be acceptable, just because they're currently out of power doesnt entitle them to special treatment.

Um, that is what I was referring to in making arguments more constructive.

And there are many on the progressive fringe left who hurl useless epithets which serve no purpose other than to enflame the opposition.

But can you cite examples of baseless rhetoric from the progressive left that you would see on national television, vs. the baseless rhetoric we hear from Fox News, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough, Matt Drudge, and others who continuously shred the truth and label anybody who doesn't agree with the President to be a terrorist?

See, if these people are going to baselessly accuse just about EVERYBODY of being a terrorist, then don't expect the other side to just sit idle and do nothing.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

And there are many on the progressive fringe left who hurl useless epithets which serve no purpose other than to enflame the opposition.

Anyone you know?

0 Replies

Hi

Can I cite the names of ultra liberal(progressive left, if you prefer Rolling Eyes

)
journalists , No.

To be honest, I dislike listening to purely rhetorical statements, I couldn't even recognise any names that you mentioned, except for fox news, which might even give a right wing slant to weather, right (sarcasm implied)? The point is citing names without specific quotes will not get any worthwhile response from me, I dont listen to extreme elements, let alone remember their names.

However, the stuff I said about fascist references is true and I can look that up, but I'm pretty sure you know their names better than I do.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Were the Revolutionaries terrorists in your opinion?

Certainly federal law in the United States would have considered the Founders to be terrorists, especially with acts like the Boston Tea Party in mind. According to US Code, Section 2656f(d), "(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".

I say guilty as charged.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Lash wrote:
Were the Revolutionaries terrorists in your opinion?

Certainly federal law in the United States would have considered the Founders to be terrorists, especially with acts like the Boston Tea Party in mind. According to US Code, Section 2656f(d), "(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".

I say guilty as charged.

I agree that The Boston Tea Party was terrorism, but I believe that it was "good terrorism." The non-combatant targets were never intended to be harmed and were not harmed. Furthermore, it was not merely intended to express a political point of view which could just as well have been expressed in elections, but as rebellion against a colonial master which had granted itself unlimited taxing power without consulting the people taxed.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I agree that The Boston Tea Party was terrorism, but I believe that it was "good terrorism." The non-combatant targets were never intended to be harmed and were not harmed. Furthermore, it was not merely intended to express a political point of view which could just as well have been expressed in elections, but as rebellion against a colonial master which had granted itself unlimited taxing power without consulting the people taxed.

Besides that I like the expression "good terorism", the second part - namely: "rebellion against a colonial master" - is used (modernised) today by ETA, IRA, the Chechens as well.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Besides that I like the expression "good terorism", the second part - namely: "rebellion against a colonial master" - is used (modernised) today by ETA, IRA, the Chechens as well.

Al Quaeda too. PBS Frontline has a collection of Bin Laden interviews online somewhere. (I can dig out the URL on request.) In these interviews, he makes it very clear that he sees the USA and its allies as imperialists, and that his objective is to get them out of the muslim world -- not to export his version of islamism to the West.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Al Quaeda too.

Yes, but I didn't name them :wink:

Actually, even the Red Fraction (in Germany) did so.

0 Replies

The American Revolution Redefined---terrorism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know