It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Origins Of The Term Terrorism
The root of the word terrorism is taken from a Latin term that literally means "to frighten". It became part of the phrase "terror cimbricus", which was used by ancient Romans in 105BC to describe the panic that ensued as they prepared for an attack by a fierce warrior tribe. Many years later that fact was taken into account during the bloody reign of Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution.
This period of time was referred to as the Reign of Terror, largely in homage to "terror cimbricus". After nearly a year, the Terror came to an end and Robespierre was overthrown and executed. When it was over, people started to use the word terrorist to describe a person who abuses power through the threat of force. A journalist in the United Kingdom wrote about the Reign of Terror in The Times newspaper, and created the word terrorism as a way to describe the actions of Robespierre. The word became so popular it was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary three years later.
Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by alldaylong
so throwing tea in the sea is an act of terrorism
Originally posted by tehdouglas
Actually the tea was dumped because Britain stopped the colonies from printing their own money, which allowed the colonies to thrive but offered no valuable metals to tax for the king. Once they forced the colonies back on the gold standard they fell into a great depression with high prices and unemployment. THEN they did the tea massacre, it wasnt just in reaction to some overpriced tea. It was a reaction to financial terrorism being applied to the colonies, Britain forcing them from a prosperous situation that benefited the people into a hopeless depression that benefited british royalty.
Its not terrorism when tyrants are involved.edit on 26-11-2012 by tehdouglas because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by alldaylong
The inhabitants of the 13 Colonies where British Subjects. Therefore The Boston Incident was an act against "The State". Any such action can be classed as terrorism. I therefore cannot see why some people cannot see it for what it was.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Their failure the mention why it happened is the telling part.
It was over sky-high taxes that made it unaffordable to the common person.
Like if coffee were to go to $10.00 a cup today.
"But it was private property!" (of the state-sponsored corporation - British East India Company)
Originally posted by tehdouglas
reply to post by alldaylong
That doesnt make any sense. It doesnt matter if its your fault or not because you had a syphilitic brain or whatever, youre still a tyrant.
1.a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.
2.
any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.
3.
a tyrannical or compulsory influence.
4.
an absolute ruler, especially one in ancient Greece or Sicily.
I would argue that most of the evil people throughout history are psychopathic, and science says that 1% of the population is born with psychopathic tendencies. It doesnt matter if its your fault or not, your still a psychopath just as it doesnt matter if your brain is messed up, your still a tyrant if you practice tyranny.
It is important to understand that the Tea Act actually placed no new tax on tea. Instead it simply gave a tax break to the East India Tea company.
The new measure was also supposed to win the minds of tea consumers in America by driving down the market price of tea. But in the situation already aggravated by the previous heavy-handed tax measures, this obvious economic benefit was overlooked by the population and the new law was regarded at “Taxation without representation”.
The Tea Act taxed the tea at source (i.e. in India) so there was no tax collection in the colonies. The act allowed the tea to go directly to America instead of having to be imported to Britain and then re-exported to the colonies. This made the tea 9d per lb cheaper, even with the 3d tax. It also allowed the East India Company to sell the tea exclusively to chosen merchants (consignees) in the American colonies. This established monopolies in America and offended colonial merchants.