you know, they were fighting back against the big brother to take back their country.

i don't know if you're being sarcastic or not.

Depends on your definition. By most definitions the US government uses, yes.

The British probably considered them to be this, yes.

Fighting back against big brother to take back your country doesn't make one a terrorist.

How does the American side of the Revolutionary War fit current definitions of terrorism?

I think in most cases, you could make the argument that war is terrorism.

I read an article once a few years ago comparing the revolutionaries here and the terrorists we're fighting now. Some of the comparisons were quite eery...I just wish I could remember some concrete examples. I don't know where the damn article is, either.

Well, let's just use the US Code's definition:

Which part does the Boston Tea Party not fit?

I'm fairly certain that removing the shackles of imperialistic rules does not count as terrorism. That England felt they could not negotiate terms of American independence peacefully does not make American actions terrorism.

I think it could be easier to debate that the actions of the South in the War of 1812 as terrorism.

I suppose that depends on whether you consider throwing a bunch of tea into the ocean as intimidation, coercion, or mass destruction.

The US code definition is unbelievably vague. There's probably not much point in continuing the debate unless we agree that a definition of terrorism includes targeting civilian populations as a matter of strategy.

heh, every definition of terrorism is unbelievably vague, because it's a vague term.

The Tea Party and many other acts of the colonies were definitely meant to coerce civilian populations, either British or American, and they were definitely meant to affect government conduct. You can offer up another definition, that'd be great. I'm not particularly fond of that one either, but the trouble with terrorism as a word and idea is nobody knows how to define it.

so, anyone opposing any empire isn't a terrorist?

Then who is a terrorist?

i'm guessing his point was more the "taxation without representation" bent, that is, the (however correct or not) concept that the brits were unfairly taxing the colonies and such.

in my mind, to the best of my knowledge the american revolution did not involve deliberate civilian casualties on the part of the revolutionists and were not, strictly speaking, terrorists.
I think another component of terrorism, at least nowadays (i quickly searched for the first use/date of the word terrorism and came up empty), is the deliberate manipulation of media to invoke fear - and considering the media wasn't much to speak of in the 1770s, i further hesitate to use that word.
i am, however, neither historian nor media expert, so i could be wrong.

i like this one, written by A.P. Schmid and used by the UN:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988).

Well, Thomas Paine was certainly part of the media, as were the multiple broadsides and newspapers used in the Revolution.

I'm not sure of any definition of terrorism that requires civilian casualties, nor have I seen a definition that cares whether the terrorists claims are valid.

This is certainly equally valid, but I'm not sure how it can't be applied to the Revolutionaries.

if we're still talking about the Boston Tea Party, I'm not aware of any "immediate human victims of violence".

So what exactly is the point of this thread?

To justify Islamic terrorism by equating it to what happened during the American revolutionary war? Or to damn our founding fathers and early patriots by equating what they did to what modern Islamic terrorists and other terrorist groups are doing?

That's sort of my feeling as well. Attempts to draw equivalence like this are completely disingenuous.

what are the "direct targets of violence?"