Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Being a Tea Party supporter like being a terrorist party supporter?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26829points) May 26th, 2010

Come on, everyone should know the history. So called Patriots stormed 3 ships of the British East India Company and tossed the tea into Boston Harbor rather than pay the Crown tax on it. How was that not a terrorist act? And when it culminated into war (against the sitting government) how were those “patriots” not terrorist? How was that act of government defiance any different or more noble than what Castro, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Iatola Khomeini, or any other persons or groups who did not like the sitting government and tried to overthrow it or did? To align oneself with people who committed a terrorist act to inflict hurt on the legal government of the day is kind if hypocritical isn’t it? And before a bunch of Tea Partiers try to say “well those governments were this and that” they were the sitting government. Whether or not they were right, wrong or something else is all open to debate on if you are a supporter or insurgent against it.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

28 Answers

Ivan's avatar

One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.

The Tea Party didn’t aim to kill or terrorize anyone; it was a political statement, not a terrorist act. And the American Revolution was just that, a revolution. The United States has supported other revolutions before; there isn’t anything inherently wrong with them. Some simply are opposed to the type of government established by the revolutionaries.

ragingloli's avatar

Revolutions, violent overthrows of existing governments, are technically high treason against the existing government and those who lead and support a revolution are, logically, traitors, regardless of whether you like the outcome or not. So when people give adoration to the founders and their followers, they are giving adoration to traitors.
Think about it.

Cruiser's avatar

To me it would all depend on whether or not dressing up as Indians and throwing boxes of tea in a harbor would be considered ” use of force or violence by a group”

I’d be more inclined to say it was a principled protest as there was no use of force and nobody got hurt.

dpworkin's avatar

Foof from pluction, fife from infarction. This country was formed in revolution. A revolution is by definition the violent overthrow of the sitting government. The question is whether the sitting government was legitimate. Would we support the Burmese if they overthrew the Myanmar Junta, or would we call them terrorists for wanting to establish a democracy where the military has ruled for 20 years?

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

It all depends on who wins and who loses the battle, in this case the political battle. If one side wins, they get to write the history, and they’re Patriots. If they lose, the other side writes the history and they’re traitors.

filmfann's avatar

Some random thoughts:
The weapon of a terrorist is fear. The BTP did not instill fear (even though they were dressed up as indians).
The patriots who participated in the BTP were the actual owners of the tea.
I would hesistate supporting most movements, because the movement’s leaders tend to begin spouting lunatic views, like “open hunting season on all liberals, with no limit!”.
Support the cause, but avoid the movement.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@filmfann How do you know the BTP didn’t instill fear? I suspect crew members on the ships where the tea was dumped overboard were probably at least somewhat frightened.

CyanoticWasp's avatar

So you would also equate Vietnam war protesters who occupied university administration buildings as terrorists? Civil rights protesters who held sit-ins? The Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square—guess they got what they had coming, those bastards.

After all, in the context of the times all of those were illegal acts as well by semi-organized groups in direct opposition to clearly understood (even if nonsensical or evil) government policies. Sure looked like terrorism to some.

Your logic and ability to form competent analogies seem to be flawed, as well as your sense of proportion. After all, the original Boston Tea Party “terrorists” didn’t sink or burn the ships, hold the crews for ransom (or kill them) or harm anyone else, including bystanders or those who explicitly disagreed with them. (Although that did happen during the Revolution itself.)

If you want to call it “vandalism” or “civil disobedience” then you might get some agreement. “Terrorist” is a pretty much overused term in the first place; if you want to align yourself with people who see “terrorists” as “everyone who disagrees with me and my ideas and policies for good government” then you’ll pretty much guarantee that you won’t be taken seriously by anyone outside the Beltway… and by darned few people inside it.

CaptainHarley's avatar

( shrug ) So call me a terrorist. LIke I give a shit!

dpworkin's avatar

Like you even know the difference.

Response moderated
Tomfafa's avatar

Tea party supporters… do they advocate violent overthrow of the government? Or do they want to vote in a new government? Geniuses like you, HC leave me scratching my head…

Ron_C's avatar

Since the Tea Party seems to be involved in terroristic threats, and is possibly planning other crimes, I would classify them as terrorists.

The original tea party was against corporate greed. Their crimes were against the East India company that was using the Crown to consolidate its monopoly. That is not terrorism it is protest. I suggest that similar acts would be appropriate against other anti-democratic international corporations.

filmfann's avatar

Tea Baggers have encouraged assassination of Senators, Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, and The President. In my book, that qualifies them as traitors and insurrectionists, if not terrorists.
I am honestly surprised you can find a head to scratch.

dpworkin's avatar

Actually, @filmfann, I think they are largely middle-aged, middle-class white men, more affluent than the median, and angry, but not crazy. There are some fringe types like the ones you mention, but I don’t think that’s a fair characterization in general.

CaptainHarley's avatar


Careful! THAT answer almost made sense! LOL!

filmfann's avatar

@dpworkin So, terrorists aren’t angry, just crazy?

CaptainHarley's avatar

Likely a bit of BOTH!

Response moderated
Anon_Jihad's avatar

The word terrorist is so overused. A terrorist sounds like someone who seeks to instill fear into peoples hearts, not fight for a cause they believe in. I hate to say it and sound primitive, but sometimes there is no other way to resolve an issue but to kill the other motherfuckers, and while not a favorable way to do things, it has brought about better things before.

CaptainHarley's avatar

There is a kind of mindless fear which holds that because war is so terrible, it is never acceptable to fight. This mindset would have us submit to tyranny in the name of “peace.” Sometimes the best thing we can do for peace is to go to war. And waiting until war is brought to our doorstep is waiting until we have lost before we even begin. Yes, war is indeed terrible, but submission to tyranny is far worse.

Tomfafa's avatar

@Anon_Jihad These so called terrorists will never understand that they will never put fear in the hearts of americans and never in the hearts of the brave israelis. Instead… the result of strapping bombs on children… they inspire paranoia, like the devil himself. The ones that live in fear are the ones that feel the need to kill the mo-fos.’

Ron_C's avatar

@CaptainHarley to what tyranny are we submitting? The tyranny of health care, the tyranny of bringing corporate entities back under control of the citizens? How is that more dangerous than the guy that started two wars, killed hundreds of thousands of people, that shipped jobs out of the country to free up our young men and women to give their lives so that oil companies can make even higher profits.

For the life of me, I see no reason for the tea party to spring up when we are finally turning things around and getting rid of the thoroughly repudiated policies of Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes. The only possible reason is the that the tea party is a group of thinly disguised racists and potential fascists.

Tomfafa's avatar

@Ron_C Wow… it took you two (2) paragraphs to resort to using racists and fascists… if you were a true liberal, you would do it in one.

ragingloli's avatar

And as a true conservative, you managed to squeeze racist, fascist and liberal into one single sentence. Congratulations.

Tomfafa's avatar

@ragingloli Thanks but it’s a run-on sentence, still, there might be a connection…

Ron_C's avatar

@Tomfafa the tea party is a corporate sponsored organization that shops around for the most gullible people to support their agenda. When Reagan began his campaign to destroy the government and transfer the country’s assets to mostly international corporations, he was completely successful.

The tea party movement is just a mopping up operation that is why they are vehemently opposed to regulation and universal health care. To that goal they appeal to the rampant militia types, white supremacy groups, anti-immigration groups, and anybody that is brain washed enough to think Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are anything other than ultra-right shills.

They are so deluded that they don’t see the humor and irony of a senior citizen holding a sign telling the government to keep their hands out of their Medicare. How can anyone respect of believe in such an organization?

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther