Didn't see this before - however
No need. Common sense already covers that obvious fact.
i.e. You can't deny it. You were caught out.
Now we're getting somewhere..
If the U.S. were abusing the crap out of Idaho and brutally starving that state's families half to death, and it seceded, requiring military engagements against our troops and the overthrow of our officials there, there would be no moral high ground for the U.S. to stand on, just as there wasn't with Britain, even though we were a part of their empire at the time.
As I said before, I'm not supporting the Stamp Act but your history is wrong. If you are trying to say that the UK was abusing the American colonies or starving their citizens - that charge lay at the congresses who actually ran America. The revolution against the Stamp Act was because of what it represented in colonialists eyes - an attempt to bring to American soil what the colonialists had gone there to escape.
You still haven't read your history I'm afraid.
And yes, the Stamp Act was about repaying the war debt. And? Is that supposed to have made it legitimate for the British to sodomize our country into gridlock?
You will be able to support that the British financially ruined the Americas I suppose? They didn't - and local power was held by local congresses in the Americas.
Wrong. The scope and cost of the tax was the driving force. The right of the British to even tax us without our consent in the first place was just the argument the colonists put at the center of their protest. It is disingenuous to downplay the impact of the act when it required "all legal documents, permits, commercial contracts, newspapers, wills, pamphlets, and playing cards in the colonies to carry a tax stamp."
Morgan and Morgan pg. 96-97
I'm sorry but you obviously only read so far or you deliberately closed your eyes to the other passages about what the American colonists felt the Stamp Act represented. Morgan and Morgan is a good book - keep reading.
I'd also recommend the other books the Morgans wrote separately - however you will find repeated statements of how Stamp Agents were intimidated (use of terror) or threatened out of work. The only possible defence you can have is that the word "terrorism" is only clearly used regarding the "Reign of terror" however the actions used by colonists is clear and you have yet to prove they did not.
You tried futiley to justify it by saying the British impoverished the colonies - quote me the pages either in any of the Morgans' books or any other historians that show that the British overtaxed the Americas and "sodomised" them into poverty please.
Not even close.
Yeah, your slanted revisionist history sure put me in my place.
So the American colonists did not use terror against American stamp agents, they did not intimidate or use violence on American colonists to stop them working or to force them to resign.
And since no one here is limiting the definition of terrorism to the narrow scope of Israel and Hamas (as already explained), this further attempt to condescend, rather than debate, is completely irrelevant. Hint: for us to get anywhere here, you'll have to explain how the colonists degrading a British official carrying out the rape and robbery of your country is even in the same ballpark as actual terrorism (see 9/11). Try again.
Again, terrorising and intimidating people out of their jobs is not terrorism...? Threatening civilians with violence against "property, person and belongings" is not using or bringing about terror?
You correct nothing while you continue to think only of "terrorism" as a 20th/21st century occurrence. Continuing to ignore that your own forefathers used terror tactics is laughable and deserves nothing but sarcasm. Terrorism is not limited to the tactics of Al'Qaeda or Hamas or even by skin colour alone.
Your use of 9/11 is proof of the limits to your thinking.
stop lowering the IQ of this thread
No really, I enjoy reading your revision of history, here's some more reading for you.
Massachusetts: A Concise History, by Richard D. Brown and Jack Tager (University of Massachusetts Press, 2000).
Crowd Action in Revolutionary Massachusetts, by Dick Hoerder (Academic Press, 1977).
Boston Riots: Three Centuries of Social Violence, by Jack Tager (Northeastern University Press, 2001).
The Stamp Act Crisis By Helen M. Morgan, Institute of Early American History and Culture
I leave you with this passage from "The Stamp Act Crisis"
The threats of violence by which the Sons of Liberty exercised authority in America were transformed by three thousand miles of ocean into an impertinence, and with Parliament, which had dealt with mobs before, replied to the challenge of cramming stamps down American throats. When the Sons of Liberty heard this, they knew that they might have to fight for their rights not against a few helpless stamp distributors, but against the British Army.
Now read this again - I am not defending the Stamp Act - simply pointing out what some of the were. Freedom Fighters to the colonies - instigators of terror to those who were subject to their tactics. A terrorist is not defined by their use of whatever technology exists in their era - but by their tactics to achieve their aims. I can't explain it any simpler for you.