Real quick note on what makes anti-FA more like terrorists and less like the Minute Men/Founding Fathers: attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Generally, the Minute Men, while employing early forms of guerilla tactics, did so against military targets (or targets that were dual-use, such as grain stores and stables). The anti-FA appear to target police (which, I will concede could be considered paramilitary in this context), and civilians to accomplish political goals.
That's what makes at least some of them closer to terrorists.
East India Company was a military target?
State owned. (Basically. Its shareholders were the monarchy and political insiders.)
Plus, they basically had private armies and legal autonomy in ways that we can't even really relate to.
And, really, even if we want to count that as an attack on non-military property, it was isolated and served no military benefit.
It would be comparable in the modern age (IMHO) to breaking the gates on BLM land and refusing to leave. Busts up the gates, but doesn't hurt anyone.
So. Not a military target. I think none of that matters. Terrorism is done to change political behavior through fear and intimidation.State owned. (Basically. Its shareholders were the monarchy and political insiders.)
Plus, they basically had private armies and legal autonomy in ways that we can't even really relate to.
And, really, even if we want to count that as an attack on non-military property, it was isolated and served no military benefit.
It would be comparable in the modern age (IMHO) to breaking the gates on BLM land and refusing to leave. Busts up the gates, but doesn't hurt anyone.
So. Not a military target. I think none of that matters. Terrorism is done to change political behavior through fear and intimidation.
The founders had better costumes.Too in the weeds.
Antifa's goal is to create a place where no one can disagree with them publicly and where their own view of the world is enforced with violent consequences for resistance (ironically).
How does that compare to the founders?
The founders had better costumes.
I'm quite sure that there are Antifa members who don powdered wigs, stockings and knickers on a regular basis.
Or Milo in a powdered wig.
So. Not a military target. I think none of that matters. Terrorism is done to change political behavior through fear and intimidation.
Awkwardly for the modern era, I was thinking more along the lines of the Boston Tea Party....I'm quite sure that there are Antifa members who don powdered wigs, stockings and knickers on a regular basis.
Well, I think the case could be made that it was, but there's also room for reasonable people to disagree on that.
But, in the larger scheme, the Boston Tea Party was not designed to change political behavior through fear and intimidation. It struck fear in no one. It intimidated no one. It was a low-risk (relatively) display.
Now, the East India Company's response.... that could be argued to be terrorism, if you accept they were not a government actor. (Which, IMHO, would be a difficult case to make.)
The founders had better costumes.
Oh I figured this was more of an intellectual exercise. There really isn't much (if any) daylight between our views.I don't think that the founders were terrorists. I don't think that the saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is semantically accurate. Terrorism is a specific tactic. Terrorists employ terrorism to accomplish their goals.
Too in the weeds.
Antifa's goal is to create a place where no one can disagree with them publicly and where their own view of the world is enforced with violent consequences for resistance (ironically).
How does that compare to the founders?
OMG, Sylvain that is horrible. Had not heard of that before.
In a better time, we used to stack communists like cordwood.