[footfootfoot]

Bostontea party was not an act of terrosim. It was conducted in order to prevent the tea from entering the economic stream w/o clearing customs and paying duty. The shipment was intended to undercut in price not only legitimately imported tea, but also smuggled (i.e. untaxed) tea and thus disrupt the economy.

The attack was peaceful, no one was harmed. The only property other than the tea that was damaged was a padlock and it was replaced. Adams and Co. were clear to point out this was not an attack on property.

Now the other thign we are failing to mention is the actions of the colonists vis a vis (or vis a behind a wall) against the redcoats during the revolutionary war. By many contemporary definitions, these colonists were terrorists.

Whenever one side departs form the rules of the marquis of queensbury the other side shouts "no fair" Until that new form of cambat becomes not only popular, but de riguerre (get it? a pun and I don't even speak french)

sorry. Anyway, what doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me about war is that the idea is to impose your will on someone else despite their wishes to the contrary. What does it matter how you do that?

And then, if someone attacks you, you fight back.

So as an agressor why should you follow rules? I mean you're out there to rape and pillage so...

As a defender you've gotta do what you've gotta do to protect yourself.

Unfortunately, I bet most soldiers if they had their druthers wouldn't be in war

I don't know where I'm going with this. it's hot and I've had a long day.