Some of you seem to be broadening the definition of "terrorism".
The U.S. government has a few different definitions, and some of them are indeed quite broad. This is a little controversial here in the U.S., but only a few people are complaining. Here are some quotes I found from Wikipedia under "Definition of terrorism" (and yes, I know Wikipedia is unreliable, but I doubt anyone could screw this up):
Under the U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations, "terrorism" is defined as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
1a.) Social objective: Maintain the colonists' boycott of imported tea.
1b.) Political objective: The roots of the boycott ultimately derive from anger over British decisions on taxing the colonies despite a lack of colonial representation in the Westminster Parliament.
2.) Targets: The British government
3.) Tactics: Unlawful use of force against the property of the East India Company; Intimidation of the first mates of each ship; Destruction of a padlock
Result: Terrorism
The Federal Regulations are not exactly the law (as I understand it, bu I'm not a lawyer), but they are the detailed and considered interpretations arrived at by the Executive agencies on how they interpret the law in order to enforce it.
And the
USA PATRIOT Act says that terrorism consists of "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
See my above itemization regarding the Boston Tea Party, and note that someone could have fallen overboard or been hit by a wayward box of tea, making these "acts dangerous to human life". If a Boston Tea Partier had been so charged, would the charge stand up in court today? Maybe not. But the loose definition is an opportunity for political shenanigans.
The main point is it generates large levels of fear in the general population, forcing the government to give in to the terrorist's demands because of pressure from the plebs.
Yes! Andrew I agree with you. I think that this is a good start for a legal definition. Unfortunately that "fear" part is missing from most of our legal definitions.
However, the United States Department of Defense has a definition which at least approaches what you're saying: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
In this case, the Boston Tea Party was not terrorism. It wasn't really violent, nor was it promoting fear. It was a direct action protest in support of a widely-supported boycott.
I don't see how armed rebellion can be seen as terrorism.
That may be so, but remember that the word "terrorism" is so emotionally charged, I expect most governments would use it against an armed rebellion. And in the case of the Boston Tea Party, this happened in 1773, a couple of years before open armed conflict.
