The Boston Tea Party was aimed at destruction of civil property (East India Company) in defiance of the Tea Act of May 10, 1773.
Conversely, the Boston Massacre
was the death of civilians, yet the soldiers were [rightly, IMO] acquitted, as they were fighting against imminent threat to their lives/safety.
But in any case, my point was that the label of terrorist
can be applied to people who aren't.
I agree that the behavior you describe is the true measure of [the spirit of] terrorism.
It was the death of American civilians at the hands of British regulars. Admittedly, they were a mob that was doing their very best to provoke a confrontation. Likewise, the “destructives” that were disguising themselves as Indians that went marauding in upstate New York were in the employ of the king, as was Tavington. All in all, the colonial rebels mostly observed the rules of war, as did the Irgun in most cases. I am aware of the ease with which dissidents can be mislabeled, but in these days the distinction is usually stark, especially with the likes of Marwan Barghouty, who is thankfully still in his cage.
Forgot. Boston Tea Party was the destruction of property all but owned by His Majesty’s government. The East India Tea Company was a quasi-governmental body, and one of the aims of the government was to continue to monopolize trade with the colonies, which the colonials resisted strenuously. There were also taxes imposed on the colonies to pay for the French Indian War debts which the colonists themselves largely financed, starting with the Sugar Tax, the Stamp Act, and eventually leading up to the Tea Tax, all taxes imposed on products legally available only through quasi-governmental monopolies.