We all know that, but did they engage in terrorism? It's a pretty specific definition, simple rebelling against any authority in any manor does not qualify one as a "terrorist".
I'm pretty certain American revolutionaries used violence and intimidation against British soldiers and British property in the pursuit of political aims.
Do you disagree?
Read that line again - I don't consider actions (leading to or during a full scale conflict) against opposing soldiers as terrorism in the "modern sense" of the word.
Yes war is terror, terrorizing and many invading armies throughout history have used "terror" as part of their strategy.
I feel as though we are drifting too far from useful discussion - I will disengage with respect.
All while burning down a harbor.
Please elaborate. I have not heard this specific definition.