And Paul, there was neither dynamite nor remote control garage door openers nor cell phones nor the internet in the 18th century. So, unless you can point me to some weapons analysis to the contary, surprise bombings directed at civilian targets were as impossible then as cruise missle strikes -- oh, unless you had access to the "surgical accuracy" of a mortar. No civilians ever slaughtered by those babies.
Now, one other minor detail: just in case you didn't know, there weren't that many British civilians in the 18th century colonies, so your challenge to find accounts of "British store bombers" is, to be charitable, both logistically and technologically specious.
Ever hear of a fuse? It was a time honored way of making a big boom without getting yourself killed in the process. How about getting 20 people together to light the back of each building on main street on fire when a bell rings. Suicide bombers walking into crowded markets and parking alongside important buildings (or driving right into them) are popular among our enemy, seems like a great tactic that could have been used even in the day of the powderkeg and horse and buggy.
The entire colonies were chuck full of innocent British citizens who didn't want the revolution to happen. And Irish and French and Spanish and whathaveyou. Everyone was a subject of a European power. As I recall the American Revloution wasn't too awefully popular to begin with, something like 15%-25% of colonists were into the militant approach, another 25% favored stopping short of revolt. Leaves 50% or more that were comfortable with the status quo or at least unfavorable to the revolution.
And the whole point is that to draw equivalences, be they tactical or moral/ethical, between the revolutionaries and the jihadis is preposterous. If the revolutionaries were like the jihadis, they would have rode a wagon of fused powerkegs packed in small iron scrap or lead bullets straight into the center of the biggest group of people they could find, be they 1% or 80% British loyalists, and kaboom. They could have, but they didn't. Instead they rioted and got some hot lead, justifiably so as the case was, for their trouble. They dumped a bunch of tea into the harbor without killing or injuring a single person, British loyalist or Rebel. Some of the rebels even wanted to repay the loyalist merchant for the tea! The subhuman bastards.
Was the revolution a whiteglove affair, of course not. But it wasn't the anything-goes catastrophy of immorality and irrational philosophy that the Jihadi's so obviously engage in.
And Paul, your argument about the Boston Massacre is just silly.
Oh no you didn't.
As has been said, we have a very different view of things. For instance, I personally find myself to be hysterical, not merely silly.