4 ms·
> Were violent European revolutions against their monarchs all terroristic? Unfortunately the answer is something like "yes but we don't want to speak about th
by pvarangot 5y ago
> Were violent European revolutions against their monarchs all terroristic?
Unfortunately the answer is something like "yes but we don't want to speak about that because it makes us feel uncomfortable" most of the time. Thing is western society has been doing well the past 20/30 years regarding civil-war like violence at a large scale and for a hard to fix issue, and no one wants to talk about how or why but everyone wants to believe days of violent civil uprising are long gone.
- whimsicalism 5y agoNo, they weren't. Nevermind the fact that "terrorism" is a stupid word - these were justified conflicts of a people against tyranny. Violence for those aims is justified.
- pvarangot 5y agoI don't think terrorism is a stupid word, it just means terrorizing civil population outside of normal militia vs. militia violence on the field. In a lot of those conflicts civilians that were persecuted by the government fought back with unconventional action, I'm not saying it was not justified, but it did involve innocent bystanders. For example during the end of the French revolution, as a reaction to the Reign of Terror and Robespierre, on the storming of the Hall of Paris. What's stupid is thinking that on a violent conflict only one side can be guilty of terrorism.