5 ms·

I see your point. It's not a great analogy though. He was a revolutionary, but he was not a terrorist.

by endlessvoid94 14y ago

excuse-me 14y ago
Would have been if he had lost
- endlessvoid94 14y ago
  Who did he terrorize?
  - mindstab 14y ago
    The British?
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    There was the 20% of the population that actively opposed the revolution many of whom were attacked had their property seized and were eventually forced to move to Canada. As well as the majority who really just wanted everything to carry on peacefully Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!
    - rmc 14y ago
      The records show 100% of the population were on board.
      - excuse-me 14y ago
        Yes they always do!
      - pyre 14y ago
        If 100% of the population was on-board, then who did they rise up against? Even if it's a single leader, he/she is still part of the population of a country.
        rmc 14y ago
        I was satiring totalitarian states that tend to produce fake nonsense statistics about how popular they are. e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        And that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
    - scarmig 14y ago
      A partisan wouldn't find it hard to call what happened after the war as a sort of ethnic cleansing, though more on political lines than ethnic. On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies. This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause. Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.
dpeck 14y ago
I'm going to guess that the loyalists of the day couldn't tell much difference.
rufibarbatus 14y ago
The way you phrased your comment can only lead to arguing semantics of the word “terrorist”. As risk to the establishment, a “subversive” can always be framed as a terrorist with a little bit of creativity. Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?
- chc 14y ago
  He didn't intentionally kill or maim civilian targets with the goal of inciting terror?
  - idonthack 14y ago
    Correct, he just produced and distributed propaganda to encourage people to take up arms against a foreign oppressor. Which, these days, is enough to get you and your family killed by a drone strike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Alwaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Alwaki
- endlessvoid94 14y ago
  Yes, I just meant that he didn't orchestrate and/or carry out the murders of innocent people with the sole purpose of inciting terror. I don't think there's much to argue about here.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Yeah Franklin is a guy who has some of the same interests and values as you. You could imagine having dinner with him. You could imagine being him. The modern terrorist is none of these things.
  - rufibarbatus 14y ago
    It's a shame this comment got downvoted. Be it serious or tongue-in-cheek, it was very enlightening.
    - excuse-me 14y ago
shrikant 14y ago
Extremists on your side are revolutionaries. Extremists not on your side are terrorists.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  Extremists that win are revolutionaries Extremists that lose are terrorists If we aren't sure yet they are insurgents If it ends with nobody winning and the leaders getting Nobel peace prizes (N.Ireland) then they were all just folk dancers that got out of hand.
  - dmoo 14y ago
    I don't think that Betty Williams or Mairead Maguire could be described as extremists, John Hume and David Trimble were not at the extreme end of their respective sides in the conflict either. 'Folk dancers', well if you feel happy about that comment thats up to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureate%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      Yes it's odd how afterwards there were no terrorists, they had been no civil war and yet a few politicians an arms length from the Armalites all got Nobel Prizes for solving a problem that never happened.
rhizome 14y ago
Material supporter?

I see your point. It's not a great analogy though. He was a revolutionary, but he was not a terrorist.

excuse-me 14y ago

Would have been if he had lost

endlessvoid94 14y ago
Who did he terrorize?
- mindstab 14y ago
  The British?
- excuse-me 14y ago
  There was the 20% of the population that actively opposed the revolution many of whom were attacked had their property seized and were eventually forced to move to Canada. As well as the majority who really just wanted everything to carry on peacefully Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!
  - rmc 14y ago
    The records show 100% of the population were on board.
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      Yes they always do!
    - pyre 14y ago
      If 100% of the population was on-board, then who did they rise up against? Even if it's a single leader, he/she is still part of the population of a country.
      - rmc 14y ago
        I was satiring totalitarian states that tend to produce fake nonsense statistics about how popular they are. e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      And that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
  - scarmig 14y ago
    A partisan wouldn't find it hard to call what happened after the war as a sort of ethnic cleansing, though more on political lines than ethnic. On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies. This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause. Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.

dpeck 14y ago

I'm going to guess that the loyalists of the day couldn't tell much difference.

rufibarbatus 14y ago

The way you phrased your comment can only lead to arguing semantics of the word “terrorist”. As risk to the establishment, a “subversive” can always be framed as a terrorist with a little bit of creativity. Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?

chc 14y ago
He didn't intentionally kill or maim civilian targets with the goal of inciting terror?
- idonthack 14y ago
  Correct, he just produced and distributed propaganda to encourage people to take up arms against a foreign oppressor. Which, these days, is enough to get you and your family killed by a drone strike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Alwaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Alwaki
endlessvoid94 14y ago
Yes, I just meant that he didn't orchestrate and/or carry out the murders of innocent people with the sole purpose of inciting terror. I don't think there's much to argue about here.
tomjen3 14y ago
Yeah Franklin is a guy who has some of the same interests and values as you. You could imagine having dinner with him. You could imagine being him. The modern terrorist is none of these things.
- rufibarbatus 14y ago
  It's a shame this comment got downvoted. Be it serious or tongue-in-cheek, it was very enlightening.
  - excuse-me 14y ago

shrikant 14y ago

Extremists on your side are revolutionaries. Extremists not on your side are terrorists.

excuse-me 14y ago
Extremists that win are revolutionaries Extremists that lose are terrorists If we aren't sure yet they are insurgents If it ends with nobody winning and the leaders getting Nobel peace prizes (N.Ireland) then they were all just folk dancers that got out of hand.
- dmoo 14y ago
  I don't think that Betty Williams or Mairead Maguire could be described as extremists, John Hume and David Trimble were not at the extreme end of their respective sides in the conflict either. 'Folk dancers', well if you feel happy about that comment thats up to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureate%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Yes it's odd how afterwards there were no terrorists, they had been no civil war and yet a few politicians an arms length from the Armalites all got Nobel Prizes for solving a problem that never happened.

rhizome 14y ago

Material supporter?