6 ms·

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 a

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
    But Che Guevara makes a better T-shirt
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Not really, he tends to screw up the stitching round the collar.
      - excuse-me 14y ago
        < bows down > ;-) < / bows down >
- ktizo 14y ago
  I totally agree. These bloody modern terrorists, not sharing our views and customs. Bet they don't even play cricket. Very uncouth. You'd think that half of them had grown up in a war zone or something, the way they go on. Pass the gin. Not like the old historic terrorists, no, those lot had style. They were on our side for one thing, made us a lot of money in the long run. And they look bloody good in paintings. Oh look, the gins run out. I'll go find some rum.

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
  But Che Guevara makes a better T-shirt
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Not really, he tends to screw up the stitching round the collar.
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      < bows down > ;-) < / bows down >
ktizo 14y ago
I totally agree. These bloody modern terrorists, not sharing our views and customs. Bet they don't even play cricket. Very uncouth. You'd think that half of them had grown up in a war zone or something, the way they go on. Pass the gin. Not like the old historic terrorists, no, those lot had style. They were on our side for one thing, made us a lot of money in the long run. And they look bloody good in paintings. Oh look, the gins run out. I'll go find some rum.