[rufibarbatus]

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?

[endlessvoid94]

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.

[chc]

He didn't intentionally kill or maim civilian targets with the goal of inciting terror?

[tomjen3]

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]

It's a shame this comment got downvoted. Be it serious or tongue-in-cheek, it was very enlightening.

[excuse-me]

But Che Guevara makes a better T-shirt

[ktizo]

Not really, he tends to screw up the stitching round the collar.

[excuse-me]

< bows down > ;-) < / bows down >

[ktizo]

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.