The handy thing is, as there's no accepted definition of terrorism, it would be entirely possible to argue (and a number of historians have) that the Glorious Revolution was a terrorist act. And please note the name. That's right, "Glorious" - glorifying terror if ever I saw it.Sounds reasonable to me. It's not the first time we've discussed 1688 around here either.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Europhobia: A bit of over-the-top historical/constitutional pedantry
Nosemonkey:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The Glorious Revoution was a revolutanry act, but was it a terrorist act? Certainly not after the revolution becasue that side won, and therefore made their action legal.
So if at some future point the Islamist psychos instigate Sharia law across Britain and the US, as they supposedly want to, that makes 9/11 and 7/7 no longer terrorist acts?
Bollocks. An act of terror is an act of terror no matter who commits it - be it a suicide bomber in the Gaza strip today, a French military unit systematically torturing Algerians in the late 1950s, or the African National Congress' Umkhonto we Sizwe military arm during the 1960s. The latter of those may have been fighting a gainst a superior force with reprihensible policies and views, and they may well have eventually come to power under Nelson Mandela, but the tactics they used were terrorist ones - simply terrorist ones in a cause with which most people now agree.
Post a Comment