India has MY permission... :0)
But that said, I still do not consider attacks against clearly defined military targets to be "terrorism".. I wouldn't even consider the attack against the Pentagon to be a terrorist act, except that a civilian airliner was utilized as the weapon.
Some people think that "revolutions" are monolithic and reflect the will of the people when, in fact, they generally reflect the will of the few who have financial or political interests in such events.
I submit this is also the case for the American Revolution.. It was mainly a rebellion by a few powerful individuals who were able to convince their constituency that they should support and participate in it.
But where I draw a DEFINITE DISTINCTION between the American revolution and others that we have seen since, is that a different and more egalitarian system arose from the American revolution, and not a dictatorship. George Washington was offered the presidency for life, but in one simple refusal, he set the foundation for the very system of government we have today. In essence, he knew how to exercise self-limitation of his own power and that personal set of principles was derived from his own moral values.
So I support any revolution which seeks to replace the established system with one that is more open and free, and derives power from the people it governs. But such a revolution would hardly validate or encourage the targeted of civilians as legitimate targets....
Thus, if a revolutionary leadership is willing to encourage and exercise terror against civilians, it's hardly the kind of uprising, or guerilla movement that's worth defending or supporting.
Hawk |
