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?
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.
Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?