So, the US has finally removed Nelson Mandela from its list of terrorists. It says a lot about the law, that Mandela was on the list in the first place. Anyone, other than a government, who uses violence for a political end is classified as a terrorist.
This is exactly what George Washington did. Perhaps it is time that American’s should stop regarding his as a hero and acknowledge that he was a terrorist who headed a violent rebellion? Perhaps they should start hunting down former members of the French Resistance who also did the same — and used terrorist tactics such as bombings and assassinations.
The obvious riposte to this is that their actions were justified by the justice of their cause. If George Washington was justified in using armed force against the fairly mild oppressiveness of being ruled by Britain, why an Uzbek or Saudi Washington not justified in doing the same against their far more oppressive and brutal governments.
The only logic is that those who oppose useful governments are terrorists, those who the governments backs are not terrorists, and those who have managed to win their battles are never terrorists. There is no moral dimension, only a useful irregular verb, as Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister explained “I am a freedom fighter, you are a guerilla, he is a terrorist”.
Of course I am theoretically risking the wrath of the British law for glorifying terrorism by suggesting that Uzbeks or Saudis might be justified in using violence. An actual prosecution may be unlikely in my case, but I would be quite frightened to way this is I was Muslim or a little more left wing.
As there is little chance of either the British changing the laws, the only consistent solution is imprison any one who praises George Washington (visiting Americans, history teachers, etc.) for glorifying terrorism.