I see your point. It's not a great analogy though. He was a revolutionary, but he was not a terrorist.
Can you volunteer a significant difference between Franklin and a modern-day terrorist from the establishment ruler's standpoint?
I don't think there's much to argue about here.
The modern terrorist is none of these things.
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.
Extremists not on your side are terrorists.
Extremists that lose are terrorists
If we aren't sure yet they are insurgents
If it ends with nobody winning and the leaders getting Nobel peace prizes (N.Ireland) then they were all just folk dancers that got out of hand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_%28Nobel_laureat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mairead_Maguire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Trimble
Alternatively it could be that 100% of the population fully supported the revolution leading to a universal popular uprising of the oppressed - just like Russia in 1917!
On top of that, numerous civilians, particularly those in positions of authority, were subject to a sort of low key terrorism, such as being dipped in hot tar or having their homes burned down. Even being a child of such an official was solid grounds for being attacked. And in the South, people were actually murdered for having Loyalist sympathies.
This was actively encouraged by the leadership, by the way, not some decentralized mob violence. On reports that this was happening in New York, for instance, a military official put an halt to it. On hearing this, George Washington immediately intervened to allow it and upbraided the officer for hurting the revolutionary cause.
Not actually making the case that American rebels were evil terrorists: just making the case that making such a case wouldn't be too difficult for someone with an agenda, given the standards of how we label things terrorism nowadays.
e.g. in 2002 Saddam Hussein was re-elected President of Iraq. He got 100% of the votes, and there was 100% turnout ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/16/iraq )