Guy Fawkes. A martyr?

[Runeforged]

Hey guys, I recently read the history behind Guy Fawkes, (one of the conspirators in the gunpowder plot to blow up the English parliament around the year 1605) and noticed that some people call him a martyr for dying for what he believed in. Sometimes the mask used to represent rebellion against the government and corporations. To me, reading his part in the conspiracy makes him sound more like what we would label today as a terrorist, as he was trying to destroy the parliament because it had become a regime not dominated by Roman-Catholics.

So, wise MMO-C, was Guy Fawkes a martyr who died for a good cause? A zealot driven by fanaticism? Or maybe neither, who knows?

[Shamgar]

The government all over the world is desperately trying to to fit the term "terrorism" on any attacks on themselves. This is simply not true. It is not terrorism to attack the parliament, it is a coup.

[Deleted]

If he had no democratic way to approach his goals, I wouldn't call him a terrorist. But he did.

The fact that he couldn't muster the support for his cause through democratic methods, means nothing. He still had a democratic way. It wouldn't have been successful, but it would have been democratic. It would have been within the law. It would have been acceptable.

Chosing instead to use terror as a method makes him a terrorist. Plain and simple.
Just because you are in the minority doesn't mean you get to resort to terrorist methods.

[Badpaladin]

His actions are lauded, but there's never any mention of his reasons why - that's because he was part of an organization that wished to assasinate the current king, supplant the current government and ensure a Catholic monarch would rule England again. It's a bit problematic using his actions as an example when the cause was so contradictory to what people associate his image with.

Also of note, the gunpowder plot was just one aspect of the conspiracy, and it wasn't his idea either. He was tasked with that particular job while other people worked in other areas.

Final verdict? Political terrorist.

[vindicatorx]

Depends on whose side you are on, the difference between patriot and terrorist is defined by which side you are on.

[Badpaladin]

Depends on whose side you are on, the difference between patriot and terrorist is defined by which side you are on.

No, it's not at all. Patriotism doesn't entail violence.

[Powerogue]

both presumably, looking at him from different sides. It's about perspective, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

[Badpaladin]

both presumably, looking at him from different sides. It's about perspective, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Except he wasn't a freedom fighter. Fawkes wasn't part of some conspiracy that was for the people - he was part of a political organization that planned to change leadership to what they personall wanted.

[Stir]

Guy Fawkes was undoubtedly a religious terrorist, much like those in the middle east and some other parts of the world, people who want a theocracy, run by their own religious organization, by the religious views that they hold. It is a thirst for dominance so severe that they are willing to murder and massacre for it.

It just so happens that Guy Fawkes was the UK's only (known) terrorist.

In times where democracy seems to lose its power, where the voice of the people is no longer really heard, where corporations control the world, and ruthlessly cause the death and poverty of millions of people in the world... In times where capitalism is coming to an end, and the financial bigwigs are desperately trying to keep those failing wheels spinning, grabbing more as they go while the economy itself is suffering, and, as a result, the people who depend on it most, those people who get least out of it, get even less.

The people are angry, frustrated, afraid. It is no wonder that they turn a centuries old terrorist into the face of their feelings. And no, that same terrorist would, in life, gladly screw the very same people who wear his face over completely. Remember that this was a person who believed in a strict hierarchy, who believed in the wealthy being better, who believed in a socio-political dominance of God. Who believed that not all men were equal in the face of this God, who believed that God had chosen the prosperous to be rich, and in power, because they were better people.

It's ironic, really.

But no, if we have to take the example of terrorists in order to further our social equality, then the face we should use is not that of Guy Fawkes... There are a myriad of historical figures that inspire, as well as figures of folklore, written precisely for that purpose. Robin hood is a folklore figure who embodies everything we really, really want. Such figures as Kobus van der Schlossen and Nezumi Kozou, thieves who (were believed to) steal from the rich and give to the poor, but also people like William Wallace and Pier Donia inspire our lust for freedom, independence and equality.

[Sevyvia]

Hey guys, I recently read the history behind Guy Fawkes, (one of the conspirators in the gunpowder plot to blow up the English parliament around the year 1605) and noticed that some people call him a martyr for dying for what he believed in. Sometimes the mask used to represent To me, reading his part in the conspiracy makes him sound more like what we would label today as a terrorist, as he was trying to destroy the parliament because it had become a regime not dominated by Roman-Catholics.

So, wise MMO-C, was Guy Fawkes a martyr who died for a good cause? A zealot driven by fanaticism? Or maybe neither, who knows?

He was a terrorist.

[Deleted]

Basically he was a boss!

[yetgdhfgh]

He was a fail terrorist him and his fail band of conspirators

They were basically a bunch of clowns who the earl of salisbury the kings spymaster played them like a violin and helped a unpopular king james the I gain popularity in england

[Deleted]

If he had realized what Charles I was going to be like, he probably wouldn't have bothered.

[Kasierith]

Looking at it from a literal context, he was definitely not a terrorist. A terrorist attacks the defenseless populace to spread terror, not the government... hitting a mall full of innocent people has a drastically different emotional effect than hitting a government building. A violent extremist fits him better. He wasn't really a freedom fighter... he was involved with attempting to change the political structure and supplant it with another regardless of the views of the people

[Vutar]

Hey guys, I recently read the history behind Guy Fawkes, (one of the conspirators in the gunpowder plot to blow up the English parliament around the year 1605) and noticed that some people call him a martyr for dying for what he believed in. Sometimes the mask used to represent To me, reading his part in the conspiracy makes him sound more like what we would label today as a terrorist, as he was trying to destroy the parliament because it had become a regime not dominated by Roman-Catholics.

So, wise MMO-C, was Guy Fawkes a martyr who died for a good cause? A zealot driven by fanaticism? Or maybe neither, who knows?

Not a terrorist. As mentioned already he was not trying to blow up a market full of civilians in order to inspire fear. He was trying to cause regime change by hitting a political entity. That happens all the time throughout history. Whether or not he is considered a martyr would depend on which side you are on. A protestant from the time would surely not look at Fawkes as a martyr.

He was also not a "zealot driven by fanaticism." Countries go to war all the time for various reasons and no one calls them zealots or fanatics for the cause they fight for. For some reason people like to attach this to anyone fighting for their religion, which is a ridiculous label. This is better approached as a war in which the Catholics were losing in England. When one side is losing and greatly outnumbered they often resort to unconventional means of fighting. The difference between this and what the Islamic terrorists are doing today is civilian targets versus political/military targets.

[Deleted]

Except he wasn't a freedom fighter. Fawkes wasn't part of some conspiracy that was for the people - he was part of a political organization that planned to change leadership to what they personall wanted.

That political organization probably had followers among the common people, so it's still 'for the people' and he's still a freedom fighter.

Also, you might call him a terrorist by today's standards, but I wouldn't go that far. He just staged a coup.

[Deleted]

Not a martyr. A bundling, zealous and reactionary terrorist.

Impressive move at his execution though.

[Deleted]

That political organization probably had followers among the common people, so it's still 'for the people' and he's still a freedom fighter.

Also, you might call him a terrorist by today's standards, but I wouldn't go that far. He just staged a coup.

So because some, a minority at the very best, wanted a different king on the throne it's perfectly alright to blow up the government? And that's fighting for freedom?

[Runeforged]

Not a martyr. A bundling, zealous and reactionary terrorist.

Impressive move at his execution though.

Agreed, not many people would have the willpower to kill themselves before being drawn and quartered.

[Stir]

That political organization probably had followers among the common people, so it's still 'for the people' and he's still a freedom fighter.

Also, you might call him a terrorist by today's standards, but I wouldn't go that far. He just staged a coup.

The problem with this statement is that it's quite hard being a 'freedom fighter' when you wish to establish a dictatorship.

Staging a coup... Yes, sure, but that is generally done by political moves and assassinations. Not by blowing up buildings. He was a terrorist, just like the terrorists who blow up embassies.