robably support American and government action against terrorists; Locke would probably be appalled by Guantanamo Bay and some of the extremes committed by the Bush Administration after 9/11 such as enhanced interrogation techniques. Both philosophers, however, were very clever men who would be able to cogently argue both positions of the argument.
A good example of 18th century terrorism was the French Revolution, which had the aim of overthrowing the aristocracy and declaring the independence of the other classes. The event was historically very significant and caused huge political ripples at the time. This was one of the first times Republicanism had reared its head on the European continent. Burke strongly opposed the Revolution, believing that violent revolution was not acceptable and would in the end change nothing. It is important to note that these Revolutionaries did not attack London or Washington, and they weren’t interested in Spain. Their campaign was focused and motivated by achievable goals. The terrorism of today is different. The mujahideen in Afghanistan come from all over the Islamic world. Some want to take control of the elected Afghan government, but others want to set up bases in Afghanistan to wage a global jihad against the West under the tutelage of Al Qaeda. They tend to view all Westerners as enemies. Terrorism is now a global phenomenon motivated by a distorted global ideology. Burke would hate terrorism in all its form and support countries that wished to do something about it. Any drastic change is bad, Burke wrote, especially changes that are achieved through violence and with the intention to create a utopia or an idealistic world.
Locke would probably try to understand the terrorists and argue that colonial powers, such as the U.S., broke a social contract with the poorer people of the world, and that terrorism is a consequence. He would not be a believer in the notion of a clash of civilizations, believing at heart that most