I guess it could be worse, at least Paul isn’t raising money off the blood of our troops by parroting the talking points of our enemies and courting the troofer crowd... oh wait...
Something tells me that Guy Fawkes would feel sullied by the comparison to Ron Paul.
Yeah, Guy Fawkes is still reviled in England, and obviously the U.K. Times is more than a little peeved that a U.S. Presidential candidate would use Guy Fawkes day as a gimmick to raise money.
Up until yesterday I didn't know much about Fawkes, but it only takes a few minutes on the Internet to get up to speed. Apparently he was a Papist who was unhappy with the persecution of Catholics in England, so he organized a "Gunpowder Plot" to blow up the House of Parliament when the Protestant King and nobles would be meeting. The plot was uncovered, and Fawkes was tortured and executed.
While Fawkes remains mostly hated in England, he's also come to be seen by many as a symbol of revolt against tyrannical authority -- "the only man to ever enter parliament with honourable intentions". Who among us would not at times like to (at least figuratively) do something similar?
However, regardless of one's opinion of Guy Fawkes, I would not classify him as a terrorist. As far as I'm concerned, a terrorist is one who targets innocent civilians. Targeting military forces or government officials is not terrorism, it is war or revolution. You can argue about which side is the just side in a war or revolution, but enemy soldiers and leaders are legitimate targets.
Since Islamic radicals consider themselves at war with the United States, their 9/11 attack on the Pentagon should not be classified as terrorism; it was a military target. But of course their killing of innocent civilians, in the jetliners they hijacked and in the Twin Towers, was terrorism. And we could still retaliate (i.e., wage war against them) even if they had attacked the Pentagon in a non-terroristic fashion.