Terrorism Vs Patriots

Terrorism, the very word bring a foul mood with it, wherever it goes, yet most don’t even know the meaning of the word. Most people insult the idea without very little thought, even when knowing not a thing about it, or why its being caused. The Boston Tea party was an act of terrorism, and is taught to be known as one in some schools in the U.S., and many will rise and say that the Boston Tea Party was a justified, valiant, and patriotic act. Terrorism, in many cases, can be proven.

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

“Terrorist”, is defined as “a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Terrorists who conduct these heinous crimes usually justify their actions due to morals, religious convictions, or political views. John brown was an American abolitionist who believed and advocated that armed insurrection was the only way to overthrow the institution of slavery in the United States, which was a political aim. He considered the United States incapable of reform and he believed violence was the only solution to end slavery. Therefore John Brown was an Irrational Terrorist.

Terrorism can be defined in many ways and can be taken differently by many people and many have their own definition. Some say he is a terrorist and others say he is a freedom fighter. John Brown is a freedom fighter.

According to Gilbert, “in order to define Brown precisely as a terrorist rather than as a martyr, the meaning of terrorism must be explored.” (587) In the beginning of his analysis, Gilbert includes many interpretations and definitions of terrorism in order to successfully prove that Brown’s heinous actions conform to the definitions of terrorism. According to many psychological theorists, the most common type of

Committing an act of terrorism means that you have harmed innocent people (either directly via force of indirectly via destruction of property) in order to intimidate a population or government to do or abstain from doing something...

“Violent activities undertaken with the goal of obtaining ideological objective.” (Mcentire, 2008) This type of thinking was

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

International terrorism aspires to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government and transcend national

Terrorists deny the authenticity of states, the rights of people , the unique importance of individual human beings and ultimately morality. Terrorists for one reason or another, loathe our freedom and our way of life. (Zupan, 2004)

The argument here is that terrorism has gone through three transitory phases since 1945. The first phase was dominated by nationalism, and the second emphasized ethnic

International terrorism aspire to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a

Terrorism is a violent act by a person or group of people such as mass destruction, murder, or kidnapping directed towards the government or civilians in an attempt to intimidate or harm them. John Brown, an American Abolitionist, is an arguable subject on deciding whether he is a freedom fighter or a terrorist. The events involving John Brown at Pottawatomie Creek and Harpers Ferry were unjustified and would define him as a terrorist.

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).