John Brown is not a terrorist. The acts he committed at Harper’s Ferry and Pottawatommie Creek were not acts of terrorism because they lack the inspiration of fear into his enemies. He may have committed acts that were tragic, but just because someone kills someone else does not mean they are a terrorist. There are many things that make people terrorists, but everything about John Brown makes him just a freedom fighter and not a terrorist. The first reason why John Brown was not a terrorist is because the acts he has devoted to and the reasons why he committed them, does not make him a terrorist. One of the acts he was devoted to was killing anybody that came in his way at Harper’s Ferry. That is not terrorism because he is not striking
Dylan Roof's actions in South Carolina should be regarded as an act of terrorism. The acts themselves were not only planned to install fear into the public but, to create a greater divide between races. In the months leading up to the attacks Dylan increasingly withdrew from society and started to adopt more and more radical behavior. A blog he ran stated that one of the purposes of the attack was to start a race war. In addition, Charleston was picked for the target city because it had one of the highest ratios of African Americans to Whites. The attack alone may not be a form of domestic terrorism however, the motives behind the attack certainly push it into that category.
Through the violent acts that were sparked and initiated by the Sons of Liberty, they were indeed terrorists to the British. For example, the atrocious action of dumping the tea at Boston Harbor is considered “treasonous and punishable by death” due to deliberately disrupting the trade and economy of the British through revolt and violence. In addition, the Stamp Act caused the Sons of Liberty to aggressively revolt against the British nobility, and they continue to “confiscate, burn, and unpack” property, and furthermore, threatening the Royal Governor of New York Cadwallader Colden with violence and even death. Lastly, to emphasize political upheaval and propaganda, the Sons of Liberty promote their terrorism to coerce various individuals
At first glance, the Boston Tea Party may not appear to be a terrorist attack, because the ships were not damaged, except for one broken padlock, and no one was hurt, but it could be a terrorist attack, according to the Patriot Act. The Boston Tea Party was a political protest by the Sons of Liberty, who were an organization which was formed to protect the rights of the people and to fight taxation from the British government, in which the colonists, who were disguised as Indians, destroyed an entire shipment of tea. This act of retaliation was to show the British that the colonists identified themselves as Americans, not British. The Patriot Act was instituted in October 26, soon after the attack of September 11, 2001 to classify terrorist attacks. The Boston Tea Party could be considered an act of terrorism because the boats were hijacked by the American colonists, they brought weapons onto the ships with the intent of destroying property, and colonists intentionally destroyed a considerable amount of property.
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
No, hate filled person by itself is not sufficient to be a terrorist. That line of thinking would make everyone a terrorist of something. If I say that I hate criminals that do not make me a terrorist. However, in this example, Dlyann Roof is a terrorist under federal law, despite FBI Director James Comey saying that he did not “qualify as terrorism” (Lewis, Holpuch, & Glenza, 2015). In the situation of Omar Mateen (Pulse Nightclub Shooting), he was labeled as a terrorist. What is the difference? In the U.S. there is an extensive list of white supremacist group actions that have not been classified as terrorist actions even though they have killed plenty of people. Furthermore, Attorney General Lynch remarked that hate crimes were the “ original terrorism” (Norris,
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.
You will have just seen a series of exhibits encrypting highlights of the controversial life of Jon brown. The true character of john brown is as much of an enigma today as it was when he attacked harper ferry with a handful of man. And as it was he sat foot on the grounds at Charlestown and waited with majestic serenity for the drop in to eternity. One thing is indisputable. John brown was motivated by pure ideas. He wanted free the black the black people of this nations to lift the sin of slavery from the consciousness of
When we think of terrorist, we might think of radical Islamic individuals or groups who would take pride in killing anyone who is not Muslim. Even more, there are antagonistically people who want nothing more but to destroy the lives of innocence people because of their belief system. Take an individual like Theodore Kaczynski for instance; he was a former University of California at Berkeley math professor. Otherwise known as the “Unabomber,” he was indeed a terrorist because he used explosives that killed three people and wounded eighteen others in a span of almost two decades. Even more, his brother David Kaczynski was responsible for his capture.
Terrorism is a word that strikes fear into many hearts, thus causing immediate panic to many. Although, the word terrorism is doesn't have a definite meaning. People often give their own opinion on terrorism. President Obama said, according to an article by Laura Beth Nielsen “What Is terrorism?”, source Al Jazeera, “Anytime bombs are used to target civilians, it is an act of terrorism.”. While so many people get caught up in who president Obama is, many people forget that he is also a human. Just like any other human he has his own opinion and he also makes mistakes. An opinion is a view or judgement formed about something. So this could mean Obama is incorrect in his assumption on the definition of terrorism. Now, that is also my opinion, therefore I could be wrong as well, but what how is anyone supposed to be correct when there is no legitimate interpretation of the word terrorism.
The federal bureau of investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, and/or any segment thereof." If one makes the argument that BLM is a terrorist group the ideology of the movement must fit within the framework stated above. First, BLM stands for “Black Lives Matter”. It, in itself is nothing more than a concept about which all else revolves. It is true, the “Black Lives Matter” movement has motivates however the motivates of these individuals is what sets them apart from other groups in which has been labeled terrorist. Unlike terrorist groups, “Black Lives Matter” is not an organization based on their ideology, one cannot attach the use of force and violence to the BLM movement, and the movement does not coerce the civilian population.
Well, I guess someone has to go first and since I’m not at school ever and can type up something during the school day, I guess I’ll go first. John Brown was seen as many things by many people, some thought he was a martyr and a saint, others saw him as an evil, murderous, maniac. While others thought of him as a normal man whose ideas and morals were right, but he tended to get out of hand. If you were a slaveholder in the south in the mid-1800’s you probably hated him, but if you were an abolitionist then you might admire him. Brown’s philosophy seemed a bit askew to how he lived his life. I think that it’s a bit contradictory to advocate that slavery is immoral and an evil sin against God, and then go and break one of the ten commandments and kill five people who support slavery.
“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.
A similar definition is used in numerous other contexts of U.S. law as well. A terrorist is an individual who has engaged in terrorist activity or is associated with a terrorist organization. Fundamentally, a terrorist is someone associated with one of a handful of crimes: hijacking, sabotage, kidnapping, blackmail, attacking a protected person, or assassination. Each of those, even without the definition of terrorist, is a crime. In many ways, defending a terrorist is little different from defending anyone else: the attorney is fulfilling his or her duty to preserve an individual’s rights, including a right to due process of law, and to satisfy the axiom that there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. For example in many cases terrorists are only refugees who are regarded as terrorists by their own county so many lawyers only have to do some background research to prove they aren’t what they are accused
Making the inference that people are terrorists based on religion and stereotypes. “Terrorism is not always linked to religion (Sterngrass 36).” Also, it is not always linked to race either. Making the inference that race or religion is a terrorist enforces the unnecessary stereotypes. Of course, detaining a person on a race and for just “looking suspicious” is not the way to find out if they are a terrorist. Enforcing stereotypes and detaining anyone for just being here and being rare is not proof and they should not suffer from detainment.
one kind is that of patriot at war. Another kind is that of murderers .He further stated that terrorism is