Over the history of the United States, there have been many attempts of terrorism on our soil, many through domestic roots. One such political quarrel that marked the radicalization of the American public far enough to bring about terrorism were on the terms of certain legislations, the concept of abolitionism and anti-abolitionism. Legislations like the Missouri Compromise, and Fugitive Slave act were very controversial to the general public, both in the North and South. At this time, many abolitionists chose to perform pacifist demonstrations rather than violent conflict to achieve their dream. Generation of sentiment against slavery culmunated in John Brown was a calculated terrorist as he used extreme forms of violence against the populus …show more content…
Terrorism as stated in the Oxford English Dictionary is “The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” and calculated is “done with full awareness of the likely consequences.” From this we see that a calculated terrorist is one who made use of violence against civilians, fully understanding the consequences, in order to achieve a political goal. Next we can look into Brown’s motives for his crimes, James N. Gilbert lists 3 points as to what motivates some terrorists “1.Society is sick and cannot be cured by half measures of reform. 2.The state is in itself violent and can be countered and overcome only by violence. 3.The truth of terrorists cause justifies any action that supports it. While some terrorists recognize no moral law, others have their own “higher” morality.” 2(Taking Sides, 232) Brown believed society to have embraced a sickness through the act of slavery. This sickness, he believed, could not be cleansed without bloodshed due to the faults of the state. To rationalize his behavior of the killing of innocent civilians, he created his own morality in which he was working for God alone. Through his writings, Brown tells us he had no doubt in his intentions being for the better, choosing to ignore these lives lost as they didn’t serve to further his cause. Scott John Hammond tell us about John Brown’s calculated nature by comparing him to Machiavellian philosophies, a philosophy associated with the use of power in often ruthless means, “Given the fact that all founders and reformers will inevitably encounter resistance from those enemies … Machiavelli notes that a lawgiver … must go forth armed and prepared for struggle” and “A founder is consonant with the idea of virtue, or grandeur of soul - a character of extraordinary proportions, defined in terms of “ingenuity, skill, and excellence.”
John Brown has made a point that defends him from being called a terrorist. Furthermore, in the article, Last Speech, John Brown says, “I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or make insurrection.” As a result of this speech this make Brown seem like a national because he says he never intended murder. Also Brown after this speech makes the government look like the bad guy and make his execution even more one sided. John Brown has claims against him that make him look as bad as a terrorist.
A bomb explodes outside of the FBI building in Oklahoma City. Over one hundred people were killed, the side of the building was blown open, and no one knew who did such a malicious thing. A few days later, people know Timothy McVeigh was the terrorist who blew up the FBI building. People like Timothy McVeigh don’t just blow up buildings just because they feel like it. Timothy, like the many other people after him, is called a terrorist because of the reason behind his violent doings.
These are the technical aspects of Reid’s terrorist actions, which define a terrorist through covert methods of destruction with unorthodox weaponization of bombs found in his shoes. A terrorist often uses covert methods of
Gilbert breaks down on the various definitions on what it means to be a terrorist and builds points into why and how John Brown was a terrorist. The word terrorist is broad, however Gilbert condenses it by expressing it as, “A phenomenal involving ‘the unlawful use of threat or violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives”. For example, slavery is viewed as a legal political system, because there was no law against slavery at the time. When Brown started advocating for the freedom of the slaves, it was quite unpopular, especially down in the South where most of the economy was depended on the work of the slaves. By Gilbert’s opinion, Brown would have been a terrorist, because of his belief, but terrorism is on a much larger scale.
Was John Brown a terrorist or a patriot? John Brown was contentious abolitionist who helped free slaves. He was a criminal on the outside but a true man on the inside who sparded on a movement. What he did was right, but how he did it was wrong. He was a true man who fought to end slavery.
The understanding of the Terrorist Theory and biological/psychological contributing factors is essential in understanding the Politically driven motive of Rudolph’s lone-wolf attacks. As stated above, Rudolph viewed the government as hypocritical and immoral in its’ approach and handling of such issues as abortion. As a trained military member Rudolph saw himself as a protector of liberties and basic rights. Yet, those very liberties and rights he fought for were not afforded to the most pure of those it is sworn to protect the “unborn.”
In this article the author studies the beginnings, believes and principal arguments of Religious terrorism and questions them based on analytical assessment traditions. It evaluates the legitimacy of the concept and its effects for research and policy practices. It argues that the distinctions typically drawn between nonspiritual and religious terrorism are problematic, both theoretically and empirically, and that in its usual assumptions, the term is misleading about the intentions, foundations and behavior of groups classified as ‘religious terrorist’. In particular, it shows that the diversity of those labelled “religious terrorists” is so mixed, and often so indistinguishable from their ‘nonspiritual’ equals, that the term has little meaning without further limitation, while simultaneously darkening key characteristics of both ‘religious’ and ‘nonspiritual’ violence. It then goes on to illustrate how the term, rooted in a particular historically situated understanding of religion and a particular set of power structures, serves as a disciplinary device to domesticate ‘political religion’, delegitimizing certain actors while legitimizing a number of highly contentious counterterrorist practices designed to deal with those described as ‘religious terrorists’.
Starvation was a common form of resistance onboard the slave ships. Usually, if one slave refused to eat, others would follow. Slave captains punished those who refused to eat severely. Doctor Alexander Falconbridge recalls the ruthless methods of punishment: Upon the negroes refusing to take food, I have seen coals of fire, glowing hot, put on a shovel and placed so near their lips as to scorch and burn them. And this has been accompanied with threats of forcing them to swallow coals if they persisted in refusing to eat…I have also been credibly informed that a certain captain in the slave trade, poured melted lead on such of his negroes as he obstinately refused to eat.
The Two Types of Terrorism Terrorism has always been part of the world since evil has existed. But now with modern tools and the advancement of technology, we have met a new and quicker caliber of destruction, called terrorism. September 11, 2001, is the date when terrorism made its fearful presence in the United States of America. There are two types of terrorism, Domestic and International.
So, while there are many tactics that terrorists use to reach their goals, whether political, societal, or even positional, as well as the typical violent attacks that is synonymous with the label of terrorist, their actions are no better than organized crime groups like the mafia. Their unconventionality and emotional or religious motivation will always keep terrorism at a level lower than structured forms of government because while terrorists may make logical choice that may only seem logical from their point of view. The concept of fear and the lack of structure and influence to never have a need for violence or the use of fear will always make terrorism seem illogical in a larger
Theoretical explanation of terrorism Terrorism and political violence theory In the book Political terrorism, Ted Gurr argues that terrorism is as a result of misery, frustration, grievances and despair due to the part played by both national and international politics economic and social situations. Political violence is a collective attack within a political community against a political regime (Gurr 1960). The perpetrators may include different political groups and the incumbents and policies. It also includes coups d’état revolutionalists and guerilla wars.
" What kind of terrorist are you? Who said we are terrorists? The word "terrorism" is much more likely to be used politically than empirically. That it happens because its definition is fluid. With the FBI stating that violent acts and law enforcement against human life and the intention to coerce civilian populations or government policies are the main characteristics
How might terrorism be distinguished from other forms of political violence? Political violence is defined as ‘violence [that is] outside of state control that is political motivated’ (wwnorton). Many researchers have studied the realm of political violence by seeking to understand the way a group, population, and/or society participate in collective action, either violent or nonviolent, to solve political dilemmas. To understand political violence there most be a multi-disciplinary approach to understand conflict in its social complexity, such as, political instability, rebellions, social-movements, insurgencies etc. that use political violence as a tactic against their oppressors.
Why do they continue using terrorism to achieve their political goal? Fromkin (1986) affirms their goal is to frighten, paralyze, persuade, and exhaust the adversary, and achieve popular support. However, trying to find a common cause of through a comparative analysis of different cases of terrorism, Crenshaw (1981) proposes a three levels of analysis to explain why terrorists chose terror to advance their ideas: (1)environment, (2)political, social and economic situation, and (3) physiological. Crenshaw states the objectives for terror actions are: disrupt and discredit the processes of government, affect public attitudes, provoke a counter reaction from the government, to win public support, opponents, appeal for sympathy, impress an audience, or promote the adherence of new people to become terrorists. In addition, the author argues that the most basic reason for terrorism is to gain recognition or attention (p. 386), and today more than ever, they can get the recognition and attention needed through Social Medea.