I think the two juxtaposed to each other makes for a very interesting argument.
Namely is it "just" to murder in defense of ones idea liberty?
Was John Brown a terrorist?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Is it "just" to murder in defense of one's idea [of] liberty? Simply put no.
It may be just to kill for one's own freedom.
It may be just to kill for one's own freedom.
Kweli, please explain the difference...
This is a very interesting thread. I think that in some respects, one might suggest that Brown's was an assault on a military target, the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, the goal being the acquisition of weapons for a slave revolt. He was (unfortunately) not successful.
This led me to ask might a better analogy with Osama be the slave revolts themselves, folks like Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner. If memory serves me correct, at least in the case of Turner, they attempted to kill any white person they encountered - male or female, child or adult.
Was that a terrorist act? Again, I don't think so. As for Osama, I really have ambiguous feelings. As I have said before, my first response on the morning of 9/11 was that this was a case of "chickens coming home to roost" and while I feel for the families that lost loved ones, I still feel that way.
This led me to ask might a better analogy with Osama be the slave revolts themselves, folks like Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner. If memory serves me correct, at least in the case of Turner, they attempted to kill any white person they encountered - male or female, child or adult.
Was that a terrorist act? Again, I don't think so. As for Osama, I really have ambiguous feelings. As I have said before, my first response on the morning of 9/11 was that this was a case of "chickens coming home to roost" and while I feel for the families that lost loved ones, I still feel that way.
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
John Brown is a terrorist, according to the definition...... Matter of fact, many good people throughout history are/were terrorist........
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
John Brown is a terrorist, according to the definition...... Matter of fact, many good people throughout history are/were terrorist........
quote:Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
John Brown is a terrorist, according to the definition...... Matter of fact, many good people throughout history are/were terrorist........
i.e. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.
quote:Originally posted by MBM:quote:Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
John Brown is a terrorist, according to the definition...... Matter of fact, many good people throughout history are/were terrorist........
i.e. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.
Correct, but George Washington, Tom Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were not good people!! lol..........
quote:just" to murder in defense of one's idea [of] liberty? Simply put no.
Hmmmmm Let us see.
A few months ago Iraqi electrical workers held a street protest to demand more security for their fellow workers.
There has been an assult on Iraqi electrial line men who are attempting to restore or provide electricity in all parts of Iraq.
Several of their brothers have been SHOT DEAD while they were atop an electrical pole by a Freedom Fighter with a machine gun shooting up at them.
These people were not collaborating with the USA. They were simply attempting to improve the standard of living for the families living in the country.
Please justify the act of shooting an electrical worker while he is atop a pole as a fight for FREEDOM?
quote:Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:quote:just" to murder in defense of one's idea [of] liberty? Simply put no.
Hmmmmm Let us see.
A few months ago Iraqi electrical workers held a street protest to demand more security for their fellow workers.
There has been an assult on Iraqi electrial line men who are attempting to restore or provide electricity in all parts of Iraq.
Several of their brothers have been SHOT DEAD while they were atop an electrical pole by a Freedom Fighter with a machine gun shooting up at them.
These people were not collaborating with the USA. They were simply attempting to improve the standard of living for the families living in the country.
Please justify the act of shooting an electrical worker while he is atop a pole as a fight for FREEDOM?
This story is an example of bad terrorism........
The African National Congress(ANC) used terrorism- this is a fight for FREEDOM !!!
This is an example of BAD (as in pathetically poor) reasoning/questioning.quote:Please justify the act of shooting an electrical worker while he is atop a pole as a fight for FREEDOM?
Ummm... who made the argument that indiscriminate killings committed by Iraqi "insurgents" were examples of courageous acts of FREEDOM FIGHTERS? I mean, you did call for someone to "justify" that... Who in the HELL was your DUMB ASS talking to?
More importantly, whose point, whose position were you talking about? Talking to? WHO NEEDED TO JUSTIFY that shit you wrote?
Hmmmm.... given NO ONE ever suggested "insurgents" in Iraq who kill non-colloborating Iraqi public workers are FREEDOM FIGHTERS... STFU!!!! Say something that's actually relevant and can be contended if you're going to pose like someone has to "justify" shit (that hasn't even been said).
You're a fuckin' loon!
NCONTINENCE:
Pay close attention to the condemnations from Farrahkan and other politically biased Muslims.
They tend to focus on the actions of the USA in "killing Muslims". During his recent speech, however, Farrahkan said NOTHING about the indiscriminate bombings and killings of INNOCENT IRAQIS by the INSURGENTS.
The electrical workers, Iraqi's waiting in line for employment, police recruits waiting in line, truck drivers transporting needed supplies to IRAQI PEOPLE have all be targets. HOW CAN THEY BE SAID TO BE HELPING THE AMERICANS?
CLEARLY they are attempting to distroy the move toward peace in Iraq by perpetuating terrorism upon the PEOPLE OF IRAQ so that the newly ELECTED government won't be able to impose it's rule and order.
NCONTINENCE - you are proving yourself to be a FLEA STUCK TO MY AZZ to those on the board who have the OBJECTIVITY to read your posts. You are in your late 20's, early 30's. How about ACTING accordingly?
Pay close attention to the condemnations from Farrahkan and other politically biased Muslims.
They tend to focus on the actions of the USA in "killing Muslims". During his recent speech, however, Farrahkan said NOTHING about the indiscriminate bombings and killings of INNOCENT IRAQIS by the INSURGENTS.
The electrical workers, Iraqi's waiting in line for employment, police recruits waiting in line, truck drivers transporting needed supplies to IRAQI PEOPLE have all be targets. HOW CAN THEY BE SAID TO BE HELPING THE AMERICANS?
CLEARLY they are attempting to distroy the move toward peace in Iraq by perpetuating terrorism upon the PEOPLE OF IRAQ so that the newly ELECTED government won't be able to impose it's rule and order.
NCONTINENCE - you are proving yourself to be a FLEA STUCK TO MY AZZ to those on the board who have the OBJECTIVITY to read your posts. You are in your late 20's, early 30's. How about ACTING accordingly?
Damn, I must have missed Farrakhan Et Al contributing, posting on this thread. Me paying close attention and all... I must have slipped, looked away, blinked for too long or something.quote:Pay close attention to the condemnations from Farrahkan and other politically biased Muslims.
The Date & Time Farrkhan Et Al posted on this thread, CF?
How do you pose questions that have NO BEARING or relevance to the topics and perspective being discussed?quote:HOW CAN THEY BE SAID TO BE HELPING THE AMERICANS?
No one has said "they" are or can be said to be helping the Americans. Whoever the hell you're talking about... because nobody but you has presented ideas about Iraq.
Again, nobody but you has presented ideas about Iraq yet you keep posing questions as if someone has:quote:CLEARLY they are attempting to distroy the move toward peace in Iraq by perpetuating terrorism upon the PEOPLE OF IRAQ...
[1] Tried to "justify" the acts of "insurgents"... HERE; and
[2] Said that the "insurgents" are "helping the Americans"...
How about saying something ON TOPIC? without trying, fruitlessly, to change the topic and in STRAW MAN like fashion, trying to set up your opponents arguments by creating arguments for them.quote:How about ACTING accordingly?
WHO WERE YOU TALKING TO? Simple question...
WTF are you talking about? Who suggested that? Simple questions... DON'T SHRINK!!
Nmaginate; what does STFU mean?
C-Feed does have a penchant for changing the subject matter.
If I could give an anology of how C-Feed "argues" this would be it exactly...
Question: When was the War of 1812?
C-Feed's Answer/Response: Green...
C-Feed does have a penchant for changing the subject matter.
If I could give an anology of how C-Feed "argues" this would be it exactly...
Question: When was the War of 1812?
C-Feed's Answer/Response: Green...
Address of John Brown to the Virginia Court at Charles Town, Virginia on November 2, 1859
I have, may it please the court, a few words to say.
In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted, -- the design on my part to free slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when I went into Missouri and took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to do the same thing again, on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.
I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case), -- had I so interfered on behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or on behalf of any of their friends -- either father, mother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class -- and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.
The court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be a Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say, I am too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done -- as I have always freely admitted I have done -- in behalf of Gods despied poor, was not wrong, but right. Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments. -- I submit; so let it be done!
Let me say one word further.
I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances, it has been more generous than I expected. I feel no consciousness of my guilt. I have stated from the first what was my intention, and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of any kind.
Let me say also, a word in regard to the statements made by some to those conncected with me. I hear it has been said by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part of them at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with, till the day they came to me; and that was for the purpose I have stated.
Now I have done.
I have, may it please the court, a few words to say.
In the first place, I deny everything but what I have all along admitted, -- the design on my part to free slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter, when I went into Missouri and took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to do the same thing again, on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection.
I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case), -- had I so interfered on behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or on behalf of any of their friends -- either father, mother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class -- and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.
The court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be a Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say, I am too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done -- as I have always freely admitted I have done -- in behalf of Gods despied poor, was not wrong, but right. Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments. -- I submit; so let it be done!
Let me say one word further.
I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances, it has been more generous than I expected. I feel no consciousness of my guilt. I have stated from the first what was my intention, and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of any kind.
Let me say also, a word in regard to the statements made by some to those conncected with me. I hear it has been said by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part of them at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with, till the day they came to me; and that was for the purpose I have stated.
Now I have done.
quote:Nmaginate; what does STFU mean?
SHUT THE F@%K UP!!
For someone who loves to completely change the subject, never address what's being said and acts completely oblivious to the CONTEXT... What Else Can You Say?
quote:For someone who loves to completely change the subject, never address what's being said and acts completely oblivious to the CONTEXT...
Damn.....I couldn't have said that schit better myself......some distinct azz behavioral patterns.....wow
by Nmaginatequote:Kweli, please explain the difference...
I have not completely thought this one through; however, I draw a distinction between killing to defend one's own life and/or rights. However, I find it problematic for, in the above example, John Brown-a white man- to kill in opposition to an institution that does not threaten his life or liberty...an institution for which he is ultimately a beneficiary by virtue of his whiteness.
If the latter was the case, we would live in a state of chaos. Individuals would be justified in taking arms in defense of any group that they perceived to have been wronged, regardless of whether the wrong touches them personally.
KWELI??quote:Individuals would be justified in taking arms in defense of any group that they perceived to have been wronged, regardless of whether the wrong touches them personally.
Why must an individual be "personally" affected or impacted? That doesn't sound like a prescription for the Beloved Society. In fact, that's tantamount to justifying RACISM, let alone the most perversed individualistic "It's All About Me" type of mentality.
Now, I really don't understand that.
You say there would be chaos... But your notion of "justification", in race terms, legitimizes Segregation and discrimination... or at least the callous disregard.
"I wasn't wronged!"
"Tough shit! Deal with it!"
Huh?
blaqfist:
What you are witnessing in my responses is my breaking from the FALSE DICHOTOMY that is presented by many of people's questions or statements.
For example the CLAIM that White folk's love for Southern culture means that they are all RACISTS and seek to return back to the Antibellum period.
I would ask you about, for example the promotion of the "Dirty South" and ask you if this representation of the South has a similary insidious undertone? In doing so YOU would call my question - OFF TRACK.
So often the position of the FUNDEMENTALIST can be refuted if you ask the reverse question of his definitive statement.
The fact that some of you are used to PONTIFICATING rather than debating you take offense to my questioning or challenging you. I understand dude. For so long in the past you have been able to use anger, outrage and frustration to defend against any challenges to your ideology. I am not seeking he approval of any of you - only asking you to justify YOUR positions. In thinking about this in this way MAYBE you will come up with stronger arugments.
What you are witnessing in my responses is my breaking from the FALSE DICHOTOMY that is presented by many of people's questions or statements.
For example the CLAIM that White folk's love for Southern culture means that they are all RACISTS and seek to return back to the Antibellum period.
I would ask you about, for example the promotion of the "Dirty South" and ask you if this representation of the South has a similary insidious undertone? In doing so YOU would call my question - OFF TRACK.
So often the position of the FUNDEMENTALIST can be refuted if you ask the reverse question of his definitive statement.
The fact that some of you are used to PONTIFICATING rather than debating you take offense to my questioning or challenging you. I understand dude. For so long in the past you have been able to use anger, outrage and frustration to defend against any challenges to your ideology. I am not seeking he approval of any of you - only asking you to justify YOUR positions. In thinking about this in this way MAYBE you will come up with stronger arugments.
DUDE!!! DUMBASS DUDE!!!quote:For example the CLAIM that White folk's love for Southern culture means that they are all RACISTS and seek to return back to the Antibellum period.
This is a thread "dichotomizing" JOHN BROWN vs. OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Now, John Brown he was White and, arguably, "racist" to an extent despite his raid. But.... WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT POSER?