Position:Home>Philosophy> Question about Terrorism?/ (This was the topic of discussion in Philosophy class

There is no correct answer, as you said, but it is a good question for a debate!.
It hinges on absolutes, and the only absolute, if you are a Christian, is the will, and instructions from God!. They are codified in the Ten Commandments!. But the the ten commandments are intended for people who don't think too deeply, and are intended to keep social cohesion!.
As you already know terrorism is in the eye of the beholder, someones freedom fighter is anther's terrorist, so for me the biggest terrorist is the one that causes the greatest sum of human suffering!. A widespread acceptance of slavery is the mover of more terrorism than an individual killing, for instance!.
I'm not going to write a thesis here, but, for example operation "shock and awe", the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of innocents, in the name of combatting terrorism,(but for material gain) was terrorism at its most blatant, and hypocritical!.
Specifically, for your question, I think the slave master was unquestionably a terrorist, as also, was Nat!.
Personally, I think the slave master scores more, as a widely sanctioned example of a general terrorist situation, than does Nat!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

a terrorist is someone who deliberately causes fear and destruction of a thing or place to achieve an object or goal!.
1) nope when justice is denied then someone is deliberately causing fear!.
2) yes it is a form of terrorism under my definition!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

The problem that we encounter when defining someone as a terrorist is the really blurry conception of what right and wrong is!. We all have our own ideals, many societies differ and in that way create different laws!.

From Nat's point of view he had probably witnessed some of the most gruesome atrocities ever committed by human kind!. I'm sure he had seen his whole family demoralized and beaten for reasons that he nor anyone will ever fully understand!. Was he a terrorist because he tried to defeat his oppressor by using violence!? Did he have other options at his disposal!? No!. It was beat or be beat!. Any animal big or small would choose to defend itself!. And really wasn't he just a product of what his slave owner created!? Using fear and violence to control him!? Did he not just do the same thing in return!?

I do not see either as being a terrorist!. I see them both as products of their environment!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

This is a good area of discussion!. This is a mixture of the LAW and GOD!.

Let me try my opinion by first defining in a simple manner the the words TERRORISM and PHILOSOPHY!.

Terrorism - condition of fear and submission produced by frightening people!.

Philosophy - study of the truth or principles underlying all knowledge!.

The slave traders went to other continents to hunt for slaves!.They used brutal force to terrorize the local natives!.So their TERRORISM!.
NAT TURNER was a slave and a preacher and he KILLED salve traders!. He was obedient to GOD were his last words before he died!.

In your scenario there is terror in both parties!. The slave traders terrorized the slaves for MONEY and POWER!. So they are the source of terrorism and they are the terrorists!.

Nat Turner killed slave traders but he was not a terrorist!.He did not kill for money or power!.He killed for freedom and he was with the oppressed!.

During those times the laws were interpreted not like today!. Those laws were flawed because they were not against oppression or slavery or terrorism!.They might not even had different religions!.Their religion could have even had Jesus not their God!.

Turner was not a terrorist!. The slave traders were the trrorists!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

terrorism comes in all different shapes and sizes, i believe that the master was terrorizing the guy!.!.!.i don't believe Nat was a terrorist as he was really acting in self defense rather than attack, but did the master deserve to die!? if it meant other innocent people dying then i believe yes if there was no other form of punishment such as a jail sentence!.!.!.!.life should only be taken by god! and as for Nat saying god's name at the end is not surprising as i guess majority of people would turn to god!.

thats just my opinion :)
have a good dayWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I wonder if we can just more or less do a sound bite and hang a name on such a complicated concept!. Terrorism is defined as "the use of terror and intimidation to gain one's political objective!." So in the broadest since they might both be considered terrorists!. The slave owners had an economic objective and could also be considered to have a political objective!. Did Nat Turner have a political objective!? I don't think we can know that, but he may well have wanted to change the law!. IRA bombers were considered terrorists, but they too had a reason for what they did, they lost their good land and I am not sure if anyone knows how many starved to death!. Slavery has gone on throughout history in many countries and was not unknown even in Africa!. So was every country that allowed slavery a terrorist state!? Any person has the moral right to escape slavery, and is understandably angry about what he or she has endured, but when one attacks other slave owners instead of attempting to escape to freedom he is probably either attempting to end slavery or get revenge!. We probably can't know if he thought he could actually end slavery, or whether he knew he would be defeated and killed!. I think that you are right in saying that there is no right ot wrong answer, it seems to depend on an individual's perspective, but it is an interesting question and a good one, because it causes people to think!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

First of all, "terrorist" is too diverse a term to label on either of these individuals seeing as how there is no direct definition of the word!. But you've sparked my interest so I'll bite!. I would say the Slave Master is the "terrorist" because he is willingly opressing another individual!. The slave has the courage to defend himself and become an individual himself, so I really can not see how anyone could consider the slave a "terrorist"!. Now, I am not sympathizing with persons guilty of committing Genocide in the name of God for two reasons!. One, Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group!. Obviously the Slave is not guilty of such!. Second, correct me if I'm wrong but the Bible doesn't say one must withstand oppression because it is moral in the eyes of the greater good!. Granted, it doesn't say "kill any who would bind you in chains"!. However, what other choice did the Slave have!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

We are born into a culture of right and wrong, which is initially defined by our parents!. Children are just soaked in this concept of right and wrong so that it stays with them all their lives as adults!. But if you look at history, people sometimes fire their bosses or their nations and that causes a war!. You can't just peacefully secede from a nation, an oppressor!.

So, like the US!. We told England to get lost, we wanted to live our own lives, and it was instant war!. Why should it be!?

England felt we owed them allegiance and maybe they are right!. We have bad words for people who don't stay loyal to us once we have formed up together, words like :"betray", "traitor", "deserter"!. Yet we have bad words for the other guy too like "oppressor", "slave driver", "tyrant"!.

Unions go on strike too!. There are always hierarchies among people and every now and then one of the lower levels tries to throw off an upper level!. Sometimes it works, sometimes not, but it usually ends up in someone getting killed!. I don't know that that is either good or bad!. It may just be a natural expression of us, the way two walruses will fight over a female!.

In this case, I don't think it is appropriate to call either one of these parties terrorist - it is simply a case of an upper class and a lower class and the lower class staged a revolution, in this case a one-on-one revolution!. It was murder, tho, and if caught, he should be punished!. When a whole segment of a society does it, then it changes from a crime to a war, but still people are going to be killed and the immorality attached to that stays attached!. People who start wars are murderers!.

Terorrism is something else entirely!. Terrorism is deliberately attacking people at random to advance a political or religious agenda and literally terrorize the citizens of a place!. It is like kids riding around a neighborhood and hitting dogs with baseball bats just because they're pissed off and they can!. It is shiit completely!.

This slave killing his master was not terrorism, nor was the master having slaves!. That's just what the social structure was then!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I think that you are overusing "terrorism" to mean anything of which you disapprove, and that this sloppiness in language makes the term unuseful except as propaganda!.

The essence of the concept of "terrorism" is the subjection of noncombatants to violence, specifically for the purpose of using their terror as a means of controlling them!.

The notion that either one side or the other in Nat Turner's rebellion must have been terrorists assumes far too much!. One side or the other was in the wrong (and it's probably fairer to say that both were)!. But that doesn't make either side terrorist!. "Terrorism" is an evil tactic, but not all evil is terrorism!.

I do agree that "how we approach this question" says a great deal about our cultural and personal filters!. If we blithely apply the term "terrorism" to anything we find objectionable, our filters against propaganda are nearly nonexistent and our ability to think clearly about justice is badly impaired!.

As to your follow-up questions:

1) I suggest that laws which deny justice to some (and therefore effectively to all) are evil, but not necessarily terrorism!. In my experience, they are more likely to represent self-centered callousness than any attempt to terrorize!.

2) Complicity in doing evil is also more likely to represent such callousness than terrorism!. That doesn't make it any less evil!.

It is, in general, more useful to distinguish accurately the methods, motives, and tactics of evil than to simply apply any label that comes to hand!. Generally, I find that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that people stop thinking well enough to distinguish the meanings of the words they use and hear!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---