• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Democracy Antithetical to 'Terrorism'

Is Democracy Antithetical to Terror

  • Yes, It surely is

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Maybe / Sort of / In some ways

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • No / Not applicable

    Votes: 11 68.8%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
getagrip said:
Disagree ... a posse is more representative of "Democracy" (mob rule) in action our Founder's happened to despise. But, the Republic ideal comes into play when the Sheriff shows up.

A realistic study of Athens is one of failure ... and they illustrated that fact. We can overlook paganism and conquest as idealistic features of their culture, but the underlying historical fact demonstrates an empire of democratic failure!

How does say, 1 million people have an equal voice without anarchy?
Click to expand...

Move that forward 2k years and re-evaluate.
 
Attacking civilians to coerce an occupying nation into withdrawal? It's hard for me to legitimize the attacking of innocent citizens in any way. Don't think I can.
 
SE102 said:
The administrations fighting the war on terror so far regard democratization as a primary weapon against terror.

I dont quite understand your comment. Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Which is just propagandic bull****e.

Democracy in no way hampers terrorism -- if you want real-world examples, you can just look at the number of home-grown terrorists the US has, and how much death and destruction they've caused.

Democracy has essentially no bearing on the growth of terrorism -- even in a democracy, there will always be disenfranchised political groups, and so there will always be radical dissenters.

And radical dissent is only a short step away from flying a plane into a Kansas City post office.
 
SE102 said:
Attacking civilians to coerce an occupying nation into withdrawal? It's hard for me to legitimize the attacking of innocent citizens in any way. Don't think I can.
Click to expand...

Terrorism doesn't mean "attacking civilians". Terrorism is a representative act that plays on people's fear and their ability to abstract from events. In other words, it is an action that leads to a psychological abstraction of fear in connection with something.

This is why, for example, sabotage or guerrilla warfare in war and bombing civilians as a political act can both be classified as terrorism.
 
Last edited:
SE102 said:
Is democracy anti-thetical to terrorism?
Click to expand...
Of course not, the lynchings in the south, the Oklahoma City bombing and the killing of abortion providers are clearly acts of terrorism.
 
SE102 said:
Attacking civilians to coerce an occupying nation into withdrawal? It's hard for me to legitimize the attacking of innocent citizens in any way. Don't think I can.
Click to expand...

Let's dial it back by thirty years so we can have a (more) plausible scenario: the Soviets have invaded and are occupying your hometown. Now, they have plenty of military assets in the area, but they also have civilian contractors working to "upgrade" your infrastructure and many of the townsfolk-- your neighbors-- are collaborating with the Soviets.

Are you saying that the Soviet troops are the only legitimate targets? Because I'd consider that an open field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mac
It seems alot of people could legitimize terror when they are given the POV of themselves being occupied by a foreign power. The nature of developments and technology has turned asymmetric warfare into this thing we have today. Pretty much 99.9% of suicide terror attacks (prior to the Iraq war and the ensuing chaos) have been for the purposes of coercing a military occupier, and most commonly (possibly every time) against a democratic state since the dissolution of the USSR.

It sucks when morality is so relative. Paradoxically when its not, when it is crystallized, violence and immorality is permissible for the sake of that same morality.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Terrorism doesn't mean "attacking civilians". Terrorism is a representative act that plays on people's fear and their ability to abstract from events. In other words, it is an action that leads to a psychological abstraction of fear in connection with something.

This is why, for example, sabotage or guerrilla warfare in war and bombing civilians as a political act can both be classified as terrorism.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion on attacking civilians then. When hard targets are suicide and there no way to bargain your way out of occupation and your people are pretty much being stomped on.
 
Ikari said:
the majority can routinely violate the rights of the minority, oppressing them and keeping them down. This is one of the biggest problems with a pure democracy.
Click to expand...

It's not about democracy, rights, minorities, or oppression. It's the ongoing efforts to find jobs, any kind of job, to take care of families, and being in the right place at the right time with the right kind of experience.

The Biography Channel has showed examples of unforeseen incidents of famous people that eventually led to success hundreds of times.

Life is what's happening while we're making plans.

ricksfolly
 
Le Marteau said:
Which is just propagandic bull****e.

Democracy in no way hampers terrorism -- if you want real-world examples, you can just look at the number of home-grown terrorists the US has, and how much death and destruction they've caused.

Democracy has essentially no bearing on the growth of terrorism -- even in a democracy, there will always be disenfranchised political groups, and so there will always be radical dissenters.

And radical dissent is only a short step away from flying a plane into a Kansas City post office.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree. While Democracy is no magic wand that eradicates domestic terrorism, it certainly lowers the probability. Compare the US, UK, or France to Yemen, Cambodia or Burma in terms of domestic political violence.
 
"Shock and Awe" is the embodiment of state terrorism.
 
Manc Skipper said:
"Shock and Awe" is the embodiment of state terrorism.
Click to expand...
Actually, isn't it more along the lines of a military strategy/tactic?

Unless that’s what you meant…
 
mac said:
Have to disagree. While Democracy is no magic wand that eradicates domestic terrorism, it certainly lowers the probability. Compare the US, UK, or France to Yemen, Cambodia or Burma in terms of domestic political violence.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, of course -- it's no great revelation to state that the industrialised Western powers are at less of a risk of domestic terrorism than, say, Somalia. But the caveat is, is that due to democracy, or some other actor that France, Germany, the UK, the US, Canada, etc., have in common? Could it be that domestic terrorism is hampered instead by industrialisation? Or perhaps by social-democratic policies, such as free healthcare, welfare, education, etc. (which do not always go hand in hand with democracy, I might add -- look at South Africa for an example)?

I think it would be too great of a leap to pin the West's lowered domestic terrorism levels on democracy alone.

There's also another scenario to consider -- try Russia. Would it be considered domestic terrorism when the Chechens or Dagestanis bomb targets in Chechnya or Dagestan? They are indeed a part of Russia, but the Chechens (with a couple notable exceptions) are mostly enacting terrorist violence within Chechnya, not Volgograd or Moscow.

What, then, do we call that?
 
mac said:
Have to disagree. While Democracy is no magic wand that eradicates domestic terrorism, it certainly lowers the probability. Compare the US, UK, or France to Yemen, Cambodia or Burma in terms of domestic political violence.
Click to expand...

The reason we have less terrorist alarms is luck, distance, and the high cost of any new conspiracy plots. With OBL out of the picture, big money is scarce, and possible new money sources aren't about to take foolish chances with a country that shoots first and asks questions later.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
the reason we have less terrorist alarms is luck, distance, and the high cost of any new conspiracy plots. With obl out of the picture, big money is scarce, and possible new money sources aren't about to take foolish chances with a country that shoots first and asks questions later.

Ricksfolly
Click to expand...



........whaaaaaaa??


edit: o i get it.
 
Hamas was elected by popular vote.
 
Democracy is an extremely vague term because it currently has little real-world instances. Western civilisation today is based upon republican values. A republic is a mechanism to silence democracy.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is probably more democratic than you think.
 
Elutherian said:
Hamas was elected by popular vote.
Click to expand...
Thus highlighting one of the failures of democracy.

“Popular vote”.

What is popular is rarely what is best.
 
The Mark said:
Playing devil's advocate, what if they are the exception that proves the rule?
Click to expand...

Given that you used the word rarely, than there would, of course be exceptions.
 
megaprogman said:
Given that you used the word rarely, than there would, of course be exceptions.
Click to expand...
Well then, I rephrase:

"Playing devil's advocate, what if they are one of the rare instances of something being both popular and best?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom