• 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 .

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Is democracy anti-thetical to terrorism?

Vague, yes, but that leaves lots of room for discussion :)
 
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?
 
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?

Mob rule. That's tyranny of the majority. In a pure democracy there are no protections of rights or liberties; it's pure mob rule. Under such a system 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.
 
Well what about in regards to democracy as in the liberal democratic states, democratic peace theory, individual rights, etc?
 
Well what about in regards to democracy as in the liberal democratic states, democratic peace theory, individual rights, etc?

No government is immune to causing "terrorism". One of the more common forms of "terrorism" would be revolution against the government (sometimes justified as well). There are various forms of government which borrow ideals from democracy but temper the affects of popularism. The Republic is one such form of government and can probably be your best bet to curb overall creation of terrorists. But like any government, it can become corrupt and act against the People and should that arise and persist for too long, then the People can overthrow that government. Which in todays world would be marked by labeling the revolutionaries as terrorists.

In terms of this sort of Islamic terrorist sorts of things going on now, international terrorism of sorts; well you don't need democracy to stop it. You just need not theocracy. A more secular form of government where racial and religious intolerance are not taught and reinforced in schools and government propaganda. It would go a long way into helping the problem. Also, us not ****ing with their **** for decades would probably have helped too.
 
Last edited:
Is democracy anti-thetical to terrorism?

Vague, yes, but that leaves lots of room for discussion :)

No, assuming your definition of antithetical is "to sharply contrast."

We were trying to establish a Democracy and terrorism was in our very own playbook.

"Your freedom fighter is my terrorist." When you want to win a war and can't match tanks and guns, you resort to terrorism. We make it a dirty word, but, really, it's people fighting for freedom, or land, or resources, or religion -- or for whatever other reasons people fight wars for.

Not in contrast at all.
 
antithetical |ˌantəˈθetikəl|
adjective
1 directly opposed or contrasted; mutally incompatible : people whose religious beliefs are antithetical to mine | two antithetical emotions pulled at her. See note at opposite .

Thats part of the definition. I mean it more as in Democracy would 'cancel out' the roots of terror.
 
Some democratic governments are regarded as terrorists in certain parts of the world.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Democracies commit acts of terror all the time. If we want terrorism to stop, then it's not hard: STOP spreading terror.
 
Is democracy anti-thetical to terrorism?

Vague, yes, but that leaves lots of room for discussion :)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Obviously there are terrorists in democracies, and there are democrats in terrorist-controlled places. So they can definitely coexist.

Are you asking if terrorism is fueled by democracy? Meh, not really. I'm not aware of ANY major terrorist groups that give a damn whether there are elections...they generally have some specific (real or perceived) grievance against some specific enemy, or they're on a mission to change the world. If their enemy ceased being democratic but didn't change its policies, I highly doubt that any terrorist groups would say "mission accomplished" and renounce violence.
 
Last edited:
I chose the second poll option.

IMO, it's all a matter of opinion.

With the knowledge we have now (that is, if you support a democratic republic as the best governing method so far created), it would seem likely that if some theocratic authoritative space aliens decided to conquer earth, there would be some terrorism (or what would be called such by the space aliens) done by those who believed in a democratic republic.
 
Terrorism is simply the methodology used by angry people who don't have an army to cause destruction with. Functional democracies are less likely to have angry people and more likely to have armies, but terrorism is still quite possible depending on circumstances.
 
Terrorism, and more broadly insurgency, is simply a tactic which is often forced upon those parties who for whatever reason cannot face their enemy in conventional warfare, most likely because if they tried they'd be destroyed. What makes a person evil is not that they are an insurgent, its the reason behind their insurgency.

For example during the American War of Independence, some US forces operated in many ways extremely similar to the enemies today in Afghanistan or Iraq. Simply because if these militiamen would fight in the conventional way they'd of surely lost, so they raided convoys, ambushed British than ran off, hid among the people and in the cities, didn't wear uniforms, etc..
 
Democracy is merely a form of government. It is not inherently packaged with any specific ideology.
 
Democracy is merely a form of government. It is not inherently packaged with any specific ideology.

Really?

Would you agree with this quote from James Madison (father of the US Constitution) from Federalist No. 10, November 23, 1787:

Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

I happen to detect much "ideology" in Mr. Madison's statement!
 
Is democracy anti-thetical to terrorism?

Vague, yes, but that leaves lots of room for discussion :)

Historically speaking, Democratic governments tend to reduce domestic causes of terrorism by providing peacefull (read non-violent) avenues for change.
 
Historically speaking, Democratic governments tend to reduce domestic causes of terrorism by providing peacefull (read non-violent) avenues for change.

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?
 
Would you agree with this quote from James Madison (father of the US Constitution) from Federalist No. 10, November 23, 1787:

Yes, I would. But it's not democracy at fault for the spectacles of turbulence; it is the petty resentments of the unwashed masses that lead to democracy's self-destruction. Democracy only grants those resentments a voice and the air of legitimacy. Any form of government that gives the common people any real level of control is going to suffer because the common people are, on the whole, very stupid animals.
 
Yes, I would. But it's not democracy at fault for the spectacles of turbulence; it is the petty resentments of the unwashed masses that lead to democracy's self-destruction. Democracy only grants those resentments a voice and the air of legitimacy. Any form of government that gives the common people any real level of control is going to suffer because the common people are, on the whole, very stupid animals.

Agree/Disagree

Yes, the ideology of "Democracy" is at fault. Are you aware of massive voter ignorance that compute Democracy as Democratic Party? (I don't have time to elucidate)

You are correct on your latter premise of the "sheeple" concept in present day, but do you admit that individual freedom (as our Founder's espoused), is unacheivable? If so, explain our Declaration & Constitutional victory that enabled individual responsibility and dissolution from the British Empire. That happens to be the key!
 
Is democracy anti-thetical to terrorism?

No. There is a reason why Egypt has banned the Brotherhood of Islam party. There's a good chance they'll get power. And they are crazy terrorists.

Democracy is a mere reflection of its voters. If its voters are terrorists, it is a reflection of terrorists.
 
Democracy is a mere reflection of its voters. If its voters are terrorists, it is a reflection of terrorists.

Does this legitimize terror when they are voted for?
 
Yes, the ideology of "Democracy" is at fault. Are you aware of massive voter ignorance that compute Democracy as Democratic Party? (I don't have time to elucidate)

I am not entirely certain what you are asking here. Are you asking if I'm aware that there's a massive number of people who equate "democracy" with the Democratic Party, or are you asking if I'm aware that there are a massive number of people who form the Democratic Party?

You are correct on your latter premise of the "sheeple" concept in present day, but do you admit that individual freedom (as our Founder's espoused), is unacheivable?

Yes. Unachievable and undesirable. And many of the Founders themselves knew it, as their writings espoused the need for a more conservative government than the more radical liberals of the time desired.

If so, explain our Declaration & Constitutional victory that enabled individual responsibility and dissolution from the British Empire. That happens to be the key!

When has the government you idealize ever existed in this country?

---

Does this legitimize terror when they are voted for?

The only thing that legitimizes terror is success.
 
Yes, the ideology of "Democracy" is at fault. Are you aware of massive voter ignorance that compute Democracy as Democratic Party? (I don't have time to elucidate)

I dont know where this came from. 'Ignorance' Im not sure you can just say that. You know unless you waltz in a study telling us which voters are more informed or better educated on the topic they are voting for. As far as I'm concerned the right (edit: 'new american right'?) is in political psychosis.

Also, I'm not sure if terror is legitimately the result of another political psychosis, or whether it is because conditions and human insult have gotten so bad that terror is born as naturally as god desired.
 
Back
Top Bottom