State of Fear

[Typhoid]

Isn't the act of inciting a armed revolt against a democratically elected government an attack on democracy? I fail to see the difference.

The difference is he didn't view it as a democracy. He wasn't doing it to attack democracy. He was doing it to (in his mind) overthrow a 'tyrannical dictatorship that kills it's own people and lets them die'.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

The difference is he didn't view it as a democracy. He wasn't doing it to attack democracy. He was doing it to (in his mind) overthrow a 'tyrannical dictatorship that kills it's own people and lets them die'.

... because he did not agree with the actions of a democratically elected government. His "point of view" is meaningless. His actions compared to an objective view of reality are what should be measured.

No one is going to say "I hate democracy" regardless of their disputes, but his actions tell us this fact.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

... because he did not agree with the actions of a democratically elected government. His "point of view" is meaningless. His actions compared to an objective view of reality are what should be measured.

No one is going to say "I hate democracy" regardless of their disputes, but his actions tell us this fact.

Saying it's an attack on democracy itself just because the governing body of the country it took place happens to be democratic is as equal a stretch as saying the OKC bombing was an attack on city planners, and 9/11 was an attack against skyscrapers and building codes.

I don't see how his [since this is what we're talking about now] actions of blowing up a building because he viewed the government killed its own people as an attack on democracy. If anything, it's an attack on the country, or those in charge. Not the government-style that country has. And no - an attack on a democratic country, or democratically elected officials is not an attack on democracy. He didn't want to overthrow the type of government, just wasn't impressed with those in charge.

But we should stop this.
It's entirely off-topic.

[Professor S]

If you resort to violence against a democratically elected government (legitimate, of course), you are attacking democracy because you have obviously given up on the idea that the government can change via electoral choice. There is no other reason to resort to such drastic measures in a democracy.

Terrorism is the use of violent acts to create political change by manipulating the fears of the constituency. It is the antithesis of the democratic process, therefore, all terrorism inherently assaults democracy itself.

But we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. And for the record, I did try and get the thread back on topic.

[TheGame]

Do you consider the attack at columbine terrorism? Do you consider Joe Stack flying a plane into the federal building terrorism?

[Typhoid]

There is no other reason to resort to such drastic measures in a democracy.

Insanity, religion, misguided hate.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Insanity, religion, misguided hate.

Once again, you are bringing up motivation. Motivation is meaningless. The act is anti-democratic, and all we can judge in this world is actions... unless you have some wonderful psychic powers I am unaware of. If you resort to violence against a legitimate democracy (or democratic republic, etc.) to get your political will achieved, you have turned against democracy. The mental state of the assailant is immaterial.