Another American Beheading...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

November 17 is not a mass movement that threatens an entire geographic region. Neither was the IRA. Timothy McVeigh? The handful of abortion clinic bombers? Get serious.

I'd like to add that there is nothing inherent to (modern) democracy that would spawn mass movements that threaten whole geographic regions. Or is there?

---

Well if you go that road I can point out that there is nothing in Islam either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

:o

Stalin alone murdered 20 million of his 'countrymen' (a very conservative estimate). Chinese communism has claimed 40 million victims (another very conservative estimate).

Assuming you're right (I'm entirely too generous here but I take pity on 'useful idiots') about the 'tens of thousands of innocent victims' of democracy, and completely discounting the right-wing dictatorships of the last century, there is no possible way the numbers are proportional. No. Way.

In 1990, the US had +/- 250 mil and the USSR had +/- 290mil. 20% more in pop but 20x the victims IF we say the US had 1mil victims. Get real.

But if you want to put your money where your mouth is and volunteer to go experience the pastoral glory that is non-liberal democracy, feel free to defect to North Korea. :mad:

---

Excuse me?
I AM a democrat and a firm believer in democratic principles.
Frankly I am insulted that you would think the opposite simply becouse I didnt agree with your stupid claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

Consider this forum pre-owned:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

:lol: :sweat:

---

That has nothing to do with what we were arguing. We were never arguing whether democracies go to war, we were arguing whether free societies have produced a violent movement. There's a big difference; so just be on your merry way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

I don't consider Weimar a stable, free society.

---

Then, again, what is the point of:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

What (truly) democratic society has produced a movement as dastardly as Islamo-fascism? Islamo-fascism is, by definition, radical. Historically speaking, free societies tend to mute radical voices. Why? B/c when ppl are free to do as they please, they tend to do what they please.

---

If we replace democratic society with the true words you meant: "a stable, free society". The sentence would read as: Stable societies do not produce violent movements. That's a tautology. It's like saying "black birds are never white".

All of Almaci's arguments against you have seem to come from the inference that when you said democracy you meant democracy, and not a stable, free society. Because true democracies have produced violent movements, that's a fact. Stable societies have never produced violent movements, because if they had a violent movement, they wouldn't be stable by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

That has nothing to do with what we were arguing. We were never arguing whether democracies go to war, we were arguing whether free societies have produced a violent movement. There's a big difference; so just be on your merry way.

---

So what exactly are we arguing here? War doesn't count as a violent movement? So Stalin's 20 million doesn't count? Does civil war count? Does the KKK count?

A "violent movement" can mean just about anything.

Are "violent movement" and "war" synonyms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Are "violent movement" and "war" synonyms?

---

No, war is a type of violent movement. It really depends on what you mean by "violent movement".

EDIT: Oh crap, we are arguing semantics now. What have I done? :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

No, war is a type of violent movement. It really depends on what you mean by "violent movement".

EDIT: Oh crap, we are arguing semantics now. What have I done? :(

---

We are not going to argue semantics because there's nothing to argue about. "Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another" is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT to "Free Societies Do Not Produce Violent Movements". So just STFU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

We are not going to argue semantics because there's nothing to argue about. "Democracies Do Not Make War on One Another" is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT to "Free Societies Do Not Produce Violent Movements". So just STFU.

---

But if you can prove that "democracies HAVE made war against each other", doesn't that prove that "free societies CAN produce violent movements" if you consider war to be a violent movement(assuming you mean "democracies" by "free societies")? Are you telling me you can't see the parallels here?

EDIT: Wow, it seems we have about 4 people arguing completely different points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

But if you can prove that "democracies HAVE made war against each other", doesn't that prove that "free societies CAN produce violent movements" if you consider war to be a violent movement(assuming you mean "democracies" by "free societies")? Are you telling me you can't see the parallels here?

EDIT: Wow, it seems we have about 4 people arguing completely different points.

---

But if you can prove that "apples ARE sweet and juicy", doesn't that prove "oranges CAN be sour and tart" (assuming you mean "apples" by "oranges")? Are you telling me you can't see the parrallels here?

In a word, yes. The argument "democracies HAVE made war against each other" is an argument about democractic nations being on the same side and being inherent allies; our argument was about whether free societies (not democracies) within nations can produce radical violent movements. One is an argument on a global political scale, saying whether NATIONS will go into WAR against EACH OTHER; and the other is on a local social scale, saying whether certain SOCIETIES can produce RADICAL movements.

Try to compare the reasons behind the arguments instead of their superficial similarities, and maybe you will understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

The argument "democracies HAVE made war against each other" is an argument about democractic nations being on the same side and being inherent allies; our argument was about whether free societies (not democracies) within nations can produce radical violent movements. One is an argument on a global political scale, saying whether NATIONS will go into WAR against EACH OTHER; and the other is on a local social scale, saying whether certain SOCIETIES can produce RADICAL movements.

---

Free societies(not just democratic) are a completely different issue. But this argument seems to be about how American changing the Iraqi government to democracy will stop radical movements or something to that effect. Well that was what I was arguing against in this thread anyway.