Another American Beheading...

[Diff-chan]

Way to twist my words yet again.

Eh, I didnt twist your words. I knew what you were talking about. Any culture can breed loonies and violent, fascist groups, but that seems to be the norm in communist/fascist (duh) countries. Communism is awfully nice and makes sense when you read about it in a book but in reality it spawns this awful, awful violence and oppression. Same with dictatorships. That's whats been going on in these Islamic dictatorships for so long.

So yes while loony groups have formed in the USA, there seems to be something instrinsically violent that spawns from those forms of government which does not spawn from republics/democracies.

It's seriously really sad, and considering that for most of the history of time people have lived under dictatorships I shudder to think of how many billions of people have been killed throughout history.

[Brisco Bold]

Random comment: The Weirmar Republic is considered to have had one of the best constitutions in the world at the time. It is so a modern democracy.

[Jakkal]

That's pretty much the response I thought the information would get from this forum. If you guys don't want to read it, fine, that's your decision.

To the person who called my claim that some of the alleged 'hijackers' are still alive propoganda, take a look at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm (more stories like that if you look around)

And for the person who suggested I read Dick Clarke's book, I'll say this: a former terrorism czar, and man who's been advisor to every president since Reagan, knows the score. That whole book is a smokescreen. They're using it to hang Bush and to increase intelligence agency powers, and to continue selling the war on terror lie.

By the way, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and it's good that people are starting to question the lies fed to the public daily by the government and media, but it missed the entire point. Getting rid of Bush won't change a thing. In September of 2000, before the election remember, the Project for the New American Century issued a report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century." It foreshadows 9/11, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They still would have happened at some point even with Gore in office, as the elite know no party lines.

And I'll say it again, bin Laden was not behind 9/11. That famous confession video was manipulation. In an interview with Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper, Ummat, on September 28, 2001, he said:

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people . . . " (http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html)

The only evidence offered by the US have been videos or 'authenticated' audio tapes. Oh well, if the CIA says it's his voice, then it must be his voice, because we all know how honest and noble the CIA are. Gimme a break.

[epmode]

That's pretty much the response I thought the information would get from this forum.

lol. name one forum where they'd respond differently. i'm curious.

[Almaci]

Jakkal stop poisoning this forum with yer drivel.

Look at the date of that article: Sunday, 23 September, 2001

Of course errors can and have been made and yes those persons at one point were SUSPECTS, as far as I know though they were cleared.

With criminal investigations its not uncommon to have MORE suspects then actual culprits you know.

Seriously.

[Calliander]

Jakkal stop poisoning this forum with yer drivel.

Look at the date of that article: Sunday, 23 September, 2001

Of course errors can and have been made and yes those persons at one point were SUSPECTS, as far as I know though they were cleared.

With criminal investigations its not uncommon to have MORE suspects then actual culprits you know.

Seriously.

You know you're beyond reason when Almaci pwns you about something like this in a thread like this. Hehe.

[The_Meach]

It doesnt matter how many they have killed, fact is they exist and are just one other group within a democracy that commits terrorist acts.

Its just one example of dozens I gave that disprove The Meach´s frankly ridiculous claims.

Free societies will never be free of dissenters. (But) they do not spawn mass movements that threaten whole geographic regions

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?

[The_Meach]

The Weimar Republic WAS a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.
* All citizens had the right to vote for representitives in fair "silent" elections.
* All citizens had Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, Property. etc.
* All citizens were deemed equal.

I think in my original post I said just plain old democracy. This being the internet and how inclined we all are to nit-pick over the slightest omission, EVERY word/phrase/statement/point needs to have (precise, exact, PERFECT) qualifiers on it. I've been trying to do this over the past few posts.

I don't consider Weimar a stable, free society. But, I'm not against correcting my errors. Yes, AstroBlue is absolutely, positively correct. Weimar was, w/o question, a liberal democracy. I know this. In the interests of expediency I've been substituting 'democracy' for the society at large. I know better and I ought to be more clear. Sorry.

If that's not a free society, then I don't know what is. In fact, the Weimar Republic was more democratic than America. It had proportional representation for the legislative house, which means unlike in America were a minority vote is equal to no vote at all *coughNADERcough*, a minority vote does count.

I don't think that political freedom is a sufficient condition for a free society, and Weimar is a great example of this. Despite its political freedoms (which gradually disappeared as anti-democratic groups exploited the privileges granted by these freedoms: the Nazis/commies radicalized the political sphere thru freely gathering in the streets...and intimidating the Social Democrats/moderates/each other). Further, I would argue that Weimar was not a free society b/c of the desperate economic situation. Politically free? Yep. Economically free? Not to my mind. This allowed fringe groups to gain support. (I would argue that Individual, Political and Economic freedom are necessary for a society to be considered free. Obviously these are subjective so disagreement will arise. I hesitate to speculate on the individual freedom of Germans under Weimar but I look at my readings on what the political climate was and how radical thugs - fascist AND commie - intimidated ppl to get an idea. Combine this w/a culture that until that time had no experience w/political freedom - to be fair, a bit on the local level - and I would not argue Germany had a general culture of Individual freedom. That's just my impression.)

I've shared b/4 how much love I have (none) for proportional representation. Weimar is another great example of how fringe groups can shout down the majority in a parliamentary system. Two-party systems marginalize the freaks b/c the first guy to the Almighty Middle wins. I realize that's irrelevant to your larger point about Weimar. Weimar was definitely a proportional democracy.

So what is exactly your point? That free-democratic societies do not breed violence and "resistance", discounting those which have violence and things to resist against? Isn't that just a tautology, and not only is that a tautology, isn't it just obvious. If someone is neither spiritually, culturally or economically suppressed; what do they have to resist against? Not being repressed and poor?

Almaci's distortions don't help me here so I will say again that democracies don't spawn mass movements that threaten entire geographic regions. I absolutely positively disown something I never called my own; the idea that there is never violence or resistance in free societies. One need only look at the years preceding the Civil War and the Abolitionist movement. It was violent and definitely a resistance (tho not against the right to self-government; just to a specific policy) but it was never a mass movement, nor did it threaten an entire geographic region.

I remain unconvinced there is anything inherent to political freedom that spawns terrorism. Was there ever any doubt the (radical) Abolitionists were operating outside the political realm? They had renounced their lawful right to shape policy so that they could pursue bloody 'justice'. Did the political freedoms bestowed on Americans by our Constitution and form of government spawn the Abolitionists? On this same point, in relation to Weimar, was the NSDAP the natural offspring of political freedom or were there certain cultural conditions that allowed it to rise? Was the relationship between Weimar>>NSDAP causal in nature? (This would make a great essay question imho.)

I'm not dissing democracy in any way, shape or form; I believe in democracy with the full force of my heart, I'd die for it.

Oh, no worries. Never thought you didn't.

saying "MAKE A COUNTRY A FREE DEMOCRACY AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OK" is just plain bullshit.

AGREED!

Liberal Democracy fixes a bunch of problems (cultural-political supression) that lead to violence, but it doesn't solve all the problems that lead to violence (such as economic supression), as best seen in Weimar Germany (a perfectly fine democracy).

We totally agree.

Anyways, writing this post and responding to these challenges has been fun. It's also forced me to clarify in my mind what exactly constitutes a free society. Yays!

[The_Meach]

Yet the examples I gave were all from so called democracies and combined(second world war not counting) have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent victims.

Pretty compareable given population sizes if you ask me.

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.

[Damian79]

Consider this forum pre-owned:

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

I've witnessed this debate on Usenet several times, and it always follows the same pattern:

1. Somebody casually brings up the old factoid about how no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.
2. Somebody jumps in and lists a dozen or so wars which have been fought between democracies.
3. Somebody else points out that those countries weren't democratic, not really.
4. Everybody gets into arguments over who was or was not democratic.
5. The argument fizzles out except for two guys continuing to argue over whether the American Civil War was about slavery.