State of Fear

[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.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Once again, you are bringing up motivation.

Of course I was bringing up motivation.
You said there was no reason to do any act of terrorism on a democratic government other than to attack democracy.
I was answering that statement by saying "Well, of course there are other reasons to do acts of terrorism, such as religion, pure insanity, or just misguided hate."

If you resort to violence against a legitimate democracy to get your political will achieved, you have turned against democracy.

Yes, but not every act of terrorism is to overthrow a government, or to send a message to that government saying you're not pleased with the way it's run.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Of course I was bringing up motivation.
You said there was no reason to do any act of terrorism on a democratic government other than to attack democracy.
I was answering that statement by saying "Well, of course there are other reasons to do acts of terrorism, such as religion, pure insanity, or just misguided hate."

Hmmm... True, I worded my point incorrectly. You responded as it was presented. The remainder of my response reflects my feelings on terrorism and democracy.

Yes, but not every act of terrorism is to overthrow a government, or to send a message to that government saying you're not pleased with the way it's run.

I never claimed it was either of those things. True terrorism is using violence to create political change by terrifying those in the democracy, and in the most definitive cases the acts of terror are not aimed at government installations, but at innocent civilians. The people do not acquiesce because they agree with the policies of the terrorists, but out of self-preservation, therefore bypassing the democratic process to achieve their goals. Beyond the scope of the political goals, this is no different than a dictator gaining or retaining political power through force.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Professor S

ANGRIST: Sorry I hijacked this thing. What is the major reason given for terrorism in your country? We hear so much about Islamic extremists and Irish separatists that other motives and examples get lost. I'm curious.

I don't know what reason is given for the terrorism in our country. Perhaps that's because nobody here has tried to blame something/someone for what happened.
In 2002 political party leader Pim Fortuyn was murdered. He was very anti-immigration. He was not killed by a muslim, nor was he killed for being anti-immigration. He was killed by a guy from my study town (Wageningen), because Pim Fortuyn was also pro-fur. The murderer was smart and educated. My town apparently 'harbors' left extremists (we do have a lot of hippies here).
So it was just 1 guy who thought it was better for the country if Pim Fortuyn died.

In 2004 Theo van Gogh was killed by a muslim extremist with both the Dutch and Maroccan nationality. Apparently Van Gogh had insulted the islam, I didn't really follow the news.

In 2009 eight people were killed by a anti royal family guy who drove in on a crowd close to the royal family.

Animal rights organizations also use terrorism from time to time. They torched a butchery, threw in windows of a McDonalds, liberated animals, threatened people, etc.

Other than that, there have been several arrests of muslims, but no actions of terrorism. I guess we're too sober to start blaming everything/everybody.

[Professor S]

While all of those things are awful, I would not consider most of them terrorism, except for the Animal rights examples. Other than that they seem like assassination attempts or just flat out homicide.

[Angrist]

So why do they often use the example of Theo van Gogh?

And whether or not the assassin on Koninginnedag 2009 had terroristic motives, believe me that people were terrorized after the attack. The original post of this thread proves that.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Angrist

So why do they often use the example of Theo van Gogh?

I think the van Gogh example is a poor one for terrorism. If I remember correctly, his death was an "honor killing". Those are very personal and not very political. I don't think the intent of the attack was to change public policy, and to that is integral to true terrorism. I think sometimes the lines tend to blur with

I agree with Typh that terrorism is overused and often in ways that are inapplicable, especially when Muslims are involved, I simply don't agree that the word needs to be retired. We need to call things what they are by the true definition, not by the nationality/ethnicity of the person involved.

[Professor S]

SPAM is terrorism. Case closed.