Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

1) The Egyption "regular people" don't have even bronze age technology? That's certainly news.

2) Usually revolutionaries get the army/ police force (or parts of them) on their side. That's if they bother to organize.

 

1) I imagine that most of the people hanging out in the plaza all day don't have jobs.

Well, PPOR. That's a lot of people in those protests, and they're not exactly dressed in rags. Plus there's been a number of reports saying these people hail from all walks of life.


2) The alternative to the "politics of testosterone" is the "politics of estrogen."

And only one of those would claim violence as its domain. Or rather, "some violence please, but not too much".


3) Any mention of hormones is silly anyway. Whatever hormone is dominant has no bearing on whether an action if Right or Necessary.

But YOU'RE the one that brought hormones into it. You're the one who said "aren't there any MEN in Egypt?". I'm sorry, were you referring other aspects of male physiology? Adam's apples, maybe? Certain sweat glands?

4) I don't know why you are going on about nuclear weapons.

Becuase it's the logical extension of what you suggest taken to a broader spectrum. Your pro-violence argument implies that it is a general solution to political problems like this one. And I'm saying how it's hypocritical, because it relies on the absence of a M.A.D scenario. It doesn't have to be nuclear weapons specifically.

In other words, your solution relies completely on "I can apply naked violence as ruthlessly as I want, because I don't have to worry about bringing the temple down around our heads."

The person who argues for violence needs to understand that they cannot say in the same breath "Yeah, but only THIS much violence. Only THIS much destruction. Too much and I start crying about where the human compassion has gone."

5) Former Soviet states are in lousy condition and it is arguable whether they are any better off. Anyway collapse isn't the same as revolution.

Funny how you leave Eastern Europe out of that statement.

 

If people have jobs they are usually required to be at their jobs. Proof is not necessary when common sense is sufficient.

What is your point?

Why are you applying your sensiblities to every person in the world?

NEWSFLASH: Not everyone is you.

Actually I didn't bring hormones into it. Obviously there are males in Egypt, who, if they are normal, have testosterone flowing in their bloodstream.

I was talking about MEN ie males (or females) who have courage, vision, strength, freedom etc.

You can logically extend the argument if you want, but then you arguing that one should never fight for anything. This is an absurdity. Therefore stop.

Did I?

 

I still don't Understand the rules we are Using To Capitalize Words in this debate, but onward.

1. They don't have to break any laws to bring business to a halt. Nor, even if they were, could you realistically arrest hundreds of thousands of people. Most importantly, though, this brings us full circle. You asked why people don't just "ignore" peaceful protests. When asked how you would respond to pretty common consequences of peaceful mass protests, you just chose something that wasn't "ignoring" them. You're not the only one that thinks that way. And that's why they don't get ignored. QED.

2. If you agree that it is possible to successful by both violent and non-violent means, why are you looking down on them for choosing the latter?

3. Not really. The thinking is that, especially in a media-saturated environment, the regime won't be able to maintain internal or external support for brutally repressing people who clearly aren't fighting back.

4 & 5. Non-violent protests also involve struggle. Freedom riders were tortured, harassed, and murdered. Civil rights marchers were regularly beaten by racist Southern police forces. Iranian protesters are being executed even now for "hanging out" at the post-election protests last year. They risk their lives just as much as people who take up guns to fight, and earn it no less than anyone else.

6. Haiti was the single most profitable New World colonial holding of any empire before the revolution spearheaded by L'Ouverture. In the years after the revolution, they were almost completely shut off from trade. Chile was fairly well off economically before Salvadore Allende was elected President, and in response to the ascent of a socialist, foreign investors withdrew almost all funds from the country, and trade with nations like the US dropped off. Also, to pick the most obvious example, I'm pretty sure the US would have some trade with Cuba if the Castros weren't in power. Or are you of the opinion that there has been absolutely nothing of economic value happening in that whole country for the past half a century? Countries aren't above using economic and political isolation as a tool to destabilize governments they dislike. And it works a reasonable amount of the time, too.

 

If people have jobs they are usually required to be at their jobs. Proof is not necessary when common sense is sufficient.

Oh wait, except when there are so many people NOT at thier jobs you don't have to be there because nobody can really get fired, since then the boss would have to fire everyone. Therefore why even peaceful protests have to be put down and cannot be ignored.

EPIC FAIL.


What is your point?

Why are you applying your sensiblities to every person in the world?

NEWSFLASH: Not everyone is you.

The point's right there in the writing. Shall I spell it out for you? OK: by advocating violence and yet, preumedly, wanting that violence to stop at any particular point, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

You can't advocate violence for change and then abdicate responsibility if it snowballs into a 20-year civil war killing millions, or ends up with a nuke dropped somewhere. It doesn't work that way, sorry.



Actually I didn't bring hormones into it. Obviously there are males in Egypt, who, if they are normal, have testosterone flowing in their bloodstream.

I was talking about MEN ie males (or females) who have courage, vision, strength, freedom etc.

Oh right, NOW it's the little '(or females)' thrown in. Certainly you also meant females when you just said males. And of COURSE you meant 'courage', 'vision' and 'strength' by asking if there were any MEN in Egypt.

Malarky, you're lying. Either you are saying women don't have those things -- or they don't have them as much as men have them. Or, and this is what I think, you weren't talking about those things at all, except perhaps strength in the conventional sense. You were talking about just showing everyone who's boss. You're adding all this courage and vision stuff after the fact, and all of it secondary to violence.

See, it's not important one be wise -- that's just icing on the cake. What's really important is that you make it clear to everyone not to mess with you. Never mind that if everyone does that there will be no end to conflict.




You can logically extend the argument if you want, but then you arguing that one should never fight for anything. This is an absurdity. Therefore stop.

Not so much that one should never fight for anything but that the instances of having to fight for something are so rare, you really should only run into the need for it a couple times in your lifetime. And if we're talking about at the national level, maybe once every 2-3 generations or more. That is, even as rarely as someone like you says "this is one of those times we have to resort to violence", the actual times you really DO need to resort to it? Half of that or less. the rest of the times resorting to violence was just the easier and more romantic solution.



Did I?

The people of Poland, Slovenia, East Germany and the Czech Republic seem rather adamant that you did.

 

Most industrialized countries have stricter gun ownership regulations than the US. This is even more true in autocratic nations, because an autocrat has surely thought about the possibility of what you're thinking, and he doesn't want you to be thinking it. Besides, even if gun ownership laws were lax, it's doubtful that what the local stores carry is sufficient to arm the regular people with enough firepower to be able to challenge a national army. I'm pretty sure they don't sell tanks and RPGs over the counter. Not to mention that soldiers have training. The average citizenry does not.

Oh, they usually do that now, do they? You read this in the revolutions 101 handbook? Either way, they apparently do not have the army on their side. If they did, the army would have stood in the way of pro-regime demonstrators attacking the anti-regime protesters. The army has so far been unwilling to use force against them. That doesn't mean they're on their side. And the police have seemingly been against them from day one.

If they had the army on their side, couldn't they just go home? The army is certainly a lot better handled to fight the ensuing battle than the people in the streets, don't you think? Better yet, if the army was with the people, there would be nothing to talk about. I'm sure you've heard the expression "you and what army?". Without his military, what is Mubarak? The fact that he's still there, means the military, or at least a great deal of it, is still loyal to his government.

So now that they don't have the army on their side, what are they gonna do? Give up? Fight insurmountable odds and be slaughtered? Or protest peacefully by way of strike, which will leave the government without income, and also make it lose face internationally, which will eventually leave Mr. Mubarak forced to find a different profession?

 

1) I was under the impression that peaceful protesters were actually peaceful. I didn't consider that huge mobs of people make everyone fearful of riots and looting, and cause them to shut their businesses. So in this situation obviously you wouldn't ignore them. Although I don't think you can still call the protesters peaceful if they know that they are doing damage.

2) If there are two ways to accomplish the same goal I prefer direct action or the heroic. None of this passive aggressive "I'm going to get you in trouble with the teacher" stuff. (The teacher being the outside world.) It's unseemly and not to my taste.

3) Meh. Non- violent people who get the **** kicked out them aren't my heroes. They rely on mercy and compassion, things that must be Given to them. How is that admirable?

4) The inter-dependency of nations is a sad reality.

 

So, what I'm getting from your statements is that you find peaceful resistance and opposition to tyranny to be the act of cowards. You seem to indicate that aggressive, ruthless, tough, manly, militant revolutionaries are more to your taste. I can understand that, and it's not as if your philosophy isn't shared by millions of people around the world. To each their own. Personally, I find it extremely admirable when people are willing to face death for their beliefs; sometimes, even in failure, making a peaceful stand is worth far more than a successful violent act.

Given the consequences of a violent revolution, even in victory, I prefer peaceful protests and civil disobedience as a way of creating change. It seems like people in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere are showing the same preference.

 

Psst, Nelson Mandela wasn't just "peaceful" and had no qualms about violent, militant action, watch out with whom you want to use for your examples. Not that it isn't a great man, but we don't want to start re-writing history, do we?

Re-post, reactions to Egypt in the European Parliament.

Reactions in the European Parliament to Egypt, Tunisia and Ashton's & the Council's reaction to it. Verhofstadt & Cohn-Bendit make very valid points & good speeches overall. Video dubbed in English, not as powerful as the original ones, but probably better understood here.

Original French version:

Verhofstadt's speech
Cohn-Bendit's speech

I'll admit, not such a big fan of Cohn-Bendit or Verhofstadt, but their interventions in the European Parliament are, more often than not, quite good & sometimes spot on. I do hope Ashton takes this to heart, we need a strong signal, now.

 

I'm aware of Mandek'a past; an earlier edit of my post made that more clear. However, I changed it to its current form because at the end of the day, violent revolution didn't work for him at all, while peaceful revolution did. I used the moniker of "coward" for him because his earlier terrorist days, and subsequent about-face to a peaceful stance, combined with the realities of a large portion of his life indicate Mandela was neither a physical nor moral coward.

 

I'm more ambivalent about the whole thing. If you ask me, you need both. Violent revolution wasn't going to work without combining it with peace and reconciliation. I do sincerely believe that one needs both MLK and Malcolm X. Neither are enough on their own, and neither can be rejected outright. It would be great if violence never had to enter into the equation, but unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Overstating the role of peaceful and non-violent resistance does emphasize role models, but it at times paints a distorted image of the past. It wasn't just Gandhi's non-violent example that changed the face of India or made Great-Britain hurry to independence.

 

Demonstrations are scheduled to be held in Tehran on Valentine's Day. The regime in Tehran claims credit for the revolts across the Arab World, claiming them to be inspired by the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979. State TV has aired news stories where it is claimed that Egyptians shouted "Thank you, Iran", during the protests. The opposition leaders figured that since the regime thinks the Egyptian and Tunisian revolts were inspired by the 79 revolt, and apparently led by a desire to duplicate Iran's Islamic Republic, then the conservatives would surely have nothing against Iranians marching in solidarity with them. And so, they asked for formal permission to devote the coming Monday to demonstrations in support of the Egyptian people. Whether formal permission is given or not, the demonstrations are likely to be held anyway.

Of course, behind their games the conservatives are well aware that the Egyptian and Tunisian revolts are not in any way linked to the Iranian Revolution of 30 years ago, and that these popular uprisings were not religious in nature. The opposition leaders also know very well that the conservatives know this. And the conservatives know that the opposition knows that the conservatives know. But they both keep up the act and dance around each other, trying not to give the other side any evidence. It's like watching a courtroom drama show.

Needless to say, the regime would not want the Green Movement, who are opposed to the conservative establishment in power, to be the ones showing solidarity with Egyptians. But now that they have claimed that the Egyptians are inspired by 1979, they can't deny a solidarity march either without appearing hypocritical. The thing that will probably happen is that they'll wait with their answer (no) till late Sunday. That way opposition candidates receive the message too late to be able to publicly retort "why not?", to which the conservatives would have had no legitimate answer. And so, they can brutally crack down on the basis that the regime had clearly stated their disapproval of the demonstrations the night before and so the people in the streets are in direct violation of the orders of the authority. The question of "why not" is too late to ask, and becomes irrelevant.

 

I'm hearing the Egyptian military has had an emergency meeting, with all these strikes and expanding protests really hurting their economy, and that Mubarak is due to give a speech shortly to meet the protestors demands.

Will he resign?

 

It's really going to explode now. Which may actually be what Mubarak wants, so he can use force to crush them. (Which would totally backfire, of course.) And their VP isn't any better.

I hope there's a military coup. It seems Mubarak will not step down voluntarily.

 

Mubarak seems to want the violence. And I think getting rid of the media as he did was the first step in that.

 

Well, in Iran, the government conservatives have thundered loudly against the Green Movements planned solidarity demonstration. Today, the 11th of February, is the official day of the 1979 revolution, and the regime is going to use it to stage its own version of solidarity protests for Egypt and Tunisia, fitting to its own agenda. The conservatives have said that the "seditionists" can show their solidarity for Egyptians at the official event that is planned for this purpose, and that any extra demonstrations of their own are therefore not necessary and will not be tolerated. Thus, they have kicked the ball back into the court of the reformists. The leader of the Revolutionary Guard's Tehran unit has said that demonstrations and rallies by "the seditionists" will be dealt with strongly and decisively. Despite these official remarks, planning of the Green Movement's rallies still seem to be going forward. Let's hope they become too many for the security forces to be able to suppress.

 

About a week ago at lunch some coworkers and I were talking about what could happen. I made the point that for Mubarak, it's a choice between leaving now (or soon) and doing so in the style of the Shah (ie comfortable life in exile) or Ceausescu.

After last night, maybe his gamble will pay off and he/his party will be able to crack down and hold on to power, but he made the possibility of the Ceausescu ending alot more probable.

 

Mubarak has resigned.

 

The military is taking over. Are we out of the frying pan and into the fire? Or is this the least-worst option?

I'm not a Middle East expert by any stretch of the imagination. But the military has seemed conciliatory to protesters so far, so perhaps elections will be held as scheduled in September.

What this means for the rest of the Middle East will certainly make for some fascinating discussion. I hope the zeitgeist from Egypt finds its way right into Tehran, picking up where 2009 left off. Though preferably less bloody.

 

This is definitely the best solution, as I'm describing in the JCC thread.

The people trust and respect them, and they will oversee transition, and allow time for the necessary institutions and opposition parties to form (they can't become America or Europe overnight). All of Mubarak's puppets (Suleiman, Cabinet, Parliament) are being stripped of power.

Without the military, there would be anarchy and vacuum, which would be much worse. Giving power to Suleiman or the Parliament would not have appeased the protestors, since they are basically the same as Mubarak.

It's always possible that things could be messed up, but today I am very optimistic.

Al-Qaeda was defeated today. They were proven wrong. Peaceful protest and freedom have shown that they work, not suicide bombers and theocratic rule.

Muslims and Christians have been standing together, Christians guarding while Muslims prayed and Muslims guarding while Christians held mass, a symbol of the protestors has been the Cross within the Crescent.





~ Unconfirmed, but there are reports the King of Saudi Arabia passed away of medical problems after a heated phone conversation with President Obama

Islam Times: Saudi Arabia's 86-year-old King Abdullah was discharged from a New York City hospital in good health after going through two back operations in December 2010. The king delegated the management of the affairs of the world?s largest oil supplier to his half-brother, Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz, during his absence.

King Abdullah talked with Obama about the situation in Egypt over the phone yesterday. Obama and the King got into a heated debate about their opinions of what Hosni Mubarak should do. After the phone call sources stated that King Abdullah was furious and then suffered a sudden heart attack.

Doctors ran to his rescue but were unable to save him. He was pronounced dead, but his death was not reported due to the sensative conditions that exist in the region. The Saudi Arabian government will reject this claim; but the ball is in their court to prove that he is alive.

http://www.islamtimes.org/vdcc1sqp.2bq048y-a2.html

I don't know how reliable the Islam Times are, but he's old and been having medical problems for months.

 

Woah, this took me by surprise. It really looked like Mubarak was going to try to stick it out until September. Well, now for the hard part....

 

Well, what do you know? PEACEFUL protests for 18 days WORKED! And gave only about 300 dead, and reportedly about 1000 detained. Now, what do you think would have happened if people had decided to not look cowardly in front of wannasee? 300 dead would have been 10 000 dead. Thankfully, they didn't get agitated and stuck to non-violence until the very end.

 

I didn't say they were cowards. I implied that they were lame.