Quote Originally Posted by DiscoD69:
My point is that you cannot possibly think you have it WORSE in the USA than the people of Egypt had it during the Mubarak era. Especially in terms of various options, and protections of speech and right to protest etc. Everything you say in this post to justify an armed uprising can be applied to the Egypt example. It's illogical to say 'it can't possibly happen like that' (peacefully) when it already has, and it happened under more unlikely circumstances.
The likelihood of peaceful protests bringing meaningful change and reforms is logically much much much greater in the USA under Obama etc. than in the Middle East in countries like Egypt with decades old dictatorships.
I'm not saying arming yourself can't work, or isn't another means. Logically it is. It's just a disaster in waiting, and like I said will involve massive los of life. For no reason, when it CAN be done peacefully. They can beat 1, or 10, or 100 protesters to protect the interests of only the 1%... but they can't beat 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 protestors.
I'm thankful for the wise people in this forum who turned me onto Twitter. The only 'occupy' feed I follow is #OCCUPY CONGRESS (@OCongress), because that's the only one that matters if you want to achieve reform through peaceful protest.
In this sense, OCongress = Tahrir Square
After Egypt was absorbed into the Islamic world, it surrendered sovereignty under multi-Islamic monarchs, including the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of Ottoman (Turkish) rule in WW1, Britain endowed itself with political administration over Egypt before granting it independence, governed then by a king, until the early 50s. The last Egyptian king was overthrown by the military under the command of Gamal Abdel Nasser, his successor, Anwar Sadat, ruled until he was assassinated in the early 80s, which brought Mubarak (National Democratic Party), sponsored by Washington, to power immediately after, until his removal last year, when the position of affairs was no longer sustainable and it emerged, the populace in the East under Sunni Islam, were no longer fearful of their western sponsored rulers, as seen in Tunisia e.c.t., but a percentage of the populace in America (western society) under the sphere of democracy, became frightened by its leaders. Mubarak wasn’t overthrown by the hand of peaceful protestors; there was a foreign political hand, as has been the circumstance in Egypt since the fall of the New Kingdom when the final legitimate pharaoh was abolished by the Romans, which since then, has had foreign masters and not had an indigenous rule over it. The Tahrir uprising was not headed by secular democratic forces, instead Egypt returned to the exhausted old order of rule under the military, who went after the "businessmen's cabinet" of Ahmed Nazif that provided Egypt with the transient economic growth through relaxation of govt. restrictions in the areas of economic policy, when the military Junta was enthusiastic to assert its representatives with the people who abet Islamic diehards, forcing financiers out of the country and placing fear into the Coptic community.
To model such a debate on “peace” in this circumstance, even in the U.S., is worthless, because it requires an imaginary type of norm of perfection to be aimed at circumstances that have cipher to do with reality. Reality surfaces as the product of a particular fact, event or case. Is it not more beneficial to think in ways beyond a direction that endeavors to, explain, vindicate and consequently demand the prescribed ritual of satisfying desires (disarmament and peace movements), with imaginary treatment in comparative disregard of reality, otherwise, when grievances confront a set of circumstances that are not conceivable in a exposition of principles and formal thought, your process-style of thinking breaks down in the realms of disorder. The actual point of truth is that not all objects of thought that can be expressed in the mind, subsist, and can be applied in the real world. To simply focus on the end result (peace) and use it to permeate through the entire process of behavior along the way to achieving such political concession (desire), is simply not in working harmony with the agents of reality, unless one subscribes to the way of the technocrat. Any individual, who cannot see alternate means beyond a peaceful resistance, cannot see beyond party lines. Eastern philosophy thinks extremely different to Western philosophy; you simply cannot use Western philosophy to make any resemblance in essentials between movements that thinks in Eastern philosophy, as in the case of Egypt. African and Middle Eastern states who seek democracy, don’t necessarily clamor for Western-models of democracy to award equal rights to women or endow minorities with religious and sexual orientation freedoms.
The uniqueness of Washington’s anomalous lies beneath its exception, and for this, Egypt is an antithetical comparison. America is without a national disposition rooted in antiquity, but instead characterized by ideology and for this, Egypt is an antithetical comparison in reciprocal roles. This ideology-driven way of thinking has allowed the two-party system in the U.S., if combined, to not even represent in a comparison, a single political wing of democratic systems of commonwealth countries. This is the U.S., where citizenry begin any fight from a disadvantageous position, where corp. power can lobby the legal system to rally against judicial compassion towards being found not guilty or the lessening of sentencing and parole standards, which all jeopardize the corp. enterprise commerce of this fascist system that seek a thin layer of tolerance, that abets the current administration who empowered the C.I.A. counterterrorism operations to launch drone missiles outside the borders of war zones in Egypt, killing innocent civilians.
Anyone self respecting American that could vote for any pol that supports Obamacare
Hot Forum Topics
