4 ms·

Here's the thing. What would have happened if the population of egypt had been armed. Would they have used them? Definitely the temptation would be there, and

by ErrantX 16y ago

Here's the thing. What would have happened if the population of egypt had been armed. Would they have used them? Definitely the temptation would be there, and it only takes a mistake or to to spark something off. The military has refused to fire on citizens; that's a pretty massive decision, not quite so easy to make if you're being shot at... By removing all guns from the equation the military has pretty much ensured the revolution will go down fairly peacefully from here on out. So, in this case, yep it is definitely a good thing the population wasn't armed. Being armed is the hammer solution to the problem of being arrested by plain clothes police in such a manner. You takes your risks, but at least you weren't shot :)

yock 16y ago
Revolution isn't peaceful. It is by definition a "repudiation" of the established authority. The notion that revolution could ever be peaceful and amicable is naive. Corrupt people aren't going to vacate their seats of power without coercion and that requires some tactical advantage over those in power. Make no mistake, I have no love of war, but history has shown time and again that power doesn't transfer away from the establishment without force. Whether that is actual violence or merely the threat of it is irrelevant. The ones being ousted need to believe they aren't safe.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Of course it is. Peaceful and amicable are two different things; you can utterly despise the people you are revolting against but still act peacefully. You also seem to singularly equate coercion (which is needed, I agree) with violence. I find that somewhat dubious; there are all manner of non-violent ways to coerce people. but history has shown time and again Ah. Actually not it hasn't - historical analysis does not support such a theory. Or to quote Wikipedia: > "the commonly held belief that most revolutions which have happened in dictatorial regimes were bloody or violent uprisings is not born out of historical analysis." Wouldn't you call the current state of Egyptian protests peaceful? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution

by ErrantX 16y ago

yock 16y ago

Revolution isn't peaceful. It is by definition a "repudiation" of the established authority. The notion that revolution could ever be peaceful and amicable is naive. Corrupt people aren't going to vacate their seats of power without coercion and that requires some tactical advantage over those in power. Make no mistake, I have no love of war, but history has shown time and again that power doesn't transfer away from the establishment without force. Whether that is actual violence or merely the threat of it is irrelevant. The ones being ousted need to believe they aren't safe.

ErrantX 16y ago
Of course it is. Peaceful and amicable are two different things; you can utterly despise the people you are revolting against but still act peacefully. You also seem to singularly equate coercion (which is needed, I agree) with violence. I find that somewhat dubious; there are all manner of non-violent ways to coerce people. but history has shown time and again Ah. Actually not it hasn't - historical analysis does not support such a theory. Or to quote Wikipedia: > "the commonly held belief that most revolutions which have happened in dictatorial regimes were bloody or violent uprisings is not born out of historical analysis." Wouldn't you call the current state of Egyptian protests peaceful? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution