Thoughts on the Uprisings in North Africa and Middle East?

[2-0-Sixx]

I'm not suggesting without a clue or evidence. Is it circumstantial? Yes. Does it rely on looking at history and the peoples predisposition to behave a certain way? Yes. But when large amounts of people are galvanized and governments are toppled in record breakign time with minimal bloodshed, you simply can't say "it was a peoples movement they did it on their own."

Then I think you should seriously take a look at history again.

Even in the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, the first true Workers revolution of it's kind of that magnitude, only 17 people died. Again as I stated, when a movement gets so massive and the ruling elite loses control of the military, there is nothing left to oppress the people with.

 

[HERESY]

Then I think you should seriously take a look at history again.

Even in the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, the first true Workers revolution of it's kind of that magnitude, only 17 people died. Again as I stated, when a movement gets so massive and the ruling elite loses control of the military, there is nothing left to oppress the people with.

And that revolution (the entire 1917 ordeal) ultimately led to the creation of the USSR, and you're going to tell me that it was all the people, no outside forces, elitists, etc?

 

[2-0-Sixx]

They are shook!

Middle East unrest: Saudi and Bahraini kings offer concessions

Attempts to ease tensions are made in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Jordan, while Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hits out at Libya's 'grotesque' use of force

Agencies
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 23 February 2011 19.27 GMT

Saudi Arabia

King Abdullah, the Saudi ruler, has returned home after a three-month medical absence and unveiled benefits for Saudis worth $37bn (£23bn) in an apparent attempt to insulate the world's leading oil exporter from a wave of Arab uprisings.

State media announced an action plan to help lower- and middle-income people among the 18m Saudi nationals. It includes pay rises to offset inflation, unemployment benefits and affordable family housing.

Hundreds of people have backed a Facebook call for a Saudi "day of rage" on 11 March to demand an elected ruler, greater freedom for women and the release of political prisoners.

Bahrain

Bahrain's King Hamad bin isa al-Khalifa flew to Saudi Arabia to hold talks with King Abdullah after his return to Riyadh.

King Hamad freed about 250 political prisoners and has offered dialogue with protesters, mostly from Bahrain's Shia majority, who demand more say in the Sunni-ruled island.

Riyadh would be worried if unrest in Bahrain, where seven people were killed and hundreds wounded last week, spread to its own disgruntled Shia minority in the oil-rich east

Yemen

Thousands of people streamed into a square in the capital Sana'a, trying to strengthen the hold of anti-government protesters after club-wielding backers of President Ali Abdullah Saleh tried to drive them out. One person was killed and at least 12 injured in clashes near the city's university, medics said.

Saleh, in power for 32 years, has said he will step down after national elections are held in 2013, but a widening protest movement is demanding that he leave office now.

Jordan

Jordan's cabinet has approved laws making it easier to organise protests and will revive a government body that works to ensure basic commodities remain affordable to the poor.

A government official said the reforms were passed late on Tuesday, hours after the country's largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, vowed to resume demonstrations pushing for reforms.

The situation has been less volatile in Jordan than elsewhere but people have been protesting in a call for the king's powers to be curbed.

Iran

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said he was certain the wave of unrest in the Middle East would spread to Europe and North America, bringing an end to governments he accused of oppressing and humiliating people.

He said: "The world is on the verge of big developments. Changes will be forthcoming and will engulf the whole world from Asia to Africa and from Europe to North America."

The world was in need of a just system of rule, he said, that "puts an end to oppression, occupation and humiliation of people. It's a wave that's coming."

Ahmadinejad, whose regime resorted to violence to disperse an opposition rally earlier this month, condemned Libya's use of force. "This is very grotesque. It is unimaginable that there is someone who kills and bombards his own people. I strongly advise them to let nations have their say and meet their nations' demands if they claim to be the officials of those nations," Ahmadinejad said.

"Anyone who does not heed the demands of his own nation will have a clear fate."



Article Source

 

[2-0-Sixx]

And that revolution (the entire 1917 ordeal) ultimately led to the creation of the USSR, and you're going to tell me that it was all the people, no outside forces, elitists, etc?

I'm not even going to debate the USSR with you, the point was to give an example of a peoples revolution that has occurred with minimal bloodshed.

 

[HERESY]

I'm not even going to debate the USSR with you, the point was to give an example of a peoples revolution that has occurred with minimal bloodshed.

I'm not saying that a peoples revolution without bloodshed can't occur. What I'm saying is how they (the recent countries) are doing it and the speed they are doing it at should raise eyebrows. But what you listed was a drop in the bucket that contributed to the overall reconstruction of a country/area, so I'm looking at the big picture not an isolated incident.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

and it's not like it's a walk in the park in Libya thousands have died, a French doctor has reported 2 thousand deaths in one city alone:

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=209544


A French doctor working in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi told Le Point Magazine that over 2,000 people were killed in that city alone in the past days of fighting, AFP reported.

"From Tobruk to Darna, they carried out a real massacre... In total, I think there are more than 2,000 deaths," he said.

The 60-year-old anesthetist who has been living in the Libyan city for over a year, said that one the first day of fighting in Benghazi, "out ambulances counted 75 bodies...200 on the second [day], then more than 500." On the third day, he added, "I ran out of morphine and medications."

He told the French magazine that forces attacking protesters "included police and the army but also mercenaries from Chad and Niger."

 

[HERESY]

and it's not like it's a walk in the park in Libya thousands have died, a French doctor has reported 2 thousand deaths in one city alone:

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=209544


A French doctor working in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi told Le Point Magazine that over 2,000 people were killed in that city alone in the past days of fighting, AFP reported.

"From Tobruk to Darna, they carried out a real massacre... In total, I think there are more than 2,000 deaths," he said.

The 60-year-old anesthetist who has been living in the Libyan city for over a year, said that one the first day of fighting in Benghazi, "out ambulances counted 75 bodies...200 on the second [day], then more than 500." On the third day, he added, "I ran out of morphine and medications."

He told the French magazine that forces attacking protesters "included police and the army but also mercenaries from Chad and Niger."

The JP?

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I'm not saying that a peoples revolution without bloodshed can't occur. What I'm saying is how they (the recent countries) are doing it and the speed they are doing it at should raise eyebrows. But what you listed was a drop in the bucket that contributed to the overall reconstruction of a country/area, so I'm looking at the big picture not an isolated incident.

And you have to remember what's going on is entire region, don't look at it as separate countries. When revolution occurs often it spreads, again using the October revolution in 1917 as an example that revolution ignited and spread all across Europe and the world (only it didn't translate into the over throwing of governments in all cases or socialism, etc.).

This is why I said on page one it will spread like wildfire. This is basic stuff you learn when you study revolution

 

[2-0-Sixx]

The JP?

yes, but they sited the AFP which is french media outlet.

 

[HERESY]

And you have to remember what's going on is entire region, don't look at it as separate countries. When revolution occurs often it spreads, again using the October revolution in 1917 as an example that revolution ignited and spread all across Europe and the world (only it didn't translate into the over throwing of governments in all cases or socialism, etc.).

This is why I said on page one it will spread like wildfire. This is basic stuff you learn when you study revolution

I'm not looking at it as seperate countries. Like I said a page or two ago, this is about the region not one or two puppets being removed. Spreading like wildfire, in this day in age, simply isn't a matter of basic revolution. Someone has to light the fire, someone has to keep it going and someone has to fund and direct the course of action. I don't believe the average citizen has the mental capacity or tools to pull it off with such precision and minimal casualties. Nope.

 

[HERESY]

yes, but they sited the AFP which is french media outlet.

The only thing of value the french have given the world are french fries and french kissing. Everything else is useless and not to be trusted.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Spreading like wildfire, in this day in age,

What is it about "this day and age" that is different from 20, 50 or 100 years ago?

simply isn't a matter of basic revolution.

The basic ideas of revolution still exist today as they did 100 years ago! Everything I have ever read and studied is still 100% relevant today. It's amazing how the lessons I learned in my commie study groups come to life before my eyes. I'm envious

Someone has to light the fire, someone has to keep it going and someone has to fund and direct the course of action.

Why? Why does someone have to light a fire? If the desire for change exists, the anger is there, the hatrid, the willingness to fight is there, is that not enough?

I don't believe the average citizen has the mental capacity or tools to pull it off with such precision and minimal casualties. Nope.

In America or Egypt/Tunisia/Libya? Have you been to Egypt/Tunisia/Libya? Are you in touch with society there, do you have relatives there?

I would probably agree if you're talking about brain washed and divided America but fortunately or unfortunately we're not.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

The only thing of value the french have given the world are french fries and french kissing. Everything else is useless and not to be trusted.

The french doctor is actually there though so perhaps it holds more weight.

 

[ThaG]

how about it's simply a people's movement? there doesn't need to be any manipulating forces in the background, people are capable of rising up and overthrowing governments it's happened plenty of times throughout history.

The most parsimonious explanation is the safest one to go with. Doesn't mean it has to be true, but that's the reasonable approach.

However, whether it is wise for people to rise up and overthrow their government is a different question. To answer it, it has to be appreciated that the government does not exist independent of people, the government is all those who in the army, in the police, in the administration, etc. If the government is corrupt, that's because the majority of them are corrupt, but they did not magically appear out of nowhere, they are part of the same people who are protesting against their corruption, and who, even though they are protesting against corruption now, if given the chance would be just as corrupt as the people in power. That pattern has been seen historically many times. Because, as I said above, corruption is not a top-down phenomenon, it's a bottom-up one - if the government is corrupt, that's because the society as a whole is corrupt, and a change of government isn't going to change anything, it will be just someone else corrupt in power

 

[ThaG]

Saying religion is the root of the sustainability crisis is like blaming science for Hiroshima.

Both are created by man and used for benefit or detriment at his discretion.

If anything is to blame, it is human's proclivity to create religion and exploit it.

I don't think you got the argument. Which does not surprise me because people almost always react very strongly to it. Lynn White proposed a much softer version of it in the 1960s (note that I had come to that conclusion years before I heard anything about his article in Science) and got eaten alive by other academics, people who in general are supposed to be thinking and evaluating arguments rationally but reacted in quite a visceral way. Because in its core it is a direct attack against fundamental identity-forming ideas for most people, and they naturally react in a hostile way to it.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

The most parsimonious explanation is the safest one to go with. Doesn't mean it has to be true, but that's the reasonable approach.

However, whether it is wise for people to rise up and overthrow their government is a different question. To answer it, it has to be appreciated that the government does not exist independent of people, the government is all those who in the army, in the police, in the administration, etc. If the government is corrupt, that's because the majority of them are corrupt, but they did not magically appear out of nowhere, they are part of the same people who are protesting against their corruption, and who, even though they are protesting against corruption now, if given the chance would be just as corrupt as the people in power. That pattern has been seen historically many times. Because, as I said above, corruption is not a top-down phenomenon, it's a bottom-up one - if the government is corrupt, that's because the society as a whole is corrupt, and a change of government isn't going to change anything, it will be just someone else corrupt in power

I wholeheartedly disagree about government being corrupt because society is corrupt. I cannot disagree more and honestly I find that absurd.

Moving past that though, because I'm not even going to waste time, this notion that it is not wise for people to rise up and overthrow their government because something else just as bad COULD take it's place is irrelevant. How can people achieve change without fighting for it? They can't. So they can sit there silent and continue to be ruled by ruthless oppressive dictators for another 50 years or so, OR they can fight and at least try to make a change now. Obviously they are choosing the latter.

 

[ThaG]

And that revolution (the entire 1917 ordeal) ultimately led to the creation of the USSR, and you're going to tell me that it was all the people, no outside forces, elitists, etc?

One thing it definitely wasn't was the people. In fact, there was a lot of debating going on inside the party in the years before whether it is time for a revolution as the majority of people in Russia were illiterate peasants who had absolutely no idea about the ideas of Marx were, and according to those same theories, they were not ready for communism. Which it turned out, was exactly the case - most people never really got it until the very end of Soviet Union, even with all the compulsory classes in Marxist theory everyone had to take in school.

That said, it is a brutal distortion of the facts to portray communism as some sort of primal evil that was enforced against the will of people, that was not the case. In fact, a lot (probably the majority) of young intellectuals, poets, writers, etc., all of them full of dreams about a just world bought into the idea at the time, because it really sounds nice on paper. Those most definitely weren't thinkers who wanted to oppress others.

The problem is that revolutions are these great whirlpools that when they settle, leave the more psychopathic and paranoid characters such as Stalin on the surface, and that's how you end up with repressive totalitarian regimes like the USSR

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I don't think you got the argument. Which does not surprise me because people almost always react very strongly to it. Lynn White proposed a much softer version of it in the 1960s (note that I had come to that conclusion years before I heard anything about his article in Science) and got eaten alive by other academics, people who in general are supposed to be thinking and evaluating arguments rationally but reacted in quite a visceral way. Because in its core it is a direct attack against fundamental identity-forming ideas for most people, and they naturally react in a hostile way to it.

So explain it.

You basically just took a paragraph to say "Lynn White proposed a similar argument in the 60s and it was rejected" which is totally irrelevant to the validity of your argument that religion is at fault.

"That" passage in "that" book didn't write itself. The desire to pass our genes on to the next generation is evolutionarily derived and exists independent of any suggestion by religion.

If we could magically do away with religion humans would still be selfish, irrational, short term gratifying, liars, sexual opportunists looking to replicate themselves and control resources.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

One thing it definitely wasn't was the people.

So the Millions of workers were not the people?

In fact, there was a lot of debating going on inside the party in the years before whether it is time for a revolution as the majority of people in Russia were illiterate peasants who had absolutely no idea about the ideas of Marx were, and according to those same theories, they were not ready for communism.

Interesting that the Bolsheviks sold a daily newspaper the Pravda which at it's peak sold about 100,000, not to mention the Menshevik's had their own paper which sold around 15,000 at its peak and the various other papers as well. The workers regarded Pravda as their own newspaper; they had great confidence in it and were very responsive to its calls. Every copy was read by scores of readers, passing from hand to hand; it molded their class consciousness, educated them, organized them, and summoned them to the struggle. So I would disagree with your illiterate peasants comment.

 

[ThaG]

I wholeheartedly disagree about government being corrupt because society is corrupt. I cannot disagree more and honestly I find that absurd.

Moving past that though, because I'm not even going to waste time, this notion that it is not wise for people to rise up and overthrow their government because something else just as bad COULD take it's place is irrelevant. How can people achieve change without fighting for it? They can't. So they can sit there silent and continue to be ruled by ruthless oppressive dictators for another 50 years or so, OR they can fight and at least try to make a change now. Obviously they are choosing the latter.

That's because you have been raised in a society that is relatively not corrupt by world's standard - there is a lot of corruption going on in the US, but most of is on the higher levels and regular folks don't quite see it (I guess from the point of view of societal organization, it helps to have brainwashed the regular person into a robot-like state of submission).

I happen to have been raised in the kind of society that Libya is - I am not from Libya but I happen to know many people who have spent a lot of time so I have an idea how it is there, and I have an even better idea how it is where I am from. We are talking about the kind of situation where doctors aren't going to treat you if you don't bribe him, teachers in high school give excellent marks to totally illiterate students in exchange for money, university diplomas are bought, police refuses to deal with your case because they aren't in the mood to work, officers in the military sell ammunitions on the black market, etc, etc., it permeates all levels of society. Those aren't the people on top, those are the regular everyday folks and that kind of behavior is considered the norm. Well, in such a situation I don't see how anyone can have any basis for complaint against the government because the government is corrupt and I don't see how you can expect it to be anything else