What is the Power of Unity and Nonviolent Resistance?

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, the Egyptians have shown the world what is possible when good people unite in a just cause. They have many challenging days ahead, but already they, the people of Tunisia, and a fruit vendor who set himself on fire, have changed the world at light speed.
  • #71
In regards to Mubarak’s intellectual isolation, there was a joke circulating on the streets of Cairo that went something like this.

The Defense Minister, in a panic, ran into President Mubarak’s office exclaiming, “The citizens are marching in the streets and demanding that it’s time to go!" Perplexed by this, Mubarak responded, “Where are they going?”
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Ivan Seeking said:
“Where are they going?”

Lot's of irony in that story.
 
  • #73
Ivan Seeking said:
Perplexed by this, Mubarak responded, “Where are they going?”

I guess he never heard the old joke: the best way to be a successful political leader is find a bandwagon and get in front of it.
 
  • #74
AlephZero said:
I guess he never heard the old joke: the best way to be a successful political leader is find a bandwagon and get in front of it.

I believe the French have a similar joke: A French politician was standing on a street corner when a large crowd of people charged by. The politician demanded "Tell me where my people are going so that I can lead them!"
 
  • #75
Math Is Hard said:
Same here. You know what they say about the devil you don't know vs. the devil you do.

Gokul43201 said:
Such an argument could also be made about taking out Saddam and having the Iraqis pick their own leader. Or rescuing North Korea from the Kim dynasty. Or letting the Iranians stand up against Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.
Or the American colonies revolting against Great Britain.
And in general, such an argument demands that corruption and tyranny ought to never be acted upon, 'cause at least that's a devil you know. Either we accept that a democracy is a better thing than a dictatorship, no matter how pretty or unsavory the results turn out, or we stop all the BS about spreading freedom and democracy around the world.

We constantly elect devils we don't know to replace devils we do, in the US. Why shouldn't the Egyptians feel good about attempting the same?
Nice post Gokul.
 
  • #76
Ivan Seeking said:
As Paul Wolfowitz said tonight on Piers Morgan’s show: “If a regime is sufficiently brutal, this sort of People’s power isn’t possible.”
Yes, we are all http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4358045.stm" now. :-p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
Gokul43201 said:
Such an argument could also be made about taking out Saddam and having the Iraqis pick their own leader. Or rescuing North Korea from the Kim dynasty. Or letting the Iranians stand up against Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. And in general, such an argument demands that corruption and tyranny ought to never be acted upon, 'cause at least that's a devil you know. Either we accept that a democracy is a better thing than a dictatorship, no matter how pretty or unsavory the results turn out, or we stop all the BS about spreading freedom and democracy around the world.

We constantly elect devils we don't know to replace devils we do, in the US. Why shouldn't the Egyptians feel good about attempting the same?
Good point(s). Anyway, I'm wondering what exactly is going to be different in Egypt, for most of the people there, after the dust settles. My guess is, not much at all.
 
  • #78
mathwonk said:
My question is: what will motivate the army in Egypt to hold free elections, considering how much harder that seems to be than just to rule by force, after the people go home?
Force comes in many insidious guises. Ruling by overt, militaristic force carries with it a lot of baggage and an extremely large overhead, and it breeds unrest and eventually leads to armed revolution. My guess is that the Egyptian people, by and large an extemely impoverished lot, will be presented with the illusion of free elections. And then after the freely elected officials take office nothing much will change there. But the people will nevertheless be able to delude themselves into feeling good about having stood up to a dictator (after enduring that particular infringement on their liberties for about 30 years), and will continue to go about their daily activities much as they did during the time that the dictator was in power.
 
  • #79
mheslep said:
Yes, we are all http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4358045.stm" now. :-p

Yes, let's credit the neocons for something I had figured out by age twelve. :rolleyes:

In fact, that realization is as old as our country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
What we are all now, is a word that is probably not fit for this board, if Iran leverages this to extend their rule.
 
  • #81
Ivan Seeking said:
Yes, let's credit the neocons for something I had figured out by age twelve. :rolleyes:

In fact, that realization is as old as our country.
Neocons do get an awful lot of credit these days for centuries old concepts. How many posters here give them credit (or blame) for basic concepts of classical liberalism, as if they invented them? As if the thought never occurred to anyone to object to high taxes and government regulation until Fox News came along. :eek:
 
  • #82
Al68 said:
Neocons do get an awful lot of credit these days for centuries old concepts. How many posters here give them credit (or blame) for basic concepts of classical liberalism, as if they invented them? As if the thought never occurred to anyone to object to high taxes and government regulation until Fox News came along. :eek:

What I found most interesting was the response at CPAC. What happened to our great defenders of freedom and democracy? I guess the belief in freedom for all ends where we support tyrants.
http://www.hapblog.com/2011/02/rick-santorum-at-cpac-slams-obama-on.html
 
  • #83
Ivan Seeking said:
What I found most interesting was the response at CPAC. What happened to our great defenders of freedom and democracy? I guess the belief in freedom for all ends when we support tyrants.
http://www.hapblog.com/2011/02/rick-santorum-at-cpac-slams-obama-on.html

I really... REALLY... sincerely despise Santorum. CPAC should just be renamed:

Intellectual Pith-A-Thon! (IPAT)
Dopes Each Have a Speech (DEHS)
Sch****s on Parade Put***s on Demand (SPPD)
Trump's Sump Dump Day (TSDD)
Michelle Bachmen Who is She? (MBWS)
Collective Conservative Masturbation Seminar (CCMS)

I could go on forever. The hypocrisy and faux outrage was so thick it was nearly edible, and what passes for humor would make a tween cringe. I still can't get enough of Birthers... priceless deluded darlings, and the crowd reaction to, "Ron Paul can't get elected" was priceless.

Finally, Old Man Cheney comes out and delivers his brand of loving candor, "Go <blank> Yourselves!" *sniffle*... just like when 'ol pappy would get drunk.
 
  • #84
To my knowledge, the neocon wing has never claimed to be a defender of freedom or democracy (except briefly, during the Iraq invasion). I think they've made it fairly obvious that they will support a dictator, tyrant or genocidal regime if they perceive that as being in America's immediate interests.
 
  • #85
Gokul43201 said:
To my knowledge, the neocon wing has never claimed to be a defender of freedom or democracy (except briefly, during the Iraq invasion). I think they've made it fairly obvious that they will support a dictator, tyrant or genocidal regime if they perceive that as being in America's immediate interests.

Well, technically Reagan was a neocon, but, right or wrong, I adored Reagan because I believed he always stood on principle. In my view, he would be the first to defend those demanding freedom from oppression.
 
  • #86
Ivan Seeking said:
What I found most interesting was the response at CPAC. What happened to our great defenders of freedom and democracy? I guess the belief in freedom for all ends where we support tyrants.
http://www.hapblog.com/2011/02/rick-santorum-at-cpac-slams-obama-on.html

[STRIKE]Ivan, you need to listen to Rush more often.

I have two clock radio's that wake me up in the morning. One is tuned to the left, one is tuned to the right.

This morning, in that dreamy kind of, "Ok, I need to listen to the other side of the story" kind of, "I really don't understand where they are coming from", and "they sound quite insane, but there must be something going on in their heads that makes them try and communicate in such a manner".

I was not unsurprised to listen to Rush bash CPAC this morning.[/STRIKE]

Never mind.

I told myself I would go fishing this morning. And damn it, I'm going fishing.
 
  • #87
Ivan Seeking said:
Well, technically Reagan was a neocon, but, right or wrong, I adored Reagan because I believed he always stood on principle. In my view, he would be the first to defend those demanding freedom from oppression.

You adored REAGAN!? You can imagine the depth of my shock. I think you're right about his stands, but that also lead to the joys of the Contras, and selling weapons to Iran. Be afraid of the principled man, because he thinks that his ideals are worth more than lives.

To Reagan: Certainty: "Being mistaken at the top of one's voice." (Ambrose Bierce)

Gokul: In short, that would be the viral model; so short-sighted that in the midst of extreme amplification, the host dies.
 
  • #88
OmCheeto said:
[STRIKE]Ivan, you need to listen to Rush more often.

I have two clock radio's that wake me up in the morning. One is tuned to the left, one is tuned to the right.

This morning, in that dreamy kind of, "Ok, I need to listen to the other side of the story" kind of, "I really don't understand where they are coming from", and "they sound quite insane, but there must be something going on in their heads that makes them try and communicate in such a manner".

I was not unsurprised to listen to Rush bash CPAC this morning.[/STRIKE]

Never mind.

I told myself I would go fishing this morning. And damn it, I'm going fishing.

I like your radio setup. :biggrin:

I'm even more impressed by your decision to go fishing... someday I may be as wise as you... Ommmmm mani padme cheetoooo Oommmm...
 
  • #89
nismaratwork said:
You adored REAGAN!? You can imagine the depth of my shock. I think you're right about his stands, but that also lead to the joys of the Contras, and selling weapons to Iran. Be afraid of the principled man, because he thinks that his ideals are worth more than lives.

To Reagan: Certainty: "Being mistaken at the top of one's voice." (Ambrose Bierce)

Gokul: In short, that would be the viral model; so short-sighted that in the midst of extreme amplification, the host dies.

Heh, yes, I have a deep dark past. In fact, when my wife and I first got together, she was a lifelong dedicated Democrat, and I thought Reagan walked on water. We nearly split up over politics.

I was a die-hard patriot and a free-marketeer who believed in a strong defense, a hard line with the Soviets, a need to reduce the size of government, and a desperate need to reignite love of country. The sixties and early seventies were so full of anger... it felt good to feel good about our country, and Reagan knew how to make that happen. I had never known that feeling before. I was also religious, though not fanatically so...just your basic 70's Christian with a liberal [not fundamentalist of evangelical] view of things. So I could relate to Reagan on that level as well. Perhaps most siginficantly, I understood first hand the waste and fraud that was found in the California welfare system, so I was somewhat unsympathetic to the genuine need for some social programs. In short, I was a sure fit, and Reagan was a virtual father figure. Obviously I have seen the error of my ways, but I still feel a great fondness for Reagan.

But Reagan was a dedicated American in the truest sense - a lover of liberty for all, including non-Americans. He was genuine. No one will ever convince me otherwise.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
Ivan Seeking said:
Heh, yes, I have a deep dark past. In fact, when my wife and I first got together, she was a lifelong dedicated Democrat, and I thought Reagan walked on water. We nearly split up over politics.

I was a die-hard patriot and a free-marketeer who believed in a strong defense, a hard line with the Soviets, a need to reduce the size of government, and a desperate need to reignite love of country. The sixties and early seventies were so full of anger... it felt good to feel good about our country, and Reagan knew how to make that happen. I had never known that feeling before. I was also religious, though not fanatically so...just you're basic 70's Christian with a liberal [not fundamentalist of evangelical] view of things. So I could relate to Reagan on that level as well. Perhaps most siginficantly, I understood first hand the waste and fraud that was found in the California welfare system, so I was somewhat unsympathetic to the genuine need for some social programs. In short, I was a sure fit, and Reagan was a virtual father figure. Obviously I have seen the error of my ways, but I still feel a great fondness for Reagan.

That... actually explains it. I see nothing wrong with lingering affection, and your ability to openly reflect on your past is heartening. Thanks for the information, because, I have to admit, I was half out of my shoes in shock! :wink:
 
  • #91
Face Palm! I think there will be revolution in this family when the kid hits 7-8 and is humiliated.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/21/celebrate-revolution-egyptian-names-baby-girl-facebook/?test=latestnews
 
Last edited:
  • #92
Greg Bernhardt said:
Face Palm! I think there will be revolution in this family when the kid hits 7-8 and is humiliated.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/21/celebrate-revolution-egyptian-names-baby-girl-facebook/?test=latestnews

Maybe it's really lovely in the Arabic... :smile:

"Facebook bin Ali al Hajj"... nope, it's still weird. (and yes, I didn't even TRY to get the gender right)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
OmCheeto said:
[STRIKE]This morning, in that dreamy kind of, "Ok, I need to listen to the other side of the story"...[/STRIKE]
This is a particularly good point. Don't know why you struck it out.

I've always tried to understand the other side. I've read everything from Marx to that silly Air America book, and much in between. And now that I have Sirius radio, I listen to Sirius left routinely.

That Mike Malloy is hilariously (at first, before it becomes sad). I especially liked his heartfelt apology the other day for calling Republicans a bunch of corporate whores. (His apology was to prostitutes, not Republicans. :biggrin:)

The way I see it, if I don't understand the other side's position, I'm just not informed on the issue. It never ceases to amaze me how someone could have such strong political beliefs, while openly admitting that they don't understand the opposing position.
 
  • #94
OmCheeto said:
[STRIKE]Ivan, you need to listen to Rush more often.

I have two clock radio's that wake me up in the morning. One is tuned to the left, one is tuned to the right.

This morning, in that dreamy kind of, "Ok, I need to listen to the other side of the story" kind of, "I really don't understand where they are coming from", and "they sound quite insane, but there must be something going on in their heads that makes them try and communicate in such a manner".

I was not unsurprised to listen to Rush bash CPAC this morning.[/STRIKE]

Never mind.

I told myself I would go fishing this morning. And damn it, I'm going fishing.

How was the fishing, Om :smile:?
 
  • #95
Somewhere, it was brought up by evo about peaceful without guns revolution in Egypt:

Relevant to that, I found following article today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12522848
This article indicates that Sharp's methods were used in the Egyptian revolution:
For decades now, people living under authoritarian regimes have made a pilgrimage to Gene Sharp for advice. His writing has helped millions of people around the world achieve their freedom without violence. "As soon as you choose to fight with violence you're choosing to fight against your opponents best weapons and you have to be smarter than that," he insists.
* Develop a strategy for winning freedom and a vision of the society you want
* Overcome fear by small acts of resistance
* Use colours and symbols to demonstrate unity of resistance
* Learn from historical examples of the successes of non-violent movements
* Use non-violent "weapons"
* Identify the dictatorship's pillars of support and develop a strategy for undermining each
* Use oppressive or brutal acts by the regime as a recruiting tool for your movement
* Isolate or remove from the movement people who use or advocate violence

For further interest, refer to:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Sharp, Gene
 
Last edited:
  • #97
lisab said:
How was the fishing, Om :smile:?

It was too cold in the morning. Then, like a typical oldster, I fell asleep in my lay-z-boy around two, and didn't wake up until after the sun went down.

Hey! Does baby Facebook have a Facebook page yet? I want to be her friend. :smile:



pfbabyfacebook2011022148739.jpg
 
  • #98
OmCheeto said:
It was too cold in the morning. Then, like a typical oldster, I fell asleep in my lay-z-boy around two, and didn't wake up until after the sun went down.

Hey! Does baby Facebook have a Facebook page yet? I want to be her friend. :smile:



pfbabyfacebook2011022148739.jpg

Oooooh! What a sweet baby :!)!
 
  • #99
By the way, the only reason egyptians achieved victory in a somewhat peaceful way is because the Egyptian Armed Forces weren't against the people. In Bahrain or Lybia the situation is very different.
 
  • #100
CheckMate said:
By the way, the only reason egyptians achieved victory in a somewhat peaceful way is because the Egyptian Armed Forces weren't against the people. In Bahrain or Lybia the situation is very different.

True... I think that's quite obvious by now. :frown:

Then again... Benghazi shows that Libya is not monolithic, so more differences.

Libya is Tribal, Egypt has a conscript army, and Bahrain is majority Shiite. VERY different in each case.

Egypt and Bahrain do care what others think... Libya does not... and I don't believe that Iran gives a damn either. Bahrain however has to be concerned about annexation by Saudi Arabia.
 
  • #101
Greg Bernhardt said:
Face Palm! I think there will be revolution in this family when the kid hits 7-8 and is humiliated.

Oh, come on. Corny? Yes. But heartwarming. Hopefully, they gave it another name or two which can be used later. My ex and I couldn't agree on a name for the life of us, and on day two in the hospital, hours before our release, having worked our way through to yet another letter of the alphabet of the birthing unit's "book of names," I stared at a name that literally lept off the page. I said it out loud, and that was it.

We still gave him two middle names, one her first choice, one mine, just in case... :)
 
  • #102
Hmmm, I guess, "facebook" is better than "Moon-Unit" or "Dweezle". :-p
 
  • #103
nismaratwork said:
Hmmm, I guess, "facebook" is better than "Moon-Unit" or "Dweezle". :-p

They were lucky! Their father’s name could have been Sheik Yerbouti!

Sheik_Yerbouti.jpe


:rolleyes:
 
  • #104
Ivan Seeking said:
But Reagan was a dedicated American in the truest sense - a lover of liberty for all, including non-Americans.

But that only works if you’re fit as a fiddle, right...? :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

... sometimes times they are not a-changin' ...

:wink:
 
  • #105
DevilsAvocado said:
But that only works if you’re fit as a fiddle, right...? :rolleyes:

exactly. fitness is a sign of righteousness. an outward sign of an inward reality.
 

Similar threads

Replies
38
Views
6K
Replies
235
Views
21K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
15
Views
15K
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Back
Top