Nonviolent Revolution in Egypt Succeeds

[D3m190d]

The thread could've just been called "Mubarak Steps Down" or "Egyptian Revolution Succeeds." It's actually already longer than it needs to be if you're going to snipe.

What if the people who died were your friends or relatives? Would that translate into the revolution being violent for you? Or is it just numbers to you? "My girlfriend died in the Egyptian Revolution, but it's okay cause she was one of '0.003%' of the population".

Amazes me how much people overlook things in context. Also, 300 people isn't even 0.003% of the world's population, let alone Egypt.

I didn'' say it was 'okay', if only '0.003%' died. I already find it terribel that people died. Also, 300/100000 = 0.003%. But there were a few hundredS of thousands of people, so the amount of people was less than 0.003%; that is what I said. And I know, I admit it- also to Arseface- there was violence. It's true, and the revolution wasn't completely peaceful. It's just that -apparently, from what has been said- in most revolutions it would be LOTS of violence, with the number of deaths being much higher. In comparance this is more 'non-violent'.
But yeah, I also agree that the thread could have been called something else, avoiding this completely useless discussion altogether. =|
Facts:
-The number of deaths are far less then in most revolutions.
-The revolution wasn't completely non-violent.
-It would have been easier to call the thread something else.
-This discussion is useless and I myself should stop participating in it, right here.
-Hobbe can't jizz.

 

[HobbeBrain]

I remember when things first got bad over there, they were interviewing American tourists on the news, and they said the worst thing was that the internet wasn't working in their hotel.

Who is this Mubarak guy anyway.

-Hobbe can't jizz.

¬_¬

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

Like arseface said, borderline civil war isn't non-violent. I'm commenting on the thread title. And even if 1 person got injured, let alone killed as a direct outcome of the revolution, it was technically not completely "non-violent." So when over 300 people die, you can't write them off as nothing.

oh, sorry i guess i misunderstood. i didn't realize you guys were just nitpicking my choice of words in the thread title.

 

[Shirosaki]

oh, sorry i guess i misunderstood. i didn't realize you guys were just nitpicking my choice of words in the thread title.

The title reflects what you think happened. You must have thought that no violence had occurred or you wouldn't have put it. Since most of your original post was a quote, I didn't see it necessary to quote "overthrow their president (who has military control) peacefully."

I was actually commenting on what you thought happened, via the thread title.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

The title reflects what you think happened. You must have thought that no violence had occurred or you wouldn't have put it. Since most of your original post was a quote, I didn't see it necessary to quote "overthrow their president (who has military control) peacefully."

I was actually commenting on what you thought happened, via the thread title.

not in the slightest. i felt that as far as revolutions go, this one was relatively nonviolent, and was resolved without the use of force (aka the president did not have a protestor's gun pointed at his head when he resigned): hence nonviolent. the conclusion that i don't think anyone died in this revolution is utterly false and generalized.

oh yeah, and to whoever mentioned ghandi, that protest went even more sour. it took a pretty sizable number of indian casualties before the British realized that firing on civilians made them look bad. in fact, it's debatable that Egypt was more peaceful than the Quit India Movement in terms of casualties.

What if the people who died were your friends or relatives? Would that translate into the revolution being violent for you? Or is it just numbers to you? "My girlfriend died in the Egyptian Revolution, but it's okay cause she was one of '0.003%' of the population".

Amazes me how much people overlook things in context. Also, 300 people isn't even 0.003% of the world's population, let alone Egypt.

i can't say i'm a huge fan of your approach to this. i've already pointed out why i used the words i did. you've been concluding that because i referred to the protest as non-violent, i don't value life.
honestly, quit the straw man arguments. you can't make my point less valid by hiding behind human sentiment. numbers, statistics, facts, are all far more relevant.

it is not "just a number", it's an enormously significant number. no matter how bad it is that the number is above zero, the ratio from this number to the corresponding number of the revolutions in other countries and time periods is an enormous gap. if you were to compare this to many, many others... you know what, forget it. i quit. this is why you can't talk politics with idealists. show them a flying car and they'll complain that it isn't environmentally friendly.

 

[Shirosaki]

I'm not an idealist by any stretch of the imagination, I'm a realist. And you're not talking politics, you're giving your own opinion.

My point is that you said the revolution was non-violent and peaceful. By definition, you're wrong. There isn't a spectrum for revolutions and to put the violence of a revolution on a spectrum would be completely repugnant.

The atmosphere of how the news was reported made it out to be peaceful, but it wasn't in reality. Just because there was no official M v Public or acts of civil war, doesn't mean that violence did not occur.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

My point is that you said the revolution was non-violent and peaceful. By definition, you're wrong. There isn't a spectrum for revolutions and to put the violence of a revolution on a spectrum would be completely repugnant.

i've stated twice now why i used the words i did and i still feel that its use was justified i don't know what else you want from me.
if numbers exist they can be plotted, it's not even worth arguing that there's a spectrum, of course there is. sorry if it disgusts you.

The atmosphere of how the news was reported made it out to be peaceful, but it wasn't in reality. Just because there was no official M v Public or acts of civil war, doesn't mean that violence did not occur.

.....i don't recall bringing the atmosphere of the news into this a single time. hang the atmosphere they portrayed, that has nothing to do with any of what you or i have said.

Let's agree to disagree.

if you say so.

 

[Skotekal]

I don't know much of the situation at all in Egypt, all I think I know is that those protesting didn't use violence towards their cause, and that's why I would call it non-violent.

That is just how I think. Just throwing my two cents in here.

 

[Arseface]

I don't know much of the situation at all in Egypt, all I think I know is that those protesting didn't use violence towards their cause, and that's why I would call it non-violent.

That is just how I think. Just throwing my two cents in here.

There was open fighting in the streets of Cairo.

 

[Skotekal]

There was open fighting in the streets of Cairo.

Alright, proven wrong. :lol:

 

[Angel]

No TV, don't follow the news. So yeah - living under a rock over here

BTW - people should watch the Gandhi film, if they haven't already.