• Welcome to the Fable Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Fable series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Nonviolent Revolution in Egypt Succeeds

cheezMcNASTY

cheezMcNASTY

Edible in some countries
Premium
Jan 6, 2007
5,321
1,396
315
Underground
www.youtube.com
This happened but an hour ago. If you've been living under a rock, lately the Egyptian populace has been pushing to overthrow their president (who has military control) peacefully. It has drawn much attention because some are using it as a point to see if peaceful revolutions are possible for reforming much of the opressive and/or unfair governments in the Middle East.
Read story below:
Al Jazeera said:
Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, has resigned from his post, handing over power to the armed forces.
Omar Suleiman, the vice-president, announced in a televised address that the president was "waiving" his office, and had handed over authority to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
Suleiman's short statement was received with a roar of approval and by celebratory chanting and flag-waving from a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Cairo's Tahrir Square, as well by pro-democracy campaigners who attended protests across the country on Friday.
The top figure in Egypt's new regime is now Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the country's defence minister. After the announcement, he drove past Mubarak's former palace, where crowds cheered him. He stopped briefly to thank and hail the crowds before driving in.
In its third statement to the nation, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces said it was examining the situation "in order to materialise the aspirations of our great nation".
The statement said that "resolutions and statements regarding the ... actions to be followed" in order to achieve the demands of the people will be handed down later.
In the televised address, the spokesman also extended "greetings and appreciation" to Mubarak for his service to the country, and saluted the "marytrs and those who have fallen" during the protests.
'Dream come true'
The crowd in Tahrir responded to Suleiman's statement by chanting "We have brought down the regime", while many were seen crying, cheering and embracing one another.
Mohamed ElBaradei, an opposition leader, hailed the moment as being "a dream come true" while speaking to Al Jazeera.
"I can't tell you how every Egyptian feels today," he said. "We have been able to restore our humanity ... to be free and independent".
He reiterated that Egypt now needs to return to stability, and proposed that a transition government be put in place for the next year. The government, he said, would include figures from the army, from the opposition and from other circles.





"We need to go on ... our priority is to make sure the country is restored as a socially cohesive, economically vibrant and ... democratic country," he said.
Ayman Nour, another opposition figure and a former president, told Al Jazeera that he would consider running for the presidency if there was concensus on his candidacy. He called Friday "the greatest day in Egyptian history".
"This nation has been born again. These people have been born again, and this is a new Egypt."
"Tonight, after all of these weeks of frustration, of violence, of intimidation ... today the people of Egypt undoubtedly [feel they] have been heard, not only by the president, but by people all around the world," our correspondent at Tahrir Square reported, following the announcement.
Click to expand...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011211164636605699.html


I think this momentous event is so unbelievably significant. It won't be long before it is used in the stance that the US is way out of line, but it will also be used as a source of strength for all of the people who are unhappy with their current state of affairs. Honestly, I could not see this in a more positive light at present. My only worry is the repercussions of having the military in charge. For the immediate future, it is an improvement. It's just that there is history behind such a system evolving into fascism, so I hope they can find a suitable replacement and the military is handles its post with proper care.

It's also worth noting that though the previous president was a tyrant, I think he will be remembered in history a bit more fondly because he gave up his position of power when the unhappiness of the people was made clear. He was reluctant, but it's a great thing that he gave it up even though he had control of the military and could have silenced the protests if he had so wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: queenofdisco29, SelfAppointedGunslinger, The Rh Factor and 3 others
Fenrir said:
Because the protesters were attacked by "presidential supporters" who had weapons.
Click to expand...
How does that make it any less violent?

The student protests on tuition fees in London were hijacked and turned quite violent. Otherwise, they would have been completely peaceful. Same idea but on a smaller scale.
 
And what is amazing is that the spearhead of the whole thing that spurred on the whole revolt was a google executive complaining on facebook! The internet changed everything it was always special gruops influencing the masses now the playing field is flat and all the power lies in the individual.
 
Shirosaki said:
How does that make it any less violent?
Click to expand...
you march against a borderline tyrant and there will be blood. it was more the police than the actual military. if i were you i'd be more greatful that it didn't turn into another tiananmen square, 300 deaths is a slap on the wrist as far as revolutions go. there are many, many, many countries throughout both africa and the middle east who see this as a symbol of hope. the president stepping down from his seat of power of his own free will within the first month or two is a fairytale ending.

Shirosaki said:
The student protests on tuition fees in London were hijacked and turned quite violent. Otherwise, they would have been completely peaceful. Same idea but on a smaller scale.
Click to expand...
Egypt has been in a sorry state for a while under this government. your student tuition riots were from a politician who outright lied to you and probably had his political career ruined for life. the riots were turned violent by anarchists too, if i recall correctly.
Egypts revolution didn't succeed because of the violence. they succeeded because they demonstrated in sheer numbers of protestors that the government was not doing its job, and made it face all hell in political pressure from other countries. the protests weren't 'hijacked'. there were no anarchists looking to cause trouble for everybody. the two are no more related than 'lots of people gathering at place X because they don't like Y.' it's about as similar as the woodstock music festival of 1969.


......oh god....here..here he comes again.

View attachment 209
 
There are only two times in history power has been traded without violence. America republicans willingly gave power over office to democrats. Ghandi, did not fight but decided he would no longer play their game. The president was elected and enacted a state of emergency that lasted 30 years. He was going to appoint his heir and thats when egyptions had enough. The whole country stood up in union against the government. All government is decided by its governed, the egyptions tried and just had enough, they have enacted tremendous change. This whole story is just amazing to me. I stopped believing people could do something about their world. Egypt is a shining example of active citizenship.
 
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.

People always say that not a bullet was fired in the Cold War, and no one died. Quite a few people died, granted not in the 100s. A US spy plane was shot down over Cuba - the pilot died. There was thought to have been a coup de'tat in Russia where I'm sure some people died too.

I find it extremely simple. People died as a result of revolution -> Cannot be a non-violent revolution. Even though it may have been a lot better and peaceful than it could have easily potentially have been.

I also never described who hijacked the protests on the tuition fees. It was mainly anarchists who caused the violence, and with crowd mentality, it's lucky that it didn't turn into a full-scale riot. I never said that anarchists killed over 300 people in Egypt, which is what you make it sound like I said.

As for me personally being thankful that it didn't turn into a civil war in Egypt? It didn't affect me at all.

Clearly the Egyptian people would have gladly gone to war to fight for their freedom. Then what? The Egyptian military weren't happy with the situation either and so it's possible that they would have refused to fight or even joined the revolution themselves. The UN would then have become formally involved.
 
Shirosaki said:
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.

People always say that not a bullet was fired in the Cold War, and no one died. Quite a few people died, granted not in the 100s. A US spy plane was shot down over Cuba - the pilot died. There was thought to have been a coup de'tat in Russia where I'm sure some people died too.

I find it extremely simple. People died as a result of revolution -> Cannot be a non-violent revolution. Even though it may have been a lot better and peaceful than it could have easily potentially have been.

I also never described who hijacked the protests on the tuition fees. It was mainly anarchists who caused the violence, and with crowd mentality, it's lucky that it didn't turn into a full-scale riot. I never said that anarchists killed over 300 people in Egypt, which is what you make it sound like I said.

As for me personally being thankful that it didn't turn into a civil war in Egypt? It didn't affect me at all.

Clearly the Egyptian people would have gladly gone to war to fight for their freedom. Then what? The Egyptian military weren't happy with the situation either and so it's possible that they would have refused to fight or even joined the revolution themselves. The UN would then have become formally involved.
Click to expand...

So the thread title should be ''Egypt succeeds in revolution with relatively little violance, compared to other revolutions''? Meh, too long. If less than 0,003% of the people there died, I'm willing to call it pretty much nonviolent (even thought there WAS violent, yes), just because it's easier to say than ''There was little violance in comparance to the number of people that could have died, and taking other revolutions into consideration''.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tsuyu and Arseface
My mum's friend had to cancel her holiday because of this, hmm, I wonder if she'll go now?
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HobbeBrain
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom