By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
maximus22 on 21 February 2014
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
maximus22 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

The point being that the Egyptian opposition hasn't taken up those arms. If they had, it *would* be a civil war, which is no good for anyone.

The implication that the people should be fighting back with weapons in this case is misguided at best, because it only fuels the fire in high-tension situations like this, especially given that the people's weapons are never going to match the government's. It's merely a recipe for slaughter rather than some imagined noble rebellion, much like the pipe-dream of the American right that all those guns out there would make any sort of difference if they decided to revolt against the Feds.


That kind of thinking is the only thing that gives tyrannical governments any power whatsoever.  I guess no matter how many times the opposite is proven there will always be people like you thinking that the people are no match for their government, even when the people are as well armed as those of the U.S.  Even with the largest and most technologically advanced military on earth the U.S. would stand absolutely zero chance at quelling a rebellion if it happened.  Sheer numbers alone are far too overwhelming.  Add to that the fact that that well over half the population has access to a gun if needed and what you just said becomes laughable.  A complete joke and nothing more.

A complete joke indeed, but for the wannabe rebels. How would it stand "zero" chance, how is that opinion grounded in any reality outside of a militia-issued pamphlet or infowars.com?

Especially given that many tyrannical governments were overthrown through purely peaceful means, and those countries tend to be much better off than the ones where the government was overthrown through violent means. Compare Indonesia to, say, Libya. You don't need weapons to overthrow government tyranny, and you sure as hell don't make things better by trying.

The *only* exception really is cases like Rwanda, where the government had an express goal of killing a subset of the population, and even then it would have been better had the military intervention that stopped the Hutus been foreign, rather than the domestic, Tutsi-run RPF, which turned a horrific genocide into a still-troubling mass refugee crisis. Libya, too, it was unfortunately clear that Qaddafi was going for the full-on massacre, but that was already after the armed rebellion had gotten underway (they were losing, too, if other actual militaries had not gotten involved).

 

Okay first let me be clear; successful rebellions include peaceful ones.  Never once did I say that you need weapons to overthrow a governement or that violence is the only way to achieve a revolution so don't put words in my mouth.  Peaceful terms should always be pursued without exception (just so I'm on record) until it is no longer an option.  However, when a government answers protests with downright murder, such as the case here it seems, then isn't it better for these people to be armed themselves and have a chance to fight back rather than surrender or die?

I don't really want to take a trip through history  but that is the reality that my opinion is grounded in.  There are plenty examples of both violent and non-violent successful rebellions throughout history (revolutions of 1989, American revolution, Bolshevik revolution to name a few) do I really need to list them?