As everyone probably knows by now, people's movements have deposed the former governments in Tunisia and Egypt, all by the power of the people, as it were. It seems that a domino effect has been set into motion, as there are now movements in Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Iran (again). In these movements, however, the presiding government has not been reluctant to display its force.
In Bahrain, for example, 20,000 peaceful protesters were beaten by police indiscriminately on the order of the government. Women and children, doctors, and innocent people in general were chased down and beaten by government forces.
In Iran, peaceful marches were dispersed immediately by the Revolutionary Guard in an apparent act of hypocrisy by the Ayatollah who praised the Egyptian people for their work in Egypt (just for clarification: the Ayatollah claimed that the movement was largely Shiite, which Iran predominantly is).
So, is a people's democratic movement possible in these countries where there is no reluctance to use force on their people? It seems that the movements in these countries may take to two extremes (if they continue): 1. The people become indefatigable and relentless in their pursuit of revolution, but the government continues to beat them mercilessly; eventually, either the people end their movement or the police decide to cease their atrocities and side with the people; 2. The police forces become increasingly more violent, leading to a violent rebuke by the people in an effort to secure a revolution by guerrilla warfare. The success of this depends largely on the dedication of the people.
What is occurring now is truly an astonishing show of embracing the concept of a government without a monarch. That being said, I do concede that there have been benevolent dictators, but the overwhelming majority have been thieves, scoundrels, selfish, greedy, etc. For example, the Mubarak family took advantage of the Egyptian economy to make millions of dollars off of the private sector (Gamal Mubarak, mostly).
I think that this movement has more strength than the Iranian Green Movement did after the contested elections. I think that the youth in these countries can actually achieve their goals. They're motivated, they're connected, and they have concrete plans. Here's hoping that the youth can change the world.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. You should check this out. It's quite intense.
Showing posts with label egypt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label egypt. Show all posts
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Well, I've Been Afraid of Changes...
Sorry it's been a while, but I've been busy with Model UN stuff and other stuff, on top of some other car stuff and sleeping.
It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.
And now, to catch up on school work.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here for free stuff!
It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.
And now, to catch up on school work.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here for free stuff!
Monday, May 31, 2010
Paranoia and Confusion
A flotilla of ships carrying approximately 600 Palestinian activists and aid to Gaza was attacked by the Israeli Navy. The point of the flotilla was to raise awareness of the Israeli blockade of Gaza, started in 2007 because of Hamas' takeover of Gaza and which has caused a humanitarian crisis (as described by the UN) in the Palestinian region. 9 activists were killed. The exact details of the confrontation are not so clear.
The Israeli government claims that soldiers that rappelled down from helicopters were immediately attacked by the Muslim activists and had their guns stolen. It is on that basis that Israel claims that the activists shot first, incurring an Israeli response in kind. Several Israeli soldiers were injured, along with dozens of activists.
The activists on board claimed that the soldiers began firing immediately as they rappelled from the helicopters, ensuring an aggressive response from the activists. There is also a claim that the Israelis fired on the main ship before boarding it, wounding the captain.
Unfortunately, this is a serious incident which should be investigated by an independent party, or even several independent parties rather than the Israeli state. What is especially of concern is that the ships were boarded in international waters, so there is seemingly no reason that Israel should have boarded the ships in the first place. There were no ammunition weapons found on any of the ships, only small things like slingshots and switchblades. What kind of provocation a small, unarmed flotilla could invoke in this situation is beyond me.
The questions that need to be answered in this muddled situation are such:
1. Why did the Israeli navy attack the flotilla in international waters, and who gave such an order and for what reason?
2. Who actually shot first?
3. As Israel has allowed ships to pass through before, why not allow a peaceful delegation of activists with essential supplies through?
4. For what reason, if any, did the Israeli navy feel under pressure to act?
5. Did any of the activists actually take the soldiers' weapons and begin firing?
6. Were the activists provoked into action, or were the soldiers?
This is something that does not bode well for Israel at all, as this denigrates their international image to that of an evil dictator of the Middle East region.
I'd actually like some feedback on this one, as the repercussions of this event will be widespread and fierce.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
The Israeli government claims that soldiers that rappelled down from helicopters were immediately attacked by the Muslim activists and had their guns stolen. It is on that basis that Israel claims that the activists shot first, incurring an Israeli response in kind. Several Israeli soldiers were injured, along with dozens of activists.
The activists on board claimed that the soldiers began firing immediately as they rappelled from the helicopters, ensuring an aggressive response from the activists. There is also a claim that the Israelis fired on the main ship before boarding it, wounding the captain.
Unfortunately, this is a serious incident which should be investigated by an independent party, or even several independent parties rather than the Israeli state. What is especially of concern is that the ships were boarded in international waters, so there is seemingly no reason that Israel should have boarded the ships in the first place. There were no ammunition weapons found on any of the ships, only small things like slingshots and switchblades. What kind of provocation a small, unarmed flotilla could invoke in this situation is beyond me.
The questions that need to be answered in this muddled situation are such:
1. Why did the Israeli navy attack the flotilla in international waters, and who gave such an order and for what reason?
2. Who actually shot first?
3. As Israel has allowed ships to pass through before, why not allow a peaceful delegation of activists with essential supplies through?
4. For what reason, if any, did the Israeli navy feel under pressure to act?
5. Did any of the activists actually take the soldiers' weapons and begin firing?
6. Were the activists provoked into action, or were the soldiers?
This is something that does not bode well for Israel at all, as this denigrates their international image to that of an evil dictator of the Middle East region.
I'd actually like some feedback on this one, as the repercussions of this event will be widespread and fierce.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Das Religio!
Just a note:
I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:
Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.
Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.
There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?
Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.
There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.
One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.
addendum (after viewing several comments):
There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?
One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.
Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?
The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.
Das Flüg
I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:
Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.
Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.
There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?
Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.
There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.
One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.
addendum (after viewing several comments):
There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?
One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.
Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?
The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)