Egyptian Government Removes Internet Access

[flareback]

This revoultion isn't anything new people in Egypt have hated there government for a long time it's just with the recent overthrow of the Libya government it has destabilized the region.

I think they were inspired by Tunisia, not Libya.

 

Sad how this didn't seem to get any press coverage until they did the unthinkable and cut off internet access.

[fire_storm]

I think they were inspired by Tunisia, not Libya.

 

Ya your right forgot the exact name but I knew one of those countries over there got there government overthrown which started all this.

Edited January 28, 2011 by fire_storm

[El_Capitan]

Not that I'm against guns or the 2nd amendment or anything but I could never see the logic in the whole own guns to prevent excessive government control arguments as that valid anymore I could see the point of the idea back in the 1700's when the constitution was written considering the type of society and the fact that guns were all pretty much the same so it could make a difference in overthrowing a government. But in today's term's the chances that low powered guns that civilians can access could stand up against high powered rifles, tanks, aircraft, ships and other advance weapons that civilians typically don't have access to the chances are slim they'd really be able to do anything about it besides just make some noise.

Because anyone in the government that's trying to become a dictator can't always have tanks, jets, and what-have-you with him/her at all times. You can only spread your army so far. Yes, a militia might not be able to overtake the Capitol, but it can severely limit your authority in many areas at once. A militia is all that the Taliban is, but they're now also being funded and given more than just guns. Anyways, let's talk Egypt.

 

Who wants to walk like an Egyptian?

[TheHippi]

Who wants to walk like an Egyptian?

Just because they don't have internet doesn't mean it's okay to make fun of them, you know.

[bp9801]

The country will more than likely go through a revolution or coup d'etat so I don't think having the Internet shut off is the least of their worries. Who gives a . if someone can't go online in Egypt, the country is in political upheaval.

[SpeedCrazy]

Not that I'm against guns or the 2nd amendment or anything but I could never see the logic in the whole own guns to prevent excessive government control arguments as that valid anymore I could see the point of the idea back in the 1700's when the constitution was written considering the type of society and the fact that guns were all pretty much the same so it could make a difference in overthrowing a government. But in today's term's the chances that low powered guns that civilians can access could stand up against high powered rifles, tanks, aircraft, ships and other advance weapons that civilians typically don't have access to the chances are slim they'd really be able to do anything about it besides just make some noise.

Do some research.

Point 1: Civiallians can outgun the us army regular.

Watch this. Military Rifle(not us military rifle) vs hunting rifle impact devastation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw

A military issue M16 fires 5.56 x 45 mm NATO rounds, the AK 47 (in video) fires 7.62 x 39 mm NATO rounds, the M16 therefore is even less powerful. An acurate hunter can take down a bear with their .300, using a NATO round you would literaly have to fill the bear with lead before it would notice.

 

Point 2: Civilians would have the advantage.

Most hunters have advanced camo setups, know there land well and have weaponary that that they work well with, the soldier even if an outdoors-man himself will have to use regulation equipment and almost certainly will never have seen his battlefield before.

 

Point 3: Lots of people are scared to death of "Machine guns" 1. They are heavy and not maneuverable, they have to be dissasembled to be moved. Yes they are scary, but in guerrilla combat(the most common revolutionary combat form) they are mainly ineffective. Sub-machine guns, or selective fire assault rifles ineffective in full auto. A soldier cannot carry enough ammunition to make effective automatic fire, it is mainly used for covering fire. So the most effective is semi-automatic. This is widely available to civilians. Also there are mods to make semis full auto and illegal full autos are in the hands of civilians.

 

The area were civilians would be less effective are aerial combat and maritime combat. But you have to remember, soldiers will suffer under dictators or other overly authoritative governments too. Lots will also have familys suffering too, this makes them either less willing to enforce the governments wishes or flatout refuse them. Now not all soldiers will fall to these physiological dilemmas, but it may affect large numbers of them. And when they dessert they may if possible take government equipment with them, their rifle, a backpack of ammo, medical supplies, a pilot his airplane.

 

Point 4 Supplies:

Who makes ammo? Who Processes fuel? Who harvest and processes food? Civilians! They can cut off most of the armys supply if they so chose.

 

So a civilian uprising can be very effective. That is why this country exists.

Sorry if my thoughts are not all cohesive, im very tired but please take a minute to stop and think through what you believe.

[That_Canadian]

Really?

 

Have you paid no attention to the riots/demonstrations/protests occurring throughout the Middle Eastern area?

 

 

It was 3 am, and just as I got the news. Dont worry, Ive been through tonnes of media today and am now well read.

Some unique footage they have there, also some unique perspectives on the television.

[fire_storm]

Do some research.

Point 1: Civiallians can outgun the us army regular.

Watch this. Military Rifle(not us military rifle) vs hunting rifle impact devastation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw

A military issue M16 fires 5.56 x 45 mm NATO rounds, the AK 47 (in video) fires 7.62 x 39 mm NATO rounds, the M16 therefore is even less powerful. An acurate hunter can take down a bear with their .300, using a NATO round you would literaly have to fill the bear with lead before it would notice.

 

Point 2: Civilians would have the advantage.

Most hunters have advanced camo setups, know there land well and have weaponary that that they work well with, the soldier even if an outdoors-man himself will have to use regulation equipment and almost certainly will never have seen his battlefield before.

 

Point 3: Lots of people are scared to death of "Machine guns" 1. They are heavy and not maneuverable, they have to be dissasembled to be moved. Yes they are scary, but in guerrilla combat(the most common revolutionary combat form) they are mainly ineffective. Sub-machine guns, or selective fire assault rifles ineffective in full auto. A soldier cannot carry enough ammunition to make effective automatic fire, it is mainly used for covering fire. So the most effective is semi-automatic. This is widely available to civilians. Also there are mods to make semis full auto and illegal full autos are in the hands of civilians.

 

The area were civilians would be less effective are aerial combat and maritime combat. But you have to remember, soldiers will suffer under dictators or other overly authoritative governments too. Lots will also have familys suffering too, this makes them either less willing to enforce the governments wishes or flatout refuse them. Now not all soldiers will fall to these physiological dilemmas, but it may affect large numbers of them. And when they dessert they may if possible take government equipment with them, their rifle, a backpack of ammo, medical supplies, a pilot his airplane.

 

Point 4 Supplies:

Who makes ammo? Who Processes fuel? Who harvest and processes food? Civilians! They can cut off most of the armys supply if they so chose.

 

So a civilian uprising can be very effective. That is why this country exists.

Sorry if my thoughts are not all cohesive, im very tired but please take a minute to stop and think through what you believe.

 

The way I looking at an oppressive government take over is it would take decades perhaps generations of slowing eroding away the people's rights while creating lots of propaganda to ease people's minds into it so the majority accept it for one reason or another and by the time someone says it's time for a revolution there be no means to make one because the majority of people's minds have been discouraged and accepted the way things are and means to do it have slowly been taken away from them. Not saying these are necessarily bad things but just look at the past 10 years and all the power our government has gained with the patriot act warrantless wiretaps, key word filters listening for people to say things like bomb or terrorism on the phone or in an email very invasive security screenings in airports. All these things were controversial when they were implemented but as time went on the people learned to accept them or just accept that reduced rights and freedoms are just part life.

 

Your idea might work if an oppressive leader were to walk into power tomorrow and started to do crazy things but if someone so radical ever went into office I doubt anyone would listen to him and he be thrown out before any amount of significant change could happen but I'd think a modern dictator or oppressive organization would realize this so they would probably do it in a way I described above.

Edited January 29, 2011 by fire_storm

[IVIYTH0S]

Wow to all that, I hope that the Egyptian people succeed. I can't stand dictatorships with bad leaders