Thinking 'allowed'

So much stares us unremittingly in the face, on a daily basis, so that our thoughts seem spoken aloud even when not heard.

Would it be fair to assume that current events may head towards little other than more bloodshed?

Is this to to anyone's advantage? 

Can the nation be pulled out of despair?                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0714IbwC3HA

What are the options? 

Which demands are reasonable and how to go about achieving the first rung to reform? 

All are questions that need to be answered and preferably before pursuing the same strategies over and over again achieving only more and more instability and confusion; before walls close in tighter and tighter on an ever-elusive abstract wave of freedom.

Although effectually early days, a general concensus points to the following:

(a) Those who demand that empowerment be handed over to the people would appear to have only noble aspirations at heart even if their aims are tentatively criticised for being somewhat unrealistic.

(b) There is little planning involved and lines between many political parties are hazily defined if at all so that in a nation where dramatic change is taking place, clarity so desperately sought is despairingly absent.

Before even beginning to find direction, here are some simplified aspects to take into consideration.

FACT: Rightly or wrongly, Scaf has no intention of relinquishing total control.

Consequence: The people will not have a free hand, Power will not be attributed to or ultimately withheld from any elected member or party unless accompanied by a nod or a shake from SCAF.

FACT: Whether fact or misconception, the military is expected to serve the people rather than rule them and yet it has seemingly adopted the role of defending itself instead. Unlike certain parties involved most activists do not wish to contemplate compromise of any kind.

Consequence: More innocent blood will be shed.
FACT: Many, Americans included, laypeople or otherwise, believe USA foreign policies in the Middle East are not so much bystanding clauses as they are integral to the struggle which is taking place and dividing inner Egypt today.

Consequence: Unless the USA is seen to review and amend such policies the chance of any reconciliation between Egyptian activists and the militia appears slim.

FACT: Protesters are seen as either heroes or anarchic rebels in Egypt today.

Consequence: Ordinary citizens who are not politically orientated feel threatened whichever way they turn.

FACT: The nation is ripped, divided and torn.

Unrest prevails. Anxiety escalates. Planning is seen as conspiracy. Lack of planning is seen as idiocy. In short,  a stalemate situation is on the horizon if not recognised as yet.

Consequence follows fact in its footsteps.

             Going back to April's 2011 post, in the early days of the revolution:

It would be rational to assume the army is always either overtly or covertly dictated to. Its funding is crucial. The military will naturally obey step by step whatever is advocated and outlined, whatever the circumstances. If a military force has backed up a certain regime it is unlikely to be dispersed or weakened when the regime crumbles. Soldiers are specifically trained to do as they are told and not to think for themselves. 

The paramount objective for the army is to preserve its basic skeletal strength. That is its duty. 

                                      But most significantly: Whoever funds has puppet control.    

Recent interactions between militia  and protesters point indisputably towards the above.

In light of all the tragic events that shroud the revolution today, is it time to review the situation and do whatever it takes to find an inkling of reconciliation amongst the people, the militia and the powers that be?
A December 2011 article highlights clashing loyalties and confused expectations:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/28/egyptian-military-officers-diary

Is it possible to achieve this without diminishing necessary accountability for the blood and injury of  individuals who have done no more than aspire for reform?
Failing that, will we evaluate life 'spent' through lack of recognition or rather cherish the memory of those gone with an increasinlgy enlightened approach, both challenging and persevering in order to allow a democracy to transpire?

Answers do not stare us in the face. They are oblique at best. Only one thing is clear: 
Without cooperation, without distasteful compromise, without proper focus, no rooted outcome is likely to transpire; only more encounters with hazardous seas and clashing tides. Time to reassess and persevere, whilst continuing to challenge the bowers of autocratic rule with even more determination. The route towards democracy may as yet be out of reach but when visible on the horizon, achievable only if kept in sight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8jrd5UYNFs&feature=fvst

And for the overriding purpose of this blog, for morale and nothing other than morale:
Although there may be no guarantees nor highlighted terms, every ounce of integrity and resolve could prove crucial, every thought may have consequence, every constructive building block may have potential. May hope be realised.

And here added from AlJazeera find insightful points of view candidly and directly expressed, upholding so many inclinations many can only sense to be the truth. Thoughts aloud shared indeed and clothed here in this lucid interview: 
 Egypt: Tariq Ramadan & Slavoj Zizek
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/rizkhan/2011/02/2011238843342531.html


cg:amiraT