A girl wears a Syrian flag painted on her face during a demonstration against the government of Syria - From Al Jazeera's May 10th Syria live blog. May the universe protect her and all who struggle for freedom in our world.

Apparently someone else came up with a game called Save The Whale! about eco-warriors vs. whalers.

Both games are free and look fun to play and educational as well.

Robert Fisk reported that on January 30th Mubarak ordered the military to attack the demonstrators in Tahrir Square, but the officers refused:

Last night, a military officer guarding the tens of thousands celebrating in Cairo threw down his rifle and joined the demonstrators, yet another sign of the ordinary Egyptian soldier's growing sympathy for the democracy demonstrators. We had witnessed many similar sentiments from the army over the past two weeks. But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters.

Many of the senior tank commanders could be seen tearing off their headsets – over which they had received the fatal orders – to use their mobile phones. They were, it now transpires, calling their own military families for advice. Fathers who had spent their lives serving the Egyptian army told their sons to disobey, that they must never kill their own people.

Thus when General Hassan al-Rawani told the massive crowds yesterday evening that "everything you want will be realised – all your demands will be met", the people cried back: "The army and the people stand together – the army and the people are united. The army and the people belong to one hand."

While Paul Amar wrote that during the February 4th attacks on democracy demonstrators by pro-Mubarak supporters (likely paid thugs, police in plain clothes, government employees and even convicts freed on the condition that they attack the demonstrators), were not widely prevented by the military because they did not have ammunition:

The army’s role in countering Suleiman’s lust for repression was crucial to saving the momentum of this uprising. On 4 February, the day of the most terrifying police/thug brutality in Tahrir Square, many commentators noted that the military were trying to stop the thug attacks but were not being very forceful or aggressive. Was this a sign that the military really wanted the protesters to be crushed? Since then, we have learned that the military in the square were not provisioned with bullets. The military were trying as best they could to battle the police/thugs, but Suleiman had taken away their bullets for fear the military would side with the protesters and use the ammunition to overthrow him.

That the military was unwilling to attack the demonstrators on January 30th, certainly lends support to the notion that their ammunition was take away from them before February 4th, and highlights the usefulness of nonviolent tactics in undermining the support given to the regime by the military and other groups in and outside of a government.

Certainly in the Tunisian revolution, Anonymous seems to have had a hand in helping to take down government servers.  Certainly, if they were able to hack the computers and phone system of the presidency and make it difficult communicate with others then that would have contributed to Ben Ali's ouster.  Certainly, the internet can allow local nonviolent activists to work together and abroad to plan their efforts and craft fliers to distribute about goals and tactics.

Different articles have downplayed the effects of the internet and social media on the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and else where, but one of the keys to a successful nonviolent revolution is that large numbers of people must not fear government repression and realize that others do not fear such repression as well.  By increasing communication between people, the internet and social media help that process.  Hopefully these tools will get used to help overthrow authoritarian governments in the Middle East and beyond.

According to Voice of America, the government crackdown has begun with the shooting of a Thai general who is supportive of the Red-Shirts in their encampment.

Other reporting: Christian Science Monitor, BBC, Times, Al Jazeera, New York Times.  I would have included the Bangkok Post, but I couldn't get to their articles for some unknown reason.

There seems to be a group called the Multi-Colored Shirts who are opposing the Red Shirts, though other sources refer to them as Yellow Shirts, the group that used nonviolence to overthrow the previous government, and wants to limit who can actually be in parliament.

The Red Shirts had fortified their positions in Bangkok and halted army forces from entering Bangkok (New York Times though "thailand protest train" gets 405 hits in news.google.com):

... antigovernment demonstrators in the northeast stopped a train carrying military vehicles, underlining the impunity of the protest movement and the government’s weakening control of the populous hinterland.

While the Guardian wrote that army soldiers may not be reliable:

However, there has been speculation that the army is reluctant to move against the protesters again after a failed attempt to clear them from the streets a week ago. The army chief, Anupong Paochinda, has said an election is the only solution to Thailand's political crisis.

Many soldiers, particularly in the lower ranks, are openly supportive of the red shirts' cause. Protesters have nicknamed them "watermelon soldiers", for their green uniforms on the outside and red sympathies within.

Looks like the Red Shirts are undermining the support of the government.

• First in Nonviolence Conferences Series Set for Ramallah and Tel Aviv April 14-15 as Part of Global Vision for MLK III, Realizing the Dream Program
• Palestinians Try a Less Violent Path to Resistance (NY Times 04/07/2010)
• The Palestinians’ Use of Nonviolence (Letter to the Editor in Response to the NY Times article
• Palestinians and Israelis call for nonviolent people power to end occupation (a call by Palestinian and Israeli Communists)

Unfortunately for all, twenty one people have died including four soldiers and eight hundred have been injured when the military attempted to remove protesters from the area they are occupying.

According to the BBC, the head of the army has called for the government to be dissolved and expressed his reluctance to use force.  In a replay of what happened in January of 2009, the Election Commission has decided that the prime minister's Democratic Party should be dissolved due because they failed to declare an $8 million donation from a company during the 2005 election.  The case will be referred to the Constitutional Court as in early 2009.  The UDD brought the case.

The current government may fall soon since it no longer seems to have the support of the military.

Pictures:

• The Big Picture
• Global News (I take their descriptions with a grain of salt, but it is great to see the action on the ground.)

Drop me a note about your interests and I will try to oblige.

Recently, many protesters gave a little bit of their blood so that they could pelt government buildings with bags of the blood.  The news reports I have heard indicate that the protesters are sending a message that they are willing to shed blood in violent opposition to the current government. An alternative interpretation could be that they are showing that they are willing to withstand violent attacks by the government nonviolently.  Not being there or knowing Thai, it is hard to discern the truth.

The military at least does not appear to be attempting to escalate their own violence, but is hoping the protesters tire and leave.

A regime that tortures merits resistance.

True of Iran, the US and many countries.

Boing Boing reported that an hour long video satire of Chinese government censorship, called War of Internet Addiction, has had 10 million views by Chinese netizens.  It was filmed entirely in World of Warcraft.

You can find commentary at DigiCha and YouKu Buzz. 

The original video is at the YouKu Buzz link, but the speed is very slow.  You can find an English subtitled version at YouTube in seven installments.

On a cold Sunday morning, December 11, 1921, in the tiny frontier town of Franklin, Kansas, five hundred women crowded into a church hall. Men were excluded. They were mostly immigrants from eastern Europe. They were hungry, angry, and desperate. After a heated discussion they resolved on a course of action - they would march.

By the following day women from miles around had come to join them. Their numbers swelled to somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000. Some marched while carrying infants in their arms. The local sheriff and his deputies was overwhelmed.

By December 15th the Governor of Kansas had sent in three companies of cavalry and a machine gun company, to stop the "Army of Amazons", as the newspapers had dubbed them.

You can find the rest of the article at The Economic Populist.

In March of 2002, while running for Treasurer of the Commonwealth, I did a one day tour of the Fall River/New Bedford area including speaking engagements, radio appearances and an interview with the Herald News in Fall River.  I was aided by David Dionne, a great and tireless activist for social justice, peace, and the environment.  David had setup the whole day and first on the itinerary was the interview with the Herald News.

Now March, 2002 was about five months after the US invasion of Afghanistan and one of the reporter's first questions was what would be the Green Party's alternative to invading Afghanistan.  I stated that invading the country was the wrong approach and the US would have been better off in the long-term by building a nonviolent resistance movement to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda that sought the development and liberation of all of its citizens.

With President Obama's announcement that he will send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to join the 68,000 US soldiers, 43,000 NATO-ISAF soldiers, and 68,000 Pentagon contractors, the long-term has arrived.  When all is said and done, we are easily on track to have been there for a decade or more propping up a corrupt government run by warlords who share the Taliban's desire to keep women down. 

According to CostOfWar.com, a National Priorities Project, the US has spent $232 Billion funding military related operations in Afghanistan since our invasion in 2001.  This figure represents over $8,000 per Afghan citizen, or about $1000 a year for each person.  With Afghanistan's per capita yearly GDP at about $450, this amount would represent a tripling of the income of the average Afghan.  This figure is even more striking when you consider that we haven't delivered on the $5 Billion in aid we pledged to help Afghanistan rebuild.

We could have devoted a fraction of what our military has spent occupying Afghanistan on promoting economic development, education and health as well as building a native Afghan nonviolent resistance movement.  Would we have overthrown the Taliban by now?  Possibly.  People who have enough to eat, a job with a decent income and the ability to read have much more ability to organize and use nonviolent tactics to undermine the support of their leaders.  We forget when we judge the success of a nonviolent resistance that, after eight years of violent resistance to the Taliban, there is very real prospect that they may yet reestablish themselves as the rulers of Afghanistan.

By taking a long-term nonviolent approach, one that focused on economic development, education and improving the health of all Afghans, we would have left Afghanistan a far better place than we have so far.  Even if a nonviolent resistance movement had not succeed by now, it would have a good chance of succeeding in the future.  Obama's choice to double down on the Bush strategy doesn't look like its chance of success will be any better, but the cost in lives and debt will be immensely higher.

"However, if this is not done immediately, my group of startup CEOs and angel investors will begin targeting specific groups for elimination.  We will launch competing, fee-free events directly opposite your events. We will encourage angels investors, service providers and startups to boycott your events. You may even find our street teams outside your events handing out flyers."

While I have my suspicions about the investor class in general, it is good to see more groups using nonviolent direct action.

Thanks to Shawn Broderick, who has also railed against such investor shakedowns, for pointing out the above article.