History teaches that revolution is paid in blood, every time. It's quite naive and first-world to assume any extreme political change can be done peacefully.
You need blood to create democracy, and you need blood to tear it down.
I am not making any moral judgements either about Kazakstan or January 6th, just an observation on context and how it affects our perception.
Please do not use my words to mark me as a, and I quote, supporter of the storming of the Capitol. It is not appreciated, and your comment sounds like flame bait.
For what is worth I agree with your observation on history.
Really makes you think how stretchable the images of "peaceful protestors" and "dangerous terrorists" can get.
Says who?
> but thugs who use firearms against police, and raid armory's are simply "protestors".
Says who? Those who defend against Kazakh police following a shoot to kill order, I'd call them a hero.
Says CNN and all the opened domestic terrorism cases https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/jason-crow-army-...
> Says who?
Says Reuters, trying to depict common thugs as "protestors".
> defend against Kazakh police following a shoot to kill order
Oh please, stop lionising common armed thugs. They are not "defending", they are THE cause and the target of a shoot to kill order. There are already 19 from "MVD" reported dead. A shoot to kill order would be implied by default in any developed country, as soon as the first serviceman was wounded, especially with a firearm. It's surprising that the government did not respond properly and in time.
Yes I'm aware tyrants don't like it when you fight back.
Look, I get that you don't take this seriously (why would you, this is just another fun "good folk fighting back against tyrants" narrative for you), but lionising every random psycho shooter, who decided that he is now sovereign and can direct his wrath to fellow human beings, who happen to be in a uniform, is just something really out there. Bet Breivik is your hero.
No, I simply don't have a dystopian view.