A Gulf Sheikh down coming?

[Dayuhan]

So now we must dogmatically cling to what dictionaries tell us? LMFAO at that. I prefer to rely on the reality of the matter, and the reality is as I described revolution, not as your dictionary defines them.

You can't have a discussion without consensus on what the basic terms mean. Changing definitions is not "thinking outside the box", it's simply an effort to skew the argument in a direction you want it to go.

Claiming that there is a revolution or insurgency ongoing in Saudi Arabia (or China, or North Korea, or Iran, or Qatar, or any number of others, is simply wrong: it is incompatible with the generally accepted definitions of those terms. You could say that circumstances in any or all of those countries are conducive to revolution. You could say they are ripe for revolution. You could say that there is substantial dissent and that the regimes in question are creating a risk of revolution or insurgency by suppressing that dissent instead of addressing its causes. You couild say that the symptoms of oncoming revolution are on display. In any of those cases you'd have to explain why you believe that, and ideally produce some evidence to support the claim. But to say that revolution or insurgency are actually ongoing in those places on the basis of revised definitions that are unique to you is simply confusing the issue.

There's plenty of scope for thinking outside the box without trying to change the language. It's a very versatile language with a wealth of terminology at hand. There's no need to dilute or devalue existing terms by redefining them in midstream or expanding their definitions to a point that deprives them of utility.

/rant

When I say "populaces of the Middle East" that is plural. If I wanted to lump them into one homogeneous blob as you suggest I would have said "the populace of the Middle East." But of course I didn't say that. The many diverse populaces of the Middle East are evolving and demanding more of government. The facts support that.

The evolution and the demands are very different among very different populaces, and to assume that they are all evolving in the same direction, or that they all have identical or even similar demands, is to lump multiple populaces together in a homogeneous blob.

The many diverse populaces of Saudi Arabia are no exception, no matter how much their government and ours likes to hope and pretend they are.

Again I think you're making assumptions about the direction of popular evolution and the nature of popular demands that are based less on evidence than on your own ideas of what a populace ought to want. I remain unconvinced that circumstances on the ground actually fit those assumptions.

I do not maintain that the Saudi populaces love their government, far from it. I do think that while dissent is widespread, the tendency of that dissent to develop into broad coherent action, and the ability of dissenting movements to gain traction with the mainstream population are being restrained by a number of factors that you aren't acknowledging. I suspect that you may be adjusting reality to fit the model, rather than adjusting the model to fit the reality on the ground.