No, I'm comparing mass organised armed uprisings with significant support in the indiginous community against a foreign occupying power to the hypothetical case of a mass organized armed uprising with significant popular support against a hypothetical domestic tyrannical government.
And under your theory a group of Americans who felt the current American govenrment was tyrannical and followed the example of those Iraqi insurgents who use their Ak-47s, RPGs and IEDs against their fellow Americans would be better off doing using arms rather than through the ballot box or some other form of non-violent movement?
Do you even read what other people write? Do we even agree what tyrannical means? Part of the definition of Tyrannical is the inability by the masses to change it for the better through voting. Or has Tyranny lost it's worth as a word due to overuse by idiots like "gulag" and "Holocaust"?
