Tantawy's Speech.

This publish button has been taunting me for almost an hour due to the violent opposition i may get for thinking outside the box, regardless of whether it's grounded in misinformation or a controversial peak at the bigger picture. 

Pertaining to Tantawy's speech, despite the blatant denial of the trespassing of human rights in breaking the protestor's lines that served as a middle finger in the face of everybody who's been following the casualty count on the news, I'm concerned about the third decision in the speech for every reason that the majority is optimistic about. 

If, according to the aforementioned decision, the SCAF has no problem in having a referendum on whether the Army should return to their barracksa or not pending the parliamentary and presidential elections and the people ultimately decide that they step down before a stable regime is in order, wouldn't that leave the country vulnerable to every other uprising political party that has greater power? How come popular demand is focused on ousting one gang when the whole problem lies in the fact that it's only a matter of transition of power from one gang to another? At this point of political strife and broken up lines, isn't a governable gang better in a dystopic context than being left stranded to the completely chaotic wave of powers running through the parties right now? 

If the supreme military council resigns, it will not put an end to the oppression and murder, it's rather an opportunity for more oppression and murder by more namely-power-craving parties that are not only unpredictable and harder to govern, but also wouldn't be as democratic when people eventually get aggravated again and try to oust it. It's true that all political change was triggered by radical action, but isn't it also due that radical action stems from organized planning? Ousting the only remaining form of methodical power would induce change, yes, but a very unpredictable stream of change that is hard to govern by sheer force of demonstrator momentum. Case in point, what's been happening in Sudan for years now. 

This is not a time for impulsively hormonal reactions, people need to step back from their volatile state of gusto and think for a minute. You're uprooting a tree from soil that's not up to par and planting it in experimental soil with no affirmation as to its abilities other than faltering postulations based on wavering hopes and rash decisions that is only propped up by the people's paranoia against any form of higher power that's escalated by their wounded ego and failure of implementing change post-rev. 

Wouldn't it be better if people cool it down and not rush any radical change that would push the country into uncharted territory until they actually get a better grasp of what they want? A successful revolution should be more than just knowing what you don't want out of a certain regime, or else it's going to rid the country of every resource and prop, however faulty they are, for something that's not only statistically impossible and more of a constant juvenile hope towards a Utopia after 30 years of living in the gutters, but also very dangerous, not to mention highly perfectionist and thus not very applicable in real life. 

Wouldn't it be a wiser decision to wait for a more dependable plan of action before eradicating an entire system for false patriotic hopes of a virtual paradise?