From little acorns do great oaks grow...
The shooting dead of Mark Duggan by police was "questionable". He was carrying a weapon, which had the potential to be used (it was a reactivated gun, according to reports), but there is no evidence of intent on his part to use it. His family, understandably, want answers, but have been treated poorly by the police and IPCC. Requests for information were ignored, resulting in a peaceful protest outside the police station.
This seems to have been the spark for the subsequent conflagrations, in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Nottingham and Bristol.
It has been argued (especially by the UK government) that the riots are simple acts of opportunistic, wanton criminality, and much of the media coverage does show this, but is that a true reflection of the causes of these outbreaks of violence? There have also been reports, apparently ignored, of simmering tensions; the proverbial powder-keg. As local funding for youth projects is withdrawn, and activities are cancelled; as unemployment increases and the poor are hit harder and harder by inflation; as the rich bankers are seen to sail serenely on as the least advantaged are squeezed and squeezed; were these riots simply waiting to happen?
The state is struggling to maintain order; in this age of instant mass communication, is the state doomed to failure?
Riot! / The Tottenham Summer after the Arab Spring
-
Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
Riot! / The Tottenham Summer after the Arab Spring
tenebris lux
The Tottenham Summer after the Arab Spring
The Underclass lashes out
Whilst the Condem Government rushes around trying to make it an issue of criminality, and inadequate operational level policing the reality is that the London and other riots have a lot in common with the arab spring.
The dissafection of the young,hopeless unemployed, faced with a Government who have a questionable mandate, who are strict in enforcing a legal system which increasingly becomes divorced from an ethical premise.
The Govt are rushing to the press, anxious to condem the criminals who are destroying peoples livelihoods, are the same people who are basking in the glory that they have saved 4.2 billion from the exchequer, and act which is destroying far more peoples livelihoods, than the actions of the rioters.
The atricle below which appears in the right wing press, is a pretty good piece of commentary in that it points out the fractured society which in Mr Camerons Britain.
It doesn't go far enough though, Lord Harris, who saw one of his Carpet warehouses destroyed, has it partially right when he says it's because we have young people who are unememployed, but it's more than that.
Not only is there the hopelessness of unemployment, but many of the sticking plasters that the labour party introduced to give something to the young and the disaffected have been withdrawn, charities and voluntary groups operating in these communities have had their budgets slashed.
But even that is not the answer, the root of the problem is in our society, how can the establishment expect young people to play by the rules, when the establish brakes or changes them to suit, look at the example set by the bankers, or large corporate bodies, whose only concerns are executive pay and shareholders dividends, about the police who take bribes with impunity, much of the press, which peddles a line of intolerance, greed and xenophobia, politicians who ignore the manifesto on which they campaigned, disenfranchising all those who voted for them, in order to get their little bit of power.
And they expect young people to behave as if nothing was happening. Some of the latest stories I am reading involve the police trawling twitter for people supporting the rioters, are we no longer allowed to express an opinion.
I don't like the idea of violent protest, but I can understand why people are doing it, in the same way that I can understand the young people in places like Egypt, Morroco and Syria
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... s-out.html
Whilst the Condem Government rushes around trying to make it an issue of criminality, and inadequate operational level policing the reality is that the London and other riots have a lot in common with the arab spring.
The dissafection of the young,hopeless unemployed, faced with a Government who have a questionable mandate, who are strict in enforcing a legal system which increasingly becomes divorced from an ethical premise.
The Govt are rushing to the press, anxious to condem the criminals who are destroying peoples livelihoods, are the same people who are basking in the glory that they have saved 4.2 billion from the exchequer, and act which is destroying far more peoples livelihoods, than the actions of the rioters.
The atricle below which appears in the right wing press, is a pretty good piece of commentary in that it points out the fractured society which in Mr Camerons Britain.
It doesn't go far enough though, Lord Harris, who saw one of his Carpet warehouses destroyed, has it partially right when he says it's because we have young people who are unememployed, but it's more than that.
Not only is there the hopelessness of unemployment, but many of the sticking plasters that the labour party introduced to give something to the young and the disaffected have been withdrawn, charities and voluntary groups operating in these communities have had their budgets slashed.
But even that is not the answer, the root of the problem is in our society, how can the establishment expect young people to play by the rules, when the establish brakes or changes them to suit, look at the example set by the bankers, or large corporate bodies, whose only concerns are executive pay and shareholders dividends, about the police who take bribes with impunity, much of the press, which peddles a line of intolerance, greed and xenophobia, politicians who ignore the manifesto on which they campaigned, disenfranchising all those who voted for them, in order to get their little bit of power.
And they expect young people to behave as if nothing was happening. Some of the latest stories I am reading involve the police trawling twitter for people supporting the rioters, are we no longer allowed to express an opinion.
I don't like the idea of violent protest, but I can understand why people are doing it, in the same way that I can understand the young people in places like Egypt, Morroco and Syria
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... s-out.html
Conspiracy alert!
Twitter is being used by people who are planning violence at the moment, hence the police trawling twitter. It's a perfectly valid way of finding out where people are planning on looting. It doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to say or think anything about these riots at all.
In any case, I would suggest that while there may be some element of valid, reasonable dissatisfaction with the Tory-led government, experience has surely taught us that most of these people just wanted an excuse for violence and mayhem (in the style of Vancouver).
I would be absolutely astounded if this meant the collapse of the state. The fundamental difference between the Arab Spring and your so-called Tottenham Summer is that there is no oppressive dictatorship regime in place. Sure, the Tories are bastards who are returning Britain to the 1800s, but there's nothing on the scale of Mubarak, Gaddafi et al. There is a ridiculous (ly vocal) tabloid mentality in the West that suggests to us that for every mis-spent tax euro, for every political gaffe, for every time one of our elected representatives shows him or herself to be a bit flawed, that we should copy the Arabs and rise up and overthrow our leaders. Nonsense.
Twitter is being used by people who are planning violence at the moment, hence the police trawling twitter. It's a perfectly valid way of finding out where people are planning on looting. It doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to say or think anything about these riots at all.
In any case, I would suggest that while there may be some element of valid, reasonable dissatisfaction with the Tory-led government, experience has surely taught us that most of these people just wanted an excuse for violence and mayhem (in the style of Vancouver).
I would be absolutely astounded if this meant the collapse of the state. The fundamental difference between the Arab Spring and your so-called Tottenham Summer is that there is no oppressive dictatorship regime in place. Sure, the Tories are bastards who are returning Britain to the 1800s, but there's nothing on the scale of Mubarak, Gaddafi et al. There is a ridiculous (ly vocal) tabloid mentality in the West that suggests to us that for every mis-spent tax euro, for every political gaffe, for every time one of our elected representatives shows him or herself to be a bit flawed, that we should copy the Arabs and rise up and overthrow our leaders. Nonsense.
Why is the duck billed platypus?
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46137
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
What Crucifer said.
There's no equivalence with the Arab Spring, which I have every sympathy with. Yes, this is happening on the Tories' watch, because it does seem to be the case that under them the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I too am angry and worried about the cuts.
However. The footage speaks for itself. A family business in Croydon which was founded 100 years ago is burned to the ground. Leaving all those employees, in already grim economic times, jobless. Decent, hardworking shopworkers and small business owners have their livelihoods wrecked. A woman leaps for her life from a burning building. Yobs in hoods pretend to help an injured and traumatised youth, then callously and calmly rob him. Terrified mums with crying toddlers run from a bus seconds before it's set on fire.
How the hell is any of that supposed to be a protest against social injustice? How come these rioters are doing the most damage to communities already suffering economic hardship?
The family of Mark Duggan may well have a valid bone to pick with the police in how his death came about and why but they have dissassociated themselves from the violence.
As all so-called responsible journalists should.
I am nauseated, sickened and deeply angered about these mindless riots. They achieve nothing and only tear communities apart.
I'm all for peaceful protest but there is no justification for any of this.
There's no equivalence with the Arab Spring, which I have every sympathy with. Yes, this is happening on the Tories' watch, because it does seem to be the case that under them the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I too am angry and worried about the cuts.
However. The footage speaks for itself. A family business in Croydon which was founded 100 years ago is burned to the ground. Leaving all those employees, in already grim economic times, jobless. Decent, hardworking shopworkers and small business owners have their livelihoods wrecked. A woman leaps for her life from a burning building. Yobs in hoods pretend to help an injured and traumatised youth, then callously and calmly rob him. Terrified mums with crying toddlers run from a bus seconds before it's set on fire.
How the hell is any of that supposed to be a protest against social injustice? How come these rioters are doing the most damage to communities already suffering economic hardship?
The family of Mark Duggan may well have a valid bone to pick with the police in how his death came about and why but they have dissassociated themselves from the violence.
As all so-called responsible journalists should.
I am nauseated, sickened and deeply angered about these mindless riots. They achieve nothing and only tear communities apart.
I'm all for peaceful protest but there is no justification for any of this.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Just a couple comments on the above.
eborr said:
Crucifier said:
Yes there were, and still are -- spring has turned to summer in the East -- dictators to point at in the Arab actions. But as eborr points out the way Western governments have been acting is plain wrong. In a way a dictatorship is more honest, the source of the harm easier to identify, than the death by a thousand cuts approach of so-called democratic Western governments. We are told their policies, austerity measures, whatever, are benign in that they will lead to a brighter future for all. But after decades of clear evidence that this is not in fact the case, loss of hope, turned to madness should have been a foregone conclusion.
I know many young people, brilliant students one and all, who did not go onto higher education after high school (though they were accepted) because they could not rationalize the promise of debt with the faint hope of a good career to manage said debt. It is bad out there. Nothing surprises me about these riots.
It is a fact, not cynicism, not conspiracy, not depressive thinking that the West is utterly poised for a fall. The govenors think people are too stupid or too willingly in denial to ever challenge them in a profound way. Is rioting the answer? No I don't think so. As someone who has gazed upon the devastation that was Detroit for most of my life (the riots there happened around the time I was born) I can tell you rioting hardly ever improves the lives of the people. But neither does pretending that prosperity trickles down... coincidentally, a statue of Reagan was erected in a public space in London recently, true story.
eborr said:
In advance of the 2012 Olympics which will cost billions and help no one who needs it. It was only a matter of time before people saw through this shell game.Not only is there the hopelessness of unemployment, but many of the sticking plasters that the labour party introduced to give something to the young and the disaffected have been withdrawn, charities and voluntary groups operating in these communities have had their budgets slashed.
Crucifier said:
When the West was looking at the Arab Spring through the lens of media said media did not hesitate to call it a reaction against government policies. Those governments are not friends of the West so it was ok to call the action what it was. Now that it is happening in the West, the same lens is rendering a picture of criminality and pointless action. There's no way there could be a political reason behind these events, right? (I had to look far to find any reliable source claiming there might be sound reason behind the riots in London.)The fundamental difference between the Arab Spring and your so-called Tottenham Summer is that there is no oppressive dictatorship regime in place. Sure, the Tories are bastards who are returning Britain to the 1800s, but there's nothing on the scale of Mubarak, Gaddafi et al.
Yes there were, and still are -- spring has turned to summer in the East -- dictators to point at in the Arab actions. But as eborr points out the way Western governments have been acting is plain wrong. In a way a dictatorship is more honest, the source of the harm easier to identify, than the death by a thousand cuts approach of so-called democratic Western governments. We are told their policies, austerity measures, whatever, are benign in that they will lead to a brighter future for all. But after decades of clear evidence that this is not in fact the case, loss of hope, turned to madness should have been a foregone conclusion.
I know many young people, brilliant students one and all, who did not go onto higher education after high school (though they were accepted) because they could not rationalize the promise of debt with the faint hope of a good career to manage said debt. It is bad out there. Nothing surprises me about these riots.
It is a fact, not cynicism, not conspiracy, not depressive thinking that the West is utterly poised for a fall. The govenors think people are too stupid or too willingly in denial to ever challenge them in a profound way. Is rioting the answer? No I don't think so. As someone who has gazed upon the devastation that was Detroit for most of my life (the riots there happened around the time I was born) I can tell you rioting hardly ever improves the lives of the people. But neither does pretending that prosperity trickles down... coincidentally, a statue of Reagan was erected in a public space in London recently, true story.
-
Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
Peaceful protest like the march against the War in Iraq, the biggest demonstration in British history?Pearly Di wrote:I'm all for peaceful protest but there is no justification for any of this.
When, ever, does peaceful protest work? Gandhi? Don't you believe it! He may have preached non-violence when it suited him, but there was wave upon wave of violent insurrection that brought British colonialism in India to an end.
I happen to agree that there is a high scum quotient amongst these rioters, but the damage they may cause is nothing compared to the devastation wreaked by the privileged establishment. And the truth is that results are only, ever, achieved when "London" burns.
So the initial reaction may well be to hold ones nose, and the media (not called the Fourth Estate for nothing) will most certainly paint all this as simple criminality, but it is the policy of government that has precipitated the events that are occurring.
Governments screw the most disadvantaged with impunity until the bejesus is scared out of them. Let's hope that time has arrived...
PS
And let it not be forgotten the role the police has played in dealing with peaceful protest even recently; the 150 UK Uncut demonstrators who were promised safe passage from their shop occupancy, then were summarily arrested for "violent disorder". The police simply have no credibility (and that is ignoring the News of the World corruption). The state is morally bankrupt, and any condemnation simply drips with hypocrisy.
tenebris lux
When the forest or the grass is bone dry, when the weather is warm and windy, all you need is a spark. One tiny spark and a conflagration ignites. What's true for wildlands is true for people as well. Rioting does not necessarily follow a police shooting, even a questionable one accompanied by protests. When it does, it's worth it to take a hard look at the underlying conditions. You can't just clack your tongue over hoodlums being hoodlums. When it goes on for days, there's more to it than that. What's the youth employment situation in the areas where the riots are happening? Do they have reason to hope for better? Do they feel like they're part of their community and their country?
Of course, the violence won't make anything better. I'm sure that the people involved, at some level, know that. And I'm also sure that they just don't care. They're too angry. Too deep in despair. Too broken to give a sh*t about a system that they perceive as feeling the same about them.
Of course, the violence won't make anything better. I'm sure that the people involved, at some level, know that. And I'm also sure that they just don't care. They're too angry. Too deep in despair. Too broken to give a sh*t about a system that they perceive as feeling the same about them.
When you can do nothing what can you do?
You know what makes me feel cynical?
Teenage girl rioters throwing CHAMPAGNE bottles and people organising riots on their smartphones.
And I'm supposed to believe this is all about protesting against the cuts and police brutality?
There's a lot of anger and contempt at our government right now, but also anger and contempt - across the spectrum - for those who have wantonly destroyed other people's businesses, homes and livelihoods.
And I don't just mean the bankers.
Teenage girl rioters throwing CHAMPAGNE bottles and people organising riots on their smartphones.
And I'm supposed to believe this is all about protesting against the cuts and police brutality?
There's a lot of anger and contempt at our government right now, but also anger and contempt - across the spectrum - for those who have wantonly destroyed other people's businesses, homes and livelihoods.
And I don't just mean the bankers.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
-
Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
No, I don't think anybody could justifiably claim that. But I do think that the environment has been created through an establishment that is corrupt, from politicians held in contempt for the lies they tell and the financial shenanigans they undertake, to preaching journalists who habitually break the law, to a police force that is brutal and corrupt...Pearly Di wrote:And I'm supposed to believe this is all about protesting against the cuts and police brutality?
There would appear to be no sector of society that can be held in anything other than this contempt. The "greed is good" get rich quick, anyway, anyhow has helped spawn the looting generation. This is a deeply fractured society, and these are the consequences. Rich scum in power, and poor scum on the streets...
tenebris lux
Smartphones and fancy clothes, the trappings of youth...
It's not so unusual though. In the Ford Strike of 1945 (which lead to widespread adoption of the Rand Formula -- for better or worse) the workers used cars to make a blockade. Then there were the Toronto Days of Action against the Progressive Conservatives in 1997; organizers claimed that it was fax machines and cell phones that made it all possible. In both cases I'm sure the governors were indignant that people should use the products they sold them in such ways. Of course granting the ability to read and write to the masses is where it really started.
It's not so unusual though. In the Ford Strike of 1945 (which lead to widespread adoption of the Rand Formula -- for better or worse) the workers used cars to make a blockade. Then there were the Toronto Days of Action against the Progressive Conservatives in 1997; organizers claimed that it was fax machines and cell phones that made it all possible. In both cases I'm sure the governors were indignant that people should use the products they sold them in such ways. Of course granting the ability to read and write to the masses is where it really started.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Actually Mubarak and Saleh were/are extremely important western allies, and plenty of critics were willing to argue that western governments and media were going soft on them as a result.SirDennis wrote:When the West was looking at the Arab Spring through the lens of media said media did not hesitate to call it a reaction against government policies. Those governments are not friends of the West so it was ok to call the action what it was.
And more importantly, the Arab rebels were/are actually pushing for some concrete political reforms. The London rioters have no such goals, unless you consider free TVs to be a political issue.
-
Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
L_M, although I agree that it is correct to distinguish between the policy driven Arab uprising, and the rioting in England, it is a mistake to confuse a lack of discernible goals with outright rejection of the reactive nature of these events. SirDennis stated that the media has conspicuously failed to describe these riots as "a reaction against government policies." This is correct, and it is also tenable that these riots are caused by government policy that enriches the elite whilst impoverishing the most disadvantaged, who are finding their opportunities eroded. This is policy. The mob may well have no coherent voice, like those in the Arab Spring have, but that does not entail that their actions are not reactive.Lord_Morningstar wrote:Actually Mubarak and Saleh were/are extremely important western allies, and plenty of critics were willing to argue that western governments and media were going soft on them as a result.SirDennis wrote:When the West was looking at the Arab Spring through the lens of media said media did not hesitate to call it a reaction against government policies. Those governments are not friends of the West so it was ok to call the action what it was.
And more importantly, the Arab rebels were/are actually pushing for some concrete political reforms. The London rioters have no such goals, unless you consider free TVs to be a political issue.
Looters are simply repeating the actions of the bankers and politicians;the major difference is that the looters are committing their thievery on a miniscule scale in comparison.
tenebris lux
You use this "Sure X is bad, but Y was worse!" line of reasoning pretty often and, asides from being awful logic, I find it simply tiresome.Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:Looters are simply repeating the actions of the bankers and politicians;the major difference is that the looters are committing their thievery on a miniscule scale in comparison.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
Ghân-buri-Ghân
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
- Location: Evading prying eyes
Thank you for that insightful comment, yovargas. Howeer, this is a little more than "X is bad, but Y was worse"; what I am saying is that X is a direct consequence of the actions of Y, which have created an environment in which illegality is the norm for the elite, and the lowest can only see how those elite maintain their snouts in the trough whilst they are expected to pay the price for the failed policies of the elite.yovargas wrote:You use this "Sure X is bad, but Y was worse!" line of reasoning pretty often and, asides from being awful logic, I find it simply tiresome.Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:Looters are simply repeating the actions of the bankers and politicians;the major difference is that the looters are committing their thievery on a miniscule scale in comparison.
So slightly more complicated, yovargas. Sorry it bores you...
tenebris lux
Looting, any kind of looting, happens when people of a certain mindset realize that, for whatever reason, their actions are divorced from the consequences. They can so they do. Either that or they've slipped into survival mode (as happens after natural disasters) and don't care about going to jail later i that means they've got food and water now.
Really, the looting's a sideshow. The bigger question is why are people rioting in the first place and what, other than force of arms, will it take to get them to stop?
Really, the looting's a sideshow. The bigger question is why are people rioting in the first place and what, other than force of arms, will it take to get them to stop?
When you can do nothing what can you do?
Yes I am a bit loosey goosey when trying to make a point I guess. GBG did a good job of clarifying my thoughts (thanks).Lord_Morningstar wrote:Actually Mubarak and Saleh were/are extremely important western allies, and plenty of critics were willing to argue that western governments and media were going soft on them as a result.SirDennis wrote:When the West was looking at the Arab Spring through the lens of media said media did not hesitate to call it a reaction against government policies. Those governments are not friends of the West so it was ok to call the action what it was.
And more importantly, the Arab rebels were/are actually pushing for some concrete political reforms. The London rioters have no such goals, unless you consider free TVs to be a political issue.
But there was something else implied in my statement that I figured was not necessary to say outright among members of this board. However, just in case there is any question, what I see is a sort of elitism, or in it's meanest form, racism: it was ok when the backward Arabs finally pulled up their socks and rebelled against their oppressors. Now that it's happening in the West, well, it's a bad thing. What's worse is that those Westerners engaged in civil disobedience are characterized as poor, unemployed (not necessarily true), ethnic minorities (also not necessarily true), with no discernible or legitimate grievance, well you can see where I'm going with this...
(Anyway, yes you are right about the relationships among leaders Western and Eastern. I would add Qaddafi and Al-Assad to the list of important relationships (not allies in the classic sense) except it seems it took much less for Qaddafi to get back on the naughty list than it has Al-Assad.)
I agree too that the looting and general hooliganism, especially against other citizens, needs to stop. But who set the precedent? In time we will hear of innocent bystanders being taken down by police (as happened in Toronto at the G20). Even those engaged in peaceful protest with clearly defined grievances will be targeted with impunity. The blame for such things must be shared by the lawless ones, no doubt, the state's hand is being forced. But were things so different before the mob? Who set the stage for this to happen? Are things so different on the ground in the East and the West?
The Arab Spring and the rioting in London are not in any way comparable.
Most of those Arab nations were ruled by dictators, and the people had no say in what went on with their lives. The people of London can choose to vote out incumbents if they don't feel their needs are being met. Rioting and looting are not the only means for change they have, whereas in most Arab states, an uprising was pretty much the only path to change.
I'm not naive enough to believe that a couple of elections is enough to affect dramatic changes, but to try and condone rioting and looting as a means for change in a democratic society like England, or to compare it to the Arab Spring is misguided.
I am willing to bet that a large percentage of the rioters and looters are from a criminal element, part of a mob mentality, made poor decisions at a young age, or a combination of those and other things. I highly doubt that their motivation for acting out was decades long persecution, mass murder and years of enslavement under a ruthless dictator.
While I don't even come close to condoning most of the actions of the "Western" and "Eastern" democracies, there is no way I could do anything but condemn these actions that serve no other purpose than to devolve society.
Change occurs far more effectively by being politically active, knowledgeable and participating rather than by destruction.
Most of those Arab nations were ruled by dictators, and the people had no say in what went on with their lives. The people of London can choose to vote out incumbents if they don't feel their needs are being met. Rioting and looting are not the only means for change they have, whereas in most Arab states, an uprising was pretty much the only path to change.
I'm not naive enough to believe that a couple of elections is enough to affect dramatic changes, but to try and condone rioting and looting as a means for change in a democratic society like England, or to compare it to the Arab Spring is misguided.
I am willing to bet that a large percentage of the rioters and looters are from a criminal element, part of a mob mentality, made poor decisions at a young age, or a combination of those and other things. I highly doubt that their motivation for acting out was decades long persecution, mass murder and years of enslavement under a ruthless dictator.
While I don't even come close to condoning most of the actions of the "Western" and "Eastern" democracies, there is no way I could do anything but condemn these actions that serve no other purpose than to devolve society.
Change occurs far more effectively by being politically active, knowledgeable and participating rather than by destruction.
