London Riots
- Thread starter Jax
- Start date
- Status
Remember when the Jews were oppressed and their youth got mad about a German shooting a Jewish kid, so the Jews tore the shit out of Europe?
Man (68) dies after attack by rioters - he was trying to put out a fire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14500869
So tell me again how killing innocent people is helping to rebel against the government?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14500869
So tell me again how killing innocent people is helping to rebel against the government?
This has been going on for 5 days now... if these guys really wanted to make a statement, they'd have burned down Parliament by now.
A man has been arrested over an attack on a Malaysian student who was mugged by apparent Good Samaritans after rioters attacked him in east London.
Police said the suspect, believed to be in his 20s, was being held on suspicion of robbery in connection with the incident in Barking on Monday night.
Speaking at a press conference after the operation, Mr Haziq said he had no ill-feeling about what had happened and wanted to stay in Britain to complete his studies.
Police said the suspect, believed to be in his 20s, was being held on suspicion of robbery in connection with the incident in Barking on Monday night.
Speaking at a press conference after the operation, Mr Haziq said he had no ill-feeling about what had happened and wanted to stay in Britain to complete his studies.
Same way it's helping fight terrorism?
Not explicitly, but the sentiment of some people here is the same with the argument some of the rioters themselves use:
"We're have it so bad, but the government does nothing to help us. We protest, but no one listens. We riot, and we get front page news."
Of course this is just an excuse from the criminals, the real protesters (if they're wise) will have pulled out of the whole rioting thing. Nonetheless, the rioting and looting assholes keep using the 'social unrest/oppression' as an excuse to do just about anything, including attacking people that try to protect their neighbourhood.
Since when did Russell Brand start making so much sense: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/london-riots-davidcameron
An Open Letter to David Cameron’s Parents: http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/
@Jax
Yeah, because real revolutions are totally fair and with no innocent victims... and angry mobs are totally rational.
An Open Letter to David Cameron’s Parents: http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/
@Jax
Yeah, because real revolutions are totally fair and with no innocent victims... and angry mobs are totally rational.
What the fuck? So this is a revolution now, is it?
North_Ranger
Staff member
Not enough bare-breasted women and halberds, if you ask me.
This man speaks the truth.
A revolution in acquiring stuff en mass.
Also, hyperbole... the one thing i liked about literature in school... you should try it, it feels good.
Unlikely as we change our idiots in charge every few years, but I would join a revolution that resulted in a government that paid more attention to the people who voted them in, and looked after the UK, rather than fighting pointless wars that can not be won, or squandering billions in countries where it is creamed off by the rulers and very little does actual good.
There as well as here, the only thing that changes is the payee's name on the cheques.
As you implied, the scum tends to rise to the top in situations like these. When things go to hell and law and order breaks down, the dregs of society crawl out from under their rocks and take advantage. Seen likely in pretty much every riot, revolution, and other such societal upheaval in history.
I'm pretty sure no-one here is saying what we're seeing is in any way justified. I personally took the 'social problems' comments as some insight on a part of the reason for the riots beginning in the first place. The widespread lootings, muggings et al. that followed in London was something of a natural progression when the authorities didn't manage to gain control of the situation soon enough, I think.
GasBandit
Staff member
See, now THIS is how you troll.
Anyway, I'd be more likely to believe this was valid (but violent) protest if the main targets of destruction were government buildings and institutions. Police stations, government buildings, parliament, etc... but all they're doing is grabbing the most stuff from the most helpless and dragging it home.
Anyway, I'd be more likely to believe this was valid (but violent) protest if the main targets of destruction were government buildings and institutions. Police stations, government buildings, parliament, etc... but all they're doing is grabbing the most stuff from the most helpless and dragging it home.
It was a pretty disgusting thing to watch, of course. But despair not, my friend, and remember that there have also been some selfless and upstanding acts during these dark times in London, such as the neighbourhood watches and people intervening and helping out victims. I guess these kinds of situations bring out both the worst and the best in human nature.
I don't know, I'm a bit on the side which thinks that when things progress to the level of a riot (meaning violence breaks out), it stops being a valid protest, no matter the actual reasons or background behind it.
GasBandit
Staff member
There does come a time when violence is the only option. That's what a revolution is.
This is not revolution, however. This is just opportunistic looting on a thin pretense.
I admit there does exist a slight dilemma in that, as you could say for instance that the current events in Libya wouldn't have amounted to much without the people being ready to resort to some violence. As a theoretical exercise, off the top of my hat, I'd list a few criteria to determine what the difference might be:
1. numbers
2. unity of purpose
3. public support
These guys in London seem to lack at least one and three, so they are little more than a disturbance to be brought to order by the authorities. The libyans had all three (the main purpose being to get rid of Gaddafi), so they are a revolution/rebellion.
Still, being priviledged enough to have been born in a safe, modern western society, I personally feel violence is never the most correct way to solve intra-society conflict. It's more of a weapon of last resort.
C
Chibibar
you know, my wife and I talk about it after reading this thread. How far would most of us go?
If it is a general riot, I personally wouldn't loot and try to help people.
If law and order is gone (i.e. world catastrophe or government breakdown/non-exist) - I would only loot and steal (mainly food and clothing) for survival and MAY kill only in self defense.
not to say I am NOT tempted (it is tempting) but I wouldn't feel right.
I have steal before when I was a kid in Thailand (and got caught once) but it was survival since my sister and I were starving.
If it is a general riot, I personally wouldn't loot and try to help people.
If law and order is gone (i.e. world catastrophe or government breakdown/non-exist) - I would only loot and steal (mainly food and clothing) for survival and MAY kill only in self defense.
not to say I am NOT tempted (it is tempting) but I wouldn't feel right.
I have steal before when I was a kid in Thailand (and got caught once) but it was survival since my sister and I were starving.
- Status