There is certainly peaceful protest which I think is fine but what is not fine is causing wilful injury to other people and damage to or destruction of the property and livelihoods of those who are not being protested against. That may be deemed by some to be collateral damage but it is not legitimate and is not justified.
The riots of 1981 in Brixton, Toxteth, etc. Brought Britain's racist policing into sharp national focus, and led pretty much directly to the repealing of the 'sus' law.
I know maths isn't your strong point, but subtract 30 from 2011.
What has peaceful protest solved?
www.urban75.net
I am not going to continue with this line of discussion. I have my own views.
Please share your views. You said that rioting achieves nothing - which isn't actually true. But please do give some examples of what peaceful protest has achieved. If you can.
Maybe they should share them on the other thread, which is specifically for the far-right response. Fair enough to criticise continuing this here. That thread would be more appropriate.
A violent protest might be acceptable but rioting never.
how so? That was done by someone radcialised by extremeist islam - this person is from a christian family. Clearly a deeply disturbed individual quite possibly with severe psychosis - and his reasons for what he did my never be really explained.
Quite possibly. But that doesn't alter the fact that peaceful protests are useless.
Well, Wikipedia would anyway
Yeh Christians have never massacred people. It's like eg tim mcveigh never existed
We don't know, and may never know, but men of all faiths and none hate women and girls.
do we know the ownership / management of the shop ? ( and their kickball allegiences) ...
You've missed the main point of KT's post. We have no reason right now to think that this kid was motivated by some political ideology. And if he was in the middle of an extreme psychotic episode, he himself may never really understand why he did it, let alone anyone else.
Because the bomber was a loner who had little contact with his family. It's not religion, it's background. And both targeted events popular with little girls.
pretty much ...
Your division of political and non-political seems utterly arbitrary and without basis in any way
To you maybe. I don't think it is. And you did miss KT's point. That much is clear.
There's zero point speculating and forming theories based on fuck all. But associating this act with other acts that clearly were done within some political framework is playing into the hands of those who wish to give this act wider significance. Given the state of our ignorance right now, that is both a foolish and a dangerous thing to do.
