This is bulls*it!!!!!

[Roo]

So we have one isolated event in CA, which was caused by the brutal beating of Rodney King by an entire team of police officers who, once the charges were dismissed, caused a riot. See, the cops actually injured/tried to kill Rodney King. They didn't burn a book by themselves. The riots were about police brutality. Like Shiki said, I don't think anyone would call foul if they started rioting against the occupying forces, but they instead choose to riot over a book being burned instead. The LA Riots are apples/oranges compared to what we are discussing here. It is completely untrue to claim that America, or any of it's states or groups, routinely has flash mobs that go kill people, burn down building, go blow up mosques etc. Especially not over a book being burn, even a holy one. People even burn American flags her, and if there is one thing America is, it's nationalist. But you don't see us out killing each other over it.

It wasn't the beating of Rodney King that incited riots, it was the acquittal of the officers involved, which was seen as an official validation from society that this oppressive behavior was sanctioned and would continue. It was a tipping point for a culture that harbored pent up frustration and suffered injustices as a result of being subjugated by an different, oppressive cultural force. Would you agree to that?

I wouldn't say it's apples and oranges at all. I think it was a pretty fine example actually. Were the participants of the LA riots complete savages whose actions are unworthy of further scrutiny? Some of them, as isolated incidents, absolutely. But should the entire event be dismissed as such? Of course not. Every large group of like-minded people experiencing the same injustices has their tipping point. What sets them off may not be something that inspires empathy in those who enjoy life's comforts, but these causes should nonetheless be taken seriously.

[sgreger1]

It wasn't the beating of Rodney King that incited riots, it was the acquittal of the officers involved, which was seen as an official validation from society that this oppressive behavior was sanctioned and would continue. It was a tipping point for a culture that harbored pent up frustration and suffered injustices as a result of being subjugated by an different, oppressive cultural force. Would you agree to that?

I wouldn't say it's apples and oranges at all. I think it was a pretty fine example actually. Were the participants of the LA riots complete savages whose actions are unworthy of further scrutiny? Some of them, as isolated incidents, absolutely. But should the entire event be dismissed as such? Of course not. Every large group of like-minded people experiencing the same injustices has their tipping point. What sets them off may not be something that inspires empathy in those who enjoy life's comforts, but these causes should nonetheless be taken seriously.

I was living in a bad part of Long Beach at the time and experienced the riots first hand when I was with my dad at work (he did contracting/handyman stuff for a guy who owned a bunch of the local ghetto apartments. I was young but I remember when the horns started honking on all of the cars, this tension started brewing and people stared coming out of their homes as though the revolution had finally arived and it was time to burn this mother****er down. I remember my dad quickly getting me in the car as we drove through crowds and went home immediately even though he was still on the clock. "Were the participants of the LA riots complete savages"? Most of them, most of the people in that area are practically the exact kind of people would see rioting in Afghanistan, though I bet the Afghans are more educated. It's a socio-economic thing more than a race/region/religion thing, anywhere you find poverty you find this mindset. But not all were, some were doing it because the oppertunity presented itself, some were pissed at the cops or white people, some were just trying to come up and get a free TV from the local electronics store.


But yes, it was about how the white cops who are considered as an occupying force were acquitted for beating him. Rodney King was on PCP and resisting arrest, and it took several cops to take him down as he was able to overpower them, which led to them beating the shit out of him to calm him down so I don't really feel bad for Rodney King, but the cops did beat a guy and got away with it, which was wrong on all accounts. Like you said, it was the tipping point and we had a nice riot on our hands where everyone raided all the local stores and stole everything. It happened one time in CA History that I am aware of, and is not indicitive of America as a whole.

I get that you are making it to be about an occupying force, tipping points etc, and I would agree with that, but these people had an actual gripe, it wasn't like a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin was burned and then people started rioting. One of their own was brutally abused by the already hated police force, and then the cops got off the hook and everyone went apeshit.



Again though Roo you are mising the key sentence here: no one would complain if they rioted in Afghanistan because they were sick of being occupied. They instead choose to riot over a book, or over any other thing regarding religion. And it's NOT only about the occupying forces, they rioted over there even when a Koran was burned in the United States by a US citizen. I understand the book is important to them, and I understand culture is not something I expect them to give up, but I just find it funny that they riot over a book being burn but havn't torn the place down yet in protest of coalition forces being there for 10 years. Seems like that is a bigger deal than the book but again I understand how important religion is in their culture.


Anyways, we are arguing the same point. I know why they did it, they were venting their anger at what they considered the last straw. It's just they seem to have a "last straw" about 3-4 times a year in that area so to me it is indicative of a larger issue with their culture. Frankly, I don't care, we should leave and let them deal with it. We would have been better off to not have even sent the military over there and instead just airdrop a trillion dollars in American money over every city, then they could perhaps raise themselves from poverty and have a real reason to throw the extremists out. The extremists aren't even that popular in these countries, but they have the money and the guns so they call the shots. The key to winning in the middle east is to make them more economically stable so they can toss these nuts out themselves, rather than us going in and destroying their infrastructure and killing their children, which only gives them more of a reason to hate us. By taking away what little hope they had, they (like you said) then only have their culture/religion to hold on to. The key is not to take take but to give, so that they have a reason to move on to creating a better society and hopefully a better world in the process.

[Roo]

Nice post sgreger, and thanks, I was also trying to generate some material I would want to read. This forum has been boring lately lol. I miss the old lengthy discussions on shit that matters.

[Darwin]

The inestimable P.J. O'Rourke had a line in a piece of his on traveling in the middle-east that I've remembered to this day and still find both pungent and cogent.

"Because one by one and man to man Arabs are the salt of the earth - generous, hospitable, brave, wise, and so forth. But get you in a pack and shove a Koran down your pants and you act like a footlocker full of glue-sniffing civet cats."