I'm not advocating anything you seem to think I am.
I'm just wondering, how does 3 working class Pakistani men from Birmingham, being killed defending their neighbourhood from rioters and looters represent 'chickens coming home to roost'?
I just can't see it myself.
They represent casualties in a general insurrection-- these types of crimes will happen during underclass revolts. It sucks for them, it sucks for their families, they did not deserve it, and those who killed them deserve to be punished-- HOWEVER that is not a reason to vilify all of the rioters. The overwhelming majority of the rioters haven't killed anyone. And three people? REALLY? In several days of rioting all over England ONLY THREE people have been killed? And you want these heinous but isolated murders to represent the riots in general? Man, more people are gonna get killed over the weekend here in Philly over bullshit shootings than that-- should we take that to be representative of people in Philadelphia in general?
And before you get to burning of working-class homes, let me address it now. Also not justified, but, again, things like this happen in these situations, and it does not represent all the rioters. Out of all the people gathering and smashing up storefronts or whatever, how many do you figure have set out to intentionally burn down working-class abodes? Exactly how many working-class homes have been intentionally set ablaze out of an estimated how many number of rioters might give us an idea-- I'm guessing that this accounts for a very, very small percentage of the rioters/rebels.
Finally, let's address the motivation of the rioters, as has often been done on this thread since it began. We will take it as a given that some portion of the rioters were criminals before the riots began and are simply using the riots as convenient cover for criminal activity. We will also assume that some portion of the rioters may not have a criminal history but are essentially involved in the riots not out of any anger at the police, political or economic establishment, but simply for fun or to steal shit or whatever.
But since no comprehensive survey has been done as to the motivation of the rioters to my knowledge, and we don't know what portions these two groups make up of the rebels, I'm fucking flabbergasted as to how many people here seem quite certain that is the motivation for ALL the rioters. Fact is that many people involved in the riots have told reporters, with varying degrees of clarity and articulation, that they are rioting in protest of the police, of government policies, of the economy, or whatever. Now it's easy enough for people to dismiss these explanations as rationalizations or outright lies, but unless the people being interviewed are actually known to the person doing the dismissing, just seems like a way to reinforce what their perception of the rioters is already.
I hate leftists and their ridiculous romanticization of the 'underclass'. There was a time when being among the lower class was a genuinely oppressed and downtrodden segement of society - when being 'working class' actually meant something. In the modern west most of our 'underclass' are precisely what Condell calls them.. "parasitic scum". I don't care what you call em, if you can afford a fucking blackberry you really aren't that poor.
These are not the proletariat rising up Q-man. This is a mass mugging disguised as a riot. Steel toed boots to their faces. NOW.
See above and nice to know you hate me.
Topic: Riots in London