Thread: Hate in America

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxaLHsdYTnk

I know the L.A. riots happened 17 years ago, but the thug element and its violent left wing mentality are still just as alive. A similar act of terrorism could occur tomorrow.

Words mean things, UM, and riots are not terrorism, nor can any aspect of the L.A. riots be classified "left wing" or anywhere else on a political spectrum. By definition, they're spontaneous and reactionary, regardless of the musings of self-appointed spokespersons like Ice T after the fact. If the original gathering were political in nature, you might have one leg to stand on (which still means you fall out of your chair), but it was strictly geographical. People who felt hopeless, caged, and abandoned by the law got very angry and misbehaved. Is everyone who has ever lived in an ethnic ghetto anywhere in the world "left wing" by default?

Oregon has seven. I thought we were better than that.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Words mean things, UM, and riots are not terrorism, nor can any aspect of the L.A. riots be classified "left wing" or anywhere else on a political spectrum. By definition, they're spontaneous and reactionary, regardless of the musings of self-appointed spokespersons like Ice T after the fact. If the original gathering were political in nature, you might have one leg to stand on (which still means you fall out of your chair), but it was strictly geographical. People who felt hopeless, caged, and abandoned by the law got very angry and misbehaved. Is everyone who has ever lived in an ethnic ghetto anywhere in the world "left wing" by default?

No, not everybody who lives in an ethnic ghetto is left wing. Why did you ask that bizarre question?

The L.A. riots were an act of terrorism by any common definition of the word (Did you watch the video? 55 dead, 2400 injured, and millions of dollars in property damage) and they were an outcry against the L.A. police and the conservative forces behind them and their tactics. (That does not mean I agree with the LAPD's history of police brutality. I am left wing on that issue, but I despise mindless terrorism.) It was left wing activity against a conservative establishment, and it incited conservatives all the way up to the White House against it and the thug celebrities who condoned and encouraged it and other left wing violence. Lots of left wingers have publicly expressed sympathy and excuses for the mindless violence that made the Rodney King incident look like a massage on the beach. It was left wing terrorism.

Did you watch the video about E.L.F. and other environmentalist terrorists?

If the LA riots were the consequence of consistent police brutality, how exactly does that make the violence left wing? Considering the leftist sympathy came as a result of political motives (gaining young votes that right wing politicians lost, as one example) says very little about the intentions of the perpetrators. I'm of course not denying that the riots were certainly acts of terrorism, being that they were targeting a large portion of the civilian population, but I can't say that I agree with your application of the term 'left wing' to the rioters. Can we have some further explanation?

If you're going to class any act of violence as terrorism, the word loses all meaning. The L.A. riots, like riots in general, were a spontaneous and unfocused outpouring of anger. Terrorism is a strategy; there's no strategy in rioting. The difference between terrorism and rioting is the same as the difference between first degree murder and 'crimes of passion:' intent and premeditation.

The conditions that allowed for the L.A. riots are identical to those in any ethnic ghetto from ancient Rome to the Brazilian favelas: people corralled into a densely packed area by authoritarian policing from outside, largely left to fend for themselves. If you want to ascribe "left wing" motivations to the L.A. rioters, who were hardly unique in either their frustrations or their response, then how can you make exceptions for other riots under the same conditions--which is to say, most riots in human history, ethnic ghettos being a common locale for these rare events?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If you're going to class any act of violence as terrorism, the word loses all meaning.

Certainly, but the situation we're talking about deals with violence that was being directed largely toward civilians: innocent people. On some level the rioters had to be aware that the situation was undesirable for law enforcement and the society at large, and that a riot would not have to occur a second time if the police were not already employing brutal tactics against ghetto dwellers in the first place. That's one possibility.

The second possibility is that the rioters intended to destroy all of Los Angeles without any hope for a better future within the same system (which is probably more likely), in which case they would not be terrorists at all, but combatants in their own personalized war. We can't deny though that creating widespread fear didn't give them any sort of gratification, especially if they were willing to kill as it was.

Originally Posted by Invader

If the LA riots were the consequence of consistent police brutality, how exactly does that make the violence left wing? Considering the leftist sympathy came as a result of political motives (gaining young votes that right wing politicians lost, as one example) says very little about the intentions of the perpetrators. I'm of course not denying that the riots were certainly acts of terrorism, being that they were targeting a large portion of the civilian population, but I can't say that I agree with your application of the term 'left wing' to the rioters. Can we have some further explanation?

The position that a big city police department is overly brutal as opposed to "tough on crime" or whatever is a liberal/left position. More specifically, the issue of LAPD use of force was one that had stances divided almost 100% between liberals and conservatives. As suggested in the video, Dan Quayle and Bush 41, for example, took no stand whatsoever against the LAPD for brutality in general or for the Rodney King beating. That is representative of pretty much all Republicans. It was a Republican stance that Rodney King was beaten because he had to be. They said he was resisting arrest after trying to attack the police and that he was reasonably being subdued. "He would not stop moving, so they kept hitting him to protect themselves." It was close to 100% exclusively liberals who spoke out against LAPD brutality and specifically the Rodney King beating. Pretty much everybody on the left said that the police used waaaaaaaaayyyy more force on Rodney than necessary. Like I said, it is a liberal position, like thinking abortion should be legal or the rich should be taxed more. The position the left took and always takes because it is the liberal position to take is the position the rioters took. The riots were left wing violence.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If you're going to class any act of violence as terrorism, the word loses all meaning. The L.A. riots, like riots in general, were a spontaneous and unfocused outpouring of anger. Terrorism is a strategy; there's no strategy in rioting. The difference between terrorism and rioting is the same as the difference between first degree murder and 'crimes of passion:' intent and premeditation.

The conditions that allowed for the L.A. riots are identical to those in any ethnic ghetto from ancient Rome to the Brazilian favelas: people corralled into a densely packed area by authoritarian policing from outside, largely left to fend for themselves. If you want to ascribe "left wing" motivations to the L.A. rioters, who were hardly unique in either their frustrations or their response, then how can you make exceptions for other riots under the same conditions--which is to say, most riots in human history, ethnic ghettos being a common locale for these rare events?

I didn't comment on any other riots. It is you who is doing that. Any riot driven by what I talked about is a left wing riot. If murder is involved for such a political outcry, it is terrorism.

The L.A. riots were driven by a political agenda. It was to partly to raise awareness about police brutality and legal injustice in L.A. Another motivation was to hurt people as some weird form of "revenge" against people who were not even the perpetrators against Rodney King. That part of it is a lot like Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. They barely have a goal of doing anything to change the political landscape. The main goal of Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel is to get "them". Palestinian terrorists see all Israeli Jews as invaders even though most of the Israeli Jews were born there and a really high percentage are second, third, fourth generation. When asked why Palestinian suicide bombings are supposedly necessary, a lot of Palestinian terrorist supporters will say stuff like, "They.. them... they... get them back! They... Do you expect us to do nothing?" In other words, "Grrrrrrr, me mad! Me hurt people!" So they hurt "them". That too is terrorism.

If you shoot up a McDonald's to steal people's wallets, it is armed robbery. If you shoot up a McDonald's because you want to lash out against the U.S. having a military base in South Korea, it is terrorism.

I think you're both fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of a riot. They're not "for" anything. It's a fucking social convulsion. It's a psychotic break in the social fabric. There's no goal in mind.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I think you're both fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of a riot. They're not "for" anything. It's a fucking social convulsion. It's a psychotic break in the social fabric. There's no goal in mind.

That often is the case, and it was a variable in the L.A. riots of 1992. However, a high percentage of the people of South Central L.A. really were extremely pissed about the Rodney King beating verdict. Tons of rioters were screaming and chanting about it as they rioted. I understand their anger, but I think rioting was self-defeating and made them hypocrites. I will say that Damon Williams, the rioter who beat Reginald Denny close to death during the riots, later said that he didn't even know about the beating verdict. You are definitely right about some of the rioters, but I don't think you are about all and probably not most of them.

The Rodney King incident was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. There were numerous incidents in their communities that fueled their anger long before, as we all know. I can't say I agree that the riots were left wing in nature, only because I can't apply that term to a situation that lacks political motives/goals, but I can see why you'd pair the incident with the sympathies of other leftist politicians.

And Taosaur, I understand, but it's always possible for a select group or individual to invoke a riot to meet their own goals. A riot can achieve a goal without the knowledge of that goal being apparent to the rioters.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That often is the case, and it was a variable in the L.A. riots of 1992. However, a high percentage of the people of South Central L.A. really were extremely pissed about the Rodney King beating verdict. Tons of rioters were screaming and chanting about it as they rioted. I understand their anger, but I think rioting was self-defeating and made them hypocrites. I will say that Damon Williams, the rioter who beat Reginald Denny close to death during the riots, later said that he didn't even know about the beating verdict. You are definitely right about some of the rioters, but I don't think you are about all and probably not most of them.

The anger didn't start with the verdict--that was only a trigger. The anger came from the existence of the ghetto. The riot wasn't a response to authoritarian, lawless policing; both riots and lawless authoritarianism are natural features of a ghetto. Casting the riots as part of an adversarial 'campaign' of the Left is precisely the kind of thinking that leads to the existence of the ghetto, an escalation of hostility with police, and eventually riots--an endless cycle unless the thinking changes and the community is opened up, making it no longer a ghetto.

Originally Posted by Invader

And Taosaur, I understand, but it's always possible for a select group or individual to invoke a riot to meet their own goals. A riot can achieve a goal without the knowledge of that goal being apparent to the rioters.

Absolutely possible. Absolutely not the case in L.A. No one incited those riots, though no one made much of an effort to prevent them, either. And even in incited riots, the riot itself is not terrorism; the incitement is.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Absolutely possible. Absolutely not the case in L.A. No one incited those riots, though no one made much of an effort to prevent them, either. And even in incited riots, the riot itself is not terrorism; the incitement is.

Toasaur you have much to learn from Universal Wiseass

Black People=Evil

Cops= good

Originally Posted by Thief

Toasaur you have much to learn from Universal Wiseass

Black People=Evil

Cops= good

That's neither constructive nor the case, as far as I can tell. UM has repeatedly, and according to my BS detector, sincerely, opposed overt racism and I get the impression he's pretty neutral on cops.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That's neither constructive nor the case, as far as I can tell. UM has repeatedly, and according to my BS detector, sincerely, opposed overt racism and I get the impression he's pretty neutral on cops.

Thanks. Thief got banned, and I am not surprised at all. He is one of the few trolls I have ever come across who flat out admits that he is a troll. It's not a recipe for lasting very long on a website.

About cops... I think we need them, and I will support them when they do something drastic that is necessary, but I despise corrupt cops and cops who abuse people to get their kicks. That is a real problem, and I completely believe that it is a major problem in South Central. I know how too many cops are in my city. I am extra pissed at corrupt cops right now because my brother pulled out of a restaurant/bar recently and saw blue lights behind him as soon as he was in the road. The cop searched his car and couldn't find anything illegal, so the cop tried to give him a breathalyzer test. My brother refused since he was probably over the limit, so the cop charged him with DUI refusal and arrested him. The handcuffs were so tight on my brother's wrists that he could not move one of his hands for three days. I know that stuff goes on all the time, and it makes my blood boil.