Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Muslim protest turns violent.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am all for free speech, and I support it on every side. Muslims have a right to protest for Palestine or any other insane thing they want to. But as soon as violence is being used against policemen, and threats of violence are being shouted at crowds, it is time for skulls to be cracked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97hyDRjdXCE...player_embedded

It's pretty pathetic that all they are doing is running away. Were they not prepared? I know most police officers in England don't carry guns. How about a tank for these things? When they start throwing things, trying to hurt innocents, you role over the group with a tank? Every person in that group has put themselves in danger by being involved in a violent protest and should suffer the consequences. The police should try and round them all up, and if they can't and the violence continues, roll em out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The words "Muslim" and "violence" seem to be synonomous nowdays.

If by "nowdays" you mean from the 18th century onward, I agree. :)

(I'm basing the 18th century number on the Wahhabi movement so I might be overshooting by a little.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If by "nowdays" you mean from the 18th century onward, I agree. :)

(I'm basing the 18th century number on the Wahhabi movement so I might be overshooting by a little.)

More likely undershooting. Most of the spread of Islam has been through conquest and violence/intimidation.

I nominate this thread's title for the most generic/reusable thread title ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I see way too many cases where large groups of people violate rights, then are labeled "protesters" by observers. Those people are not protesters, they are rioters.
This reminds me of a topic I thought about posting. I was thinking that passive voice can be a sign of a metaphysical vs. man-made error and/or a means of denying responsibility for one's actions.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/11/gaza.rally.new.york/

Steve Sherman, coordinator of security for United for Peace and Justice and a demonstrator at the rally, said police maced demonstrators.

"The police pushed us out onto the avenue, and as we were walking down the avenue ... they charged with horses on the sidewalks and they charged with their own bodies and pushed in, and a riot started," he said.

Notice how the police are responsible for pushing/charging, but the protesters aren't responsible for rioting. The riot just started, either of it's own will (huh?), or as a natural (not man-made) occurence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cops aren't cowards. The strategy is probably to separate the aggressive assholes from the rest of the crowd, by drawing them away. Or at least they are leading the protest to a different area. If their orders were to stand and hold the protest, I guarantee you that they would've been able to hold without moving back an inch.

But I'll admit, the cops seem a little bit disorganized, and they weren't expecting violence, or the riot gear would've been prepared. I don't think there was a need for an all out assault by the police, on the whole protest (the level of violence could be categorized at moderate at most), but some arrests could've been made. It is a bad idea to let anyone get away with chasing a cop.

As for the people who posted the video (the BNP), they are a far-right, National-Socialist party in the UK. While video is video, it can be cut up conveniently, and I'm sure it's available from other sources we can check out as well. We'd be better off avoiding that particular youtube channel, they are clearly using this to promote their own agenda at the expense of the Police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, don't take me posting that video as an endorsement of the BNP. Those guys are as much of a threat. They only plan on using the violence of the state, rather than disorganized rioters.

I've read your posts before, Mr. Selfish, so I knew you don't support those people. I just posted to warn those who may not know what the BNP is to not take the comments and the title of the video as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I saw was a well disciplined police force not giving any excuse, to a mob who's sole reason for being is to start a riot.

That simple discipline probably saved a whole shit load of private property from being destroyed.

It also robs the mob of any sort of legitimacy in rioting, something I would say they were looking for to stir the pot and ferment more hatred in their communities.

At one point in the video one of the protesters apparently gets too rough for one of the cops you can hear the beginning of the scuffle and by the time the thug with the camera pans over there are already a half a dozen police with their comrade ready to start bashing skulls. The protesters backed off enough for the police to continue with their plan.

By the way, when a police officer is resting his baton on his shoulder... that's not a resting position for that weapon, and pity the poor fucker that mistakes it for sloppiness.

As for the disorganized look of the police, to have confronted the crowd line abreast and six deep would have started the riot within 20 paces. As it was they gave them a certain freedom of movement and eliminated the mobs ability to claim they were boxed in or channeled.

The title "Metropolitan Police humiliated at the hands of Muslim demonstrators in London" is propaganda written and posted by one of the terrorist wannabe's in the mob.

Well done to the police.

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats right Zip, I thought the police handled the situation very well indeed.

I thought the riding them over with a tank method suggested earlier should've been used. I fail to see why the police needs to avoid violance where the population is actively asking for it. They should be shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for free speech, and I support it on every side. Muslims have a right to protest for Palestine or any other insane thing they want to. But as soon as violence is being used against policemen, and threats of violence are being shouted at crowds, it is time for skulls to be cracked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97hyDRjdXCE...player_embedded

It's pretty pathetic that all they are doing is running away. Were they not prepared? I know most police officers in England don't carry guns. How about a tank for these things? When they start throwing things, trying to hurt innocents, you role over the group with a tank? Every person in that group has put themselves in danger by being involved in a violent protest and should suffer the consequences. The police should try and round them all up, and if they can't and the violence continues, roll em out.

A tank is a bit excessive. While in war civilian casualties cannot be stopped, in civil contexts we have government for the exact purpose of making sure people are treated as individuals in all possible ways. If government starts reacting against all members of the group for what some of the members do, why bother having government in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the riding them over with a tank method suggested earlier should've been used. I fail to see why the police needs to avoid violance where the population is actively asking for it. They should be shot.

Isn't that rather like "Kill them all, God will know his own?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the riding them over with a tank method suggested earlier should've been used. I fail to see why the police needs to avoid violance where the population is actively asking for it. They should be shot.

So all this talk of rights and objective law goes right out the window when it is convenient? A man shouts at a police officer, the solution is simple, run him over with a tank or shoot him. A man throws a rubber traffic cone at a police officer, kill the whole lot, they deserve it.

:dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all this talk of rights and objective law goes right out the window when it is convenient? A man shouts at a police officer, the solution is simple, run him over with a tank or shoot him. A man throws a rubber traffic cone at a police officer, kill the whole lot, they deserve it.

:dough:

Rights and objective law still hold. Once you assault police officers, you forgo your right to safety, and the police is obligated to use whatever force is deemed necessary to restrain you. If you are alone, the police can probably restrain you with clubs. If you are in a group with thousands of people, police response needs to be scaled adequately.

Demonstrating against something you disagree with, or shouting at police officer is one thing. Taking part in a mass riot which initiates violence against the police is another.

If you wish your rights preserved, don't stand in a group that throws objects at the police and assaults them.

You can cry human rights violation all you want. Fact of the matter is the demonstrators in this video are taking themselves to be above the law. They think the law doesn't apply to them. They think they can break the laws of the society they live in. They think they can attack the police. They are wrong. Society must defend itself against such anarchists / fanatics savages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights and objective law still hold. Once you assault police officers, you forgo your right to safety, and the police is obligated to use whatever force is deemed necessary to restrain you. If you are alone, the police can probably restrain you with clubs. If you are in a group with thousands of people, police response needs to be scaled adequately.

Demonstrating against something you disagree with, or shouting at police officer is one thing. Taking part in a mass riot which initiates violence against the police is another.

You are throwing away one of the most important concepts in law, even though you mention it, that of necessary force. Killing a man for throwing a traffic cone is not necessary, nor is it an appropriate use of force.

If you wish your rights preserved, don't stand in a group that throws objects at the police and assaults them.

So all the people in that crowd, even the ones lagging behind 100m down the street should be killed for the acts of a handful of instigators?

You can cry human rights violation all you want.

Attributing things to me that I did not say will not make your point for you.

Fact of the matter is the demonstrators in this video are taking themselves to be above the law. They think the law doesn't apply to them. They think they can break the laws of the society they live in. They think they can attack the police. They are wrong. Society must defend itself against such anarchists / fanatics savages.

The proof is in the video. The protesters are trying to provoke a reaction from the police, no doubt about it, and that is why the tactic the police employed was so effective. The mob's instigators couldn't claim any sort of legitimacy, not even the most skewed piece of liberal media propaganda could claim that "the police's heavy handed response to a loud but mostly peaceful protest led to the riot..." In the end, no police officers were hurt, no property was destroyed, and knowing the UK's surveillance culture the police now know a lot more about the people who were leading this non-event than they ever did before.

In your rush to open fire you have completely disregarded the collateral damage. I'm not talking about human rights I'm talking about a country that has a significant Muslim population (15%) iirc, and the absolute nightmare a heavy handed ill conceived crack down would have on all of that country.

As it was, what happened? ... nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was textbook protest management. The police clearly had the upper hand and demonstrated such on the several occasions when it was warranted. Notice how, dispite the attempt to make it appear that the police are running away (in the face of members of the crowd calling them cowards), they were in fact managing the route very well. There were also several leaders in the protest who were keeping their members separated, and pulling back anyone who got too far ahead. The camera does not focus on them but if you pay attention you will see them.

The end result; no extended scuffles, no broken windows, no riot out of control, but a great deal of freedom of expression still allowed. Managing one of these is a delicate balancing act, and they did a brilliant job. Unfortunately, the next time there will be those in the mob who will see that to get what they want they will have to initiate an escalation. The police are going to need more men next time.

Edited by wilicyote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why use a tank when you can use tear gas, rubber bullets, etc to avoid killing those in the crowd who are relatively innocent? I mean, I bet a lot of Muslims there were mainly there because of fear and intimidation from their "brothers," and did not plan on throwing anything at anyone. The goal of an initiation of force as defense is to stop the aggressor from using force against you, not to stop him from breathing. "Rolling over them with a tank" would be, although darkly comical in it's absurdity, a barbaric act because it is a massive over-estimation on how much muscle is needed to stop the protest, and it would only serve to further empower the Islamofascist element.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A more interesting tactic that would not involve letting a possible riot develop / move around, without targetting people in the crowd who may legitimately trying to express whatever silly opinions they have was written down some time ago. It's not politically correct but I think it can be effective.

Its pretty simple: Have sharpshooters placed out of sight (preferably in some building) with suppressed .22lr rifles. An experienced police commander brings to their attention, by radio, instigators within the crowd - people who are clearly and demonstrably attempting to start a riot, egging others on, etc. (at least one cop with a video camera and mic would probably be advisable as well, so that this can be objectively demonstrated in court.) When these instigators begin to get a riot going, the police commander gives the word and they are shot, quietly, in the lung with a .22lr.

If you don't know much about guns, a .22lr is not a powerful round, and a lung shot is not immediately fatal (or even fatal for a long time.) In fact the person should have no long-term health effects so long as they get medical treatment within a reasonable period of time. Its quite possible that the person won't even know he has been shot - just that he has the urgent need to stop talking, concentrate on breathing, and get medical attention ASAP. The problem with rubber bullets and tear gas is that they are indiscriminate - you are as likely (or more, with tear gas) to hit someone who had no intention of rioting and piss them off as you are of making someone inclined to riot back down.

This, to me, seems preferable to current police tactics which, while effective, can easily backfire and get a large, overconfident group of rioters thinking that they have the police on the run. It also sends what I think is a proper message - if you are clearly attempting to instigate a riot, your ability to do so will be taken away, quickly, quietly, without a fuss. If you simply wish to express your opinions in a public forum, stay the hell away from people who do that and you'll be fine.

Edited by sanjavalen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you are very pragmatic about it - You say the police should run away (Give the impression of running away? Strategically retreat?) in order to avoid escalating the situation. What this accomplishes is that people who threw objects at the police get away with it. What are the consequences? Perhaps the day ended without bloodshed, but what about tomorrow? What about next month? By sending the message that the law is merely a suggestion - That you can throw objects at the police, as long as you're in a sufficiently large group, you only make yourself open to further attacks. You can not stop violence with appeasement, it doesn't work, never will.

Do not mistake this with a progressive case of preserving freedom of speech. The freedom of speech does not include assaulting the police. If one wishes to express his views one has plenty of ways to go about it: The media, peaceful protests, advertizing. Freedom of speech does not give one the excuse to use force.

What should of happened, is that once the law was broken, police should've taken any measures necessary to uphold the law. Don't pretend the person lagging 100m behind is a poor guy who just got caught in it all. He will have plenty of time to withdraw himself from the situation. The police should not open fire right away. Instead sufficient warnings will be issued.

Anyone who then wishes to continue his violation of the law and forcefully oppose the police will be delt with - by adequate force.

Would there have been bloodshed? Probably. But by police upholding the law you would prevent future violations of it. That is the only way society can survive. Appeasement will only encourage the law breakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you are very pragmatic about it - You say the police should run away (Give the impression of running away? Strategically retreat?) in order to avoid escalating the situation.

You are allowing appearances and raw emotionalism to cloud your view of what actually happened. I've said time and again that there was no running away here, and yes avoiding escalating the situation, (which is exactly what the enemy wants) is a sound tactic and renders them useless.

What this accomplishes is that people who threw objects at the police get away with it. What are the consequences? Perhaps the day ended without bloodshed, but what about tomorrow? What about next month? By sending the message that the law is merely a suggestion - That you can throw objects at the police, as long as you're in a sufficiently large group, you only make yourself open to further attacks. You can not stop violence with appeasement, it doesn't work, never will.

What was accomplished was surveillance, intelligence and for the future... target acquisition. Also the protection of truly innocent lives (bystanders living and working in the shops and houses the protest made it's way through) and private and public property.

Do not mistake this with a progressive case of preserving freedom of speech. The freedom of speech does not include assaulting the police. If one wishes to express his views one has plenty of ways to go about it: The media, peaceful protests, advertizing. Freedom of speech does not give one the excuse to use force.

Tell me Soth if you were assaulted, i.e. a man with a traffic cone threw it at you, and it missed, or glanced off of your leg... and you hauled out a pistol and shot him dead for it where are you going to end up? I'll give you the answer... as the plaything of some sex deprived lifer in the big house.

Now why is that? Because the law, yes, the LAW recognizes the concept of proportional force, which you apparently do not.

What should of happened, is that once the law was broken, police should've taken any measures necessary to uphold the law. Don't pretend the person lagging 100m behind is a poor guy who just got caught in it all. He will have plenty of time to withdraw himself from the situation. The police should not open fire right away. Instead sufficient warnings will be issued.

Mistake number one in your grand plan, by attacking the crowd but letting any portion of it escape you have just allowed 2,3 maybe 4 new riots to start. Keep going genius, London will be burning to the ground in no time under your leadership.

Anyone who then wishes to continue his violation of the law and forcefully oppose the police will be delt with - by adequate force.

No, that's not what you said, don't go all "pragmatic" on me now, where are the tanks and gunfire?

Would there have been bloodshed? Probably. But by police upholding the law you would prevent future violations of it. That is the only way society can survive. Appeasement will only encourage the law breakers.

No, future violations of the law would have exponentially increased, because you have just played into the hands of the people that tried to ferment, exactly what you gave them, a martyrdom moment. You are talking about a singular event that would make "Bloody Sunday" look like a scraped knee at a bible camp.

Your momentary triumph (if you are able to suppress the first incident, which would be unlikely) has just led to days, or weeks of full out riots with the loss of millions possibly billions of dollars (pounds) of property and many more millions of productive man hours. You've put innocent civilians in danger and given a couple of ineffectual low level wannabe's not only a platform but the exact excuse they wanted. You've just been played like a Stradivarius and now you can fiddle while Rome (London) burns.

Your view that the police would be able to contain any riot once you've decided to start it is simplistically naive. Have you ever seen a riot up close, or better yet ever been in any sort of crowd control situation?

I'll tell you why I ask... One of us has.

Oh, one more thing, remember at the end of the video when those silver pipes are thrown (weakly and ineffectively) at the police? Now where do you suppose those came from? What does it mean?

It means that the protesters, realizing that the cops would not be goaded into some sort of stupid reaction to what amounted to a collective and ineffective temper tantrum, started throwing away the weapons they had brought with them to cause more trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now why is that? Because the law, yes, the LAW recognizes the concept of proportional force, which you apparently do not.

"Proportional" force is a ridiculous, unrational legal concept. If a man is trying to beat me to death (or stone me to death) I will shoot him, and be completely justified in doing so. Fighting back with my fists or throwing rocks back unless my assailant pulls a gun out is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is a mis-representation of the concept of Proportional force as it applies in law enforcement. Even in the context of private personal protection, a basic requirement of proportionality is required under the law. Does this mean I stand around and wait for my assailant to pull out a gun a kill me, no. But if i pull mine out first and kill him, I better be able to convince a jury that I had good reason to fear for my life.

In the context of this discussion the police officer's lives were not clearly in danger. Had the riot erupted into a mele then one could make that arguement. It did not.

There is also the issue of priorities. If one of the officers who was hit with a traffic cone decided to retaliate, there most certainly would have been a dramatic escalation of the violence. This would have resulted in injuries on both sides, damage to local citizens property, and possibly danger to their lives. A wise officer is not going to let a cone throwing protester manipulate him into forgetting his priorities.

Edited by wilicyote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...