> You seem to contradict yourself above. First, you
> admit that they may start as legitimate
> demonstrations, but then you say that they are just
> pure violence that upon which political commentators
> impose social grievances.
>
I see no contradiction - what starts a demonstrations often degenerates into mob violence - I have seen that a number of times. Sometimes it is because they are hijacked by hooligans but more often it is because certain situations (including mobs) beget aggression and violence even among otherwise non-violent people. If you are interested to learn more about the socio-psychological aspect of it, the Stanford Prison Experiment http://www.prisonexp.org/ and underlying behavioral models are a good place to start.
But I strongly suspect that your reaction to my posting is caused not by the real or perceived contradictions, but by the fact that it undercuts the central tenet of a religious faith - to which you seem to subscribe - that if it is dark-skinned, poor, and rioting it must be good and worthy "our" sympathy. Just like pictures of puppies, kittens and babies elicit "ohs" and "ahs" among housewives, the pictures of dark-skinned youngsters with Molotov cocktails elicit knee-jerk sympathy among the certain kind of self-styled "left." Ok, images of Dalai Lama have a similar effect.
So basically you seem to be objecting to the fact that I did not show the proper respect for the rioters. Sorry to disappoint you, but I simply have zero respect for skinheads of any skin color. I think the rioters are what Mr. Sarkozy called them - albeit I also think that Mr. Sarkozy's language was inappropriate because it antagonized people without helping the situation.
If glorification of gangsterism and mob violence is the left's vision for social justice and change - I say keep it - I will be better off with that of the Wall Street.
Wojtek