On Tue, 6 May 2008 16:59:26 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:
>
>"Svenne" wrote in message
>news:p9u02496mssuehdndmdg09jqrtl8qaqedh@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 6 May 2008 16:25:32 +0100, "Beat Crime"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF_2iJUHh1E&feature=related
>>
>> Who would have dared to intervene in a situation like that?
>>
>> I'm afraid they rule the streets and all the rest of us can do is look
>> the other way and pretend they haven't seen anything.
>Who is "they"??
The ones who look away and pretend they haven't seen anything.
>Can anyone explain what the video actually shows? Some black men punching a
>woman (presumably white, though it isn't clear) for reasons that are
>unexplained.
Are you implying that if the reason for assaulting the woman were
known everything would be quite OK?
>If they had been punching a man, I don't suppose it would be worthy of
>YouTube, would it? Thugs often attack other thugs, or attack people who
>have supposedly provoked them. It has nothing to do with racism and nothing
>to do with skin colour.
I don't see what it has to do with skin colour, either. Brainless
thugs are brainless thugs because of a mental disorder and not because
of a pigmentation variation.
But my point still stands. If someone saw a gang of savages
(irrespective of pigmentation of said savages) beating up a helpless
woman or man on the street, who would dare intervene?
Would it be morally right to intervene and leave your wife a widow and
your children without a father?
Svenne |