4 ms·

I'm not going to argue whether or not anything you've said is untrue, but you're leaving out some pretty important details which puts the protesters in a worse

I'm not going to argue whether or not anything you've said is untrue, but you're leaving out some pretty important details which puts the protesters in a worse light. First of all, one of the initial demands of the protest was to retract the characterization of one of the earlier protests as a riot. So even peaceful demonstrations have been cracked down on by the government. Even well-organized protests such as the one on July 1st (the anniversary of Hong Kong being handed over to China - there's usually protesting on this date) have met with strong resistance - early on the police were ordering people to disperse even though there was no violence at that time. Secondly, late in July there were increasing attacks on protesters in which police stood by as people were attacked with poles. It seems that in this case, it was the police that were allowing violence and destruction, not the protesters. Most importantly, the first bullet even fired in this whole situation was a police officer shooting an 18 year old high school student. And regardless how the protesters are behaving, the argument that the only valid form of protest is peaceful protest is also historically inaccurate. Peaceful protest is definitely better when possible, but in many cases throughout history it simply has not been feasible.

UIZealot 7y ago
That's the gist of it. Of course I left out a lot of things, and not all of them are in the protesters's favor. > early on the police were ordering people to disperse even though there was no violence at that time. But did the police use violence first? > late in July there were increasing attacks on protesters in which police stood by as people were attacked with poles. It seems that in this case, it was the police that were allowing violence and destruction, not the protesters. When you treat the police like your enemy, how do you expect them to rush to your help the moment you need it? And seeing that the protesters were more than capable of violence themselves, why would the police rush to help? > the first bullet even fired in this whole situation was a police officer shooting an 18 year old high school student. The officer was under attack and fired in self defense, you know that better than I do. > Peaceful protest is definitely better when possible, but in many cases throughout history it simply has not been feasible. In a place without law and order, it may not be feasible. In Hong Kong? It's definitely possible.
- shadofx 7y ago
  >When you treat the police like your enemy, how do you expect them to rush to your help the moment you need it? And seeing that the protesters were more than capable of violence themselves, why would the police rush to help? Because you have a sense of honor and duty? Because you want to preserve the possibility of peaceful protest? The reasons go on.
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    Ideally yes. The police could've been more professional and handled it better. But they are not robots, they are human beings too. I'm not say that makes them right. I'm saying I can understand why they stayed on the sideline. And I wouldn't disagree that those in charge at the scene should be held accountable for their inaction.

UIZealot 7y ago

That's the gist of it. Of course I left out a lot of things, and not all of them are in the protesters's favor. > early on the police were ordering people to disperse even though there was no violence at that time. But did the police use violence first? > late in July there were increasing attacks on protesters in which police stood by as people were attacked with poles. It seems that in this case, it was the police that were allowing violence and destruction, not the protesters. When you treat the police like your enemy, how do you expect them to rush to your help the moment you need it? And seeing that the protesters were more than capable of violence themselves, why would the police rush to help? > the first bullet even fired in this whole situation was a police officer shooting an 18 year old high school student. The officer was under attack and fired in self defense, you know that better than I do. > Peaceful protest is definitely better when possible, but in many cases throughout history it simply has not been feasible. In a place without law and order, it may not be feasible. In Hong Kong? It's definitely possible.

shadofx 7y ago
>When you treat the police like your enemy, how do you expect them to rush to your help the moment you need it? And seeing that the protesters were more than capable of violence themselves, why would the police rush to help? Because you have a sense of honor and duty? Because you want to preserve the possibility of peaceful protest? The reasons go on.
- UIZealot 7y ago
  Ideally yes. The police could've been more professional and handled it better. But they are not robots, they are human beings too. I'm not say that makes them right. I'm saying I can understand why they stayed on the sideline. And I wouldn't disagree that those in charge at the scene should be held accountable for their inaction.