> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. > To say "rioting is like terrorism-- they're both never just" is just insufficient. From my point of

> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. > To say "rioting is like terrorism-- they're both never just" is just insufficient. From my point of view, It looks like you claim one thing here and then turn around and say your own claim is insufficient. In order to justify a riot, everyone would have to have some set of agreed upon requirements (rights), an agreed upon process for change (legal system), and an agreed upon failure mode (How can we tell the legal system failed to provide the rights so that rioting is valid). The US has some agreed upon failure modes, but as far as I can tell, most riots are not about those directly, so they are essentially responding to an un-agreed upon failure mode. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth rioting for, but how could one justify it? An in progress riot can never be truly justified to every observer, because only the ends can justify them happening. Sometimes the process fails and the populous, or a portion of, must riot to have some form of control, but that doesn't mean one is able to justify it while in progress. But maybe the issue is defining what it mean to be just or to justify something in this context. How I see it, many of these things are just a power struggles, and justness doesn't exist for such things. Justness is a man-made concept and requires man-made prerequisites to compare it to.