SAF personnel come to school give talk to JC boys..
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
That would obviously be impratical, because it would require a massive renegotiation of the current agreement between UK and SG. Understand that the Gurkhas are there for a "worst case" scenario, and if they have to be deployed in that capacity, SG is probably in some serious deep sh1t.And like I said, that is the actual reason for our use of Gurkhas, whether you like it or not, and regardless of how much or how strongly u debate against it. Facts are facts, check with someone in the know like I said, instead of coming up with all these various hypothesis that have no bearing on FACTS.
In a "worse case" scenario, the P4P government should abdicate and not forcefully hold on to power.
I guess there must lack professionalism in the police force and military that needs to be bridge with a superior all master obeying guns for hire.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
So is the Gurkha army in UK the private army of PM Gordon Brown?
You seemed to have skimped the question raised by me. What makes a rule by P4P different from ALL the other countries in the world? You mooted the point to which you have privy, that it's the philosophical and governance doctrine that makes us different to others in the whole wide world. But when I asked that you give credence to your points raised, you shy away. If you raised a point, surely you must have evidence to support your point, or was it all conjectures a wisp of smoke (hopefully not the smoke someone is smoking).
Originally posted by 4Justice:
"No. Singapore is Singapore. PAP doesn't run USA or any other western or non-western country. Pls keep he discussion on Singapore since we have a host of unique factors and history that has an impact our the current govt philosophy and governance that differs from other governments."
If you can't even name the factors, I am doubtful if it even exist.
So what has this certain Mr. Lee got to do with racial segmentation and Gurkhas?
I can give you one simple factor that covers most of the details. Mr Lee is paranoid and a control freak. I can give u another: Singapore is small and easier for a control freak to micromanage.
Like I said, im not about to do YOUR homework for you. Within most of the UK there isn't any need for Gurkhas actually. The Gurkhas were meant for North Ireland, for similiar reasons as Singapore: Having a Gurkha shoot a NI-er was a lot less politically aggravating than having a British soldier (regardless of nationality) do the same. However the motivation here is more due to nationality than race.
Like I said, for the 3rd time, ask someone in the know, and you see if its your ignorance that you cannot face up to, or if it's me smoking something.
You can doubt till the cows come home, but the facts stay as they are regardless. Facts don't change themselves just because someone is ignorant and disbelieving about them.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
In a "worse case" scenario, the P4P government should abdicate and not forcefully hold on to power.
I guess there must lack professionalism in the police force and military that needs to be bridge with a superior all master obeying guns for hire.
Lol Mr Naive, do you think Mr Lee would do that? And lose all his nice cars, houses, and most importantly, power?
And saying:
"I guess there must lack professionalism in the police force and military that needs to be bridge with a superior all master obeying guns for hire."
Is like saying "Just because I keep a torch light at home for emergencies, it means my local power grid and national power stations are crap and utterly unreliable."
Bad logic and reasoning. Are you sure u're not playing with the grown ups here by mistake?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
again, I suggest you get out behind your desk and get out and take a look around the real world every now and then .....
to say that if we are right, then everytime a chinese police officer does something to a malay chap will trigger a race riot etc etc, is such an over simplification of things that you're either grasping at straws to win a loosing verbal fight or it really betrays a very simple, naive thinking process.
just because race riots doesn't happen every day when a "multi-cultural" police force is deployed on the streets doesn't mean, as heng pointed out, that it won't happen in the heat of a racially charged incident ..... and that's what we have them for ... and that's why you don't see gurkhas deployed everyday for police duties ....
since your slant towards the opposition is well known .... why don't you just spit out right now, what conspiracy theories you really have wrt gurkhas ..... c'mon, entertain me a bit .... sunday morning's boring ...
I am very sure racial divide exist, as per my earlier post. But my point of contention is, how does Gurkhas mitigate the racial divide, something which has obscured us since you took part in this discussion.I am just making hypothetical scenarios with the points raised by your fellow supporter. Which you again failed to notice.
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Maruizio13: you simply forget the race factor and its history in singapore.
Gurkhas are here because:
1) Chinese police/soldiers fire on Malay/Indian rioters. What do you think the consequences would be?
2) Malay police/soldiers fire on Indian/Chinese rioters. What do you think the consequences would be?
3) Indian police/soldiers fire on Chinese/Malay rioters. What do you think the consequences would be?
Regardless of whether it was just a coincidence that someone doing their job had to fire on someone else coincidentially from another race, you can be sure that the bad press would be put to good use, hence the reason Gurkhas are in SINGAPORE. At no time did I ever mention that what I say applies to any other country besides SINGAPORE.
Appreciate the trouble you went to to dig all that up, but the explanation is much simpler.
It would give you much credibility in your arguments instead of the usual responses of, "is such an over simplification of things that you're either grasping at straws to win a loosing verbal fight or it really betrays a very simple, naive thinking process.
".I suppose such statements will make your points look strong?
For the most part of the points I raised, you have neither refute it or raised any other points to counter it. You just make snide remarks, kind of juvenile don't you think, or maybe you are juvenile.
So what you are saying is that, during a racially charged episode, our own SPF would not be professional enough to handle it.
On the other hand, has the presence of Gurkhas prevented riots racial or otherwise?
A second race riot occurred just a month after the first on 3 September. This time, a Malay trishaw-rider was found murdered at Geylang Serai and his attackers were believed to be a group of Chinese. The race riot ensued in the neighbourhoods of Geylang, Joo Chiat and Siglap, and another curfew was imposed. In this incident, 13 people lost their lives and 106 people were injured. Under the presence of troops and the imposing of curfews, these tensions eventually eased after a few days. 480 people were arrested.
Rumours began to spread in Singapore about Malay atrocities against the Chinese in Malaysia. People also talked indignantly about the partiality of the Malaysian Armed Forces in dealing with those suspected of involvement in the rioting; Chinese that were caught were severely punished on the spot and these rumours aggravated tension in Singapore.[2] Talk of possible Chinese-Malay clashes in Singapore itself began to spread. There were tales of invulnerable Malays coming to Singapore to help their fellow Malays should they be attacked. These visitors imagined or otherwise, were said to be from Batu Pahat in Malaysia and could make themselves invulnerable to injuries, including bullet wounds.[3]
The Singapore Immigration, the Singapore Police Force and the Internal Security Department (ISD) made stringent efforts to stop any signs of foreign encroachment. Those who entered were carefully checked, and where necessary were issued warnings. Yet from May 31st to June 6th, four persons were killed and 80 injured.[3]
Chinese martial arts gangs had planned a massacre of Malays in the Jalan Ubi area. The ISD nipped this in the bud. Roadblocks and police action were adequate in Kampong Glam, where some disturbances had occurred. But it required calling the military including National Servicemen, to set up a cordon round the affected districts in Singapore's north. The Police swept through these districts during a short blitz. The remaining rioters were rounded up on June 6th that finally restored public order to the affected communities.[3]
I do not support the opposition, I only support what is good and right for Singaporeans. I certainly do not support dictatorship and authoritarian rule.
-
You are just out to prove you're "smart". When you need to prove you're smart, you're obviously not.
"On the other hand, has the presence of Gurkhas prevented riots racial or otherwise?"
I'm telling you the rationale behind the presence of Gurkhas, not their actual effectiveness.
If you can't differentiate between one or the other, it's high time for you to GTFO because u're wasting everyone's valuable time. I'd rather go preach to a wall. Besides, whether you believe or not, facts remain as facts. Its time to ask who is the real juvenile one here, one who constantly challenges facts for the sake of face, or one who has spent a chunk of her own valuable time trying to educate the ill informed.
-
Maybe you want a "very clever Maurizio13, heres a lollipop and a gold star" for being asinine when others try to make an informed post to educate?
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
I can give you one simple factor that covers most of the details. Mr Lee is paranoid and a control freak. I can give u another: Singapore is small and easier for a control freak to micromanage.
Like I said, im not about to do YOUR homework for you. Within most of the UK there isn't any need for Gurkhas actually. The Gurkhas were meant for North Ireland, for similiar reasons as Singapore: Having a Gurkha shoot a NI-er was a lot less politically aggravating than having a British soldier (regardless of nationality) do the same. However the motivation here is more due to nationality than race.
Like I said, for the 3rd time, ask someone in the know, and you see if its your ignorance that you cannot face up to, or if it's me smoking something.
You can doubt till the cows come home, but the facts stay as they are regardless. Facts don't change themselves just because someone is ignorant and disbelieving about them.
Singapore is small and easy to manage, that I agree. But that doesn't have anything to do with the use of Gurkhas to reduce the likelihood of racial tension.So are you talking about the use of foreign military for the suppression of racial tensions or the used of Gurkhas to massacre ALL Singaporeans? There is a difference between the two, Malays, Chinese and Indians are of different race. Ireland and UK are the same race just different country, moreover what you quoted was a dispute between the unification of Ireland and UK, much like the Civil War of USA. What form of racial riot is this? Or is it a racial issue at all?
I am asking you to rebutt my points, but seems like all you and Fatum can do is cast insults.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I am very sure racial divide exist, as per my earlier post. But my point of contention is, how does Gurkhas mitigate the racial divide, something which has obscured us since you took part in this discussion.I am just making hypothetical scenarios with the points raised by your fellow supporter. Which you again failed to notice.
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Maruizio13: you simply forget the race factor and its history in singapore.
Gurkhas are here because:
1) Chinese police/soldiers fire on Malay/Indian rioters. What do you think the consequences would be?
2) Malay police/soldiers fire on Indian/Chinese rioters. What do you think the consequences would be?
3) Indian police/soldiers fire on Chinese/Malay rioters. What do you think the consequences would be?
Regardless of whether it was just a coincidence that someone doing their job had to fire on someone else coincidentially from another race, you can be sure that the bad press would be put to good use, hence the reason Gurkhas are in SINGAPORE. At no time did I ever mention that what I say applies to any other country besides SINGAPORE.
Appreciate the trouble you went to to dig all that up, but the explanation is much simpler.
It would give you much credibility in your arguments instead of the usual responses of, "is such an over simplification of things that you're either grasping at straws to win a loosing verbal fight or it really betrays a very simple, naive thinking process.
".I suppose such statements will make your points look strong?
For the most part of the points I raised, you have neither refute it or raised any other points to counter it. You just make snide remarks, kind of juvenile don't you think, or maybe you are juvenile.
So what you are saying is that, during a racially charged episode, our own SPF would not be professional enough to handle it.
On the other hand, has the presence of Gurkhas prevented riots racial or otherwise?
I do not support the opposition, I only support what is good and right for Singaporeans. I certainly do not support dictatorship and authoritarian rule.
ah ... the boy's gone back to his favourite thing, wikipedia....
it's not that you've been refuted, but that you refuse to acknowledge it, or it's a bit beyond your capacity .... you think a long dense post like some of the other lunatics here would help you win arguments ? ...
okie, I shall borrow heng's argument again, maybe you're the type who response best to route learning ...
Is like saying Just because I keep a torch light at home for emergencies, it means my local power grid and national power stations are crap and utterly unreliable."
Bad logic and reasoning. Are you sure u're not playing with the grown ups here by mistake?
just because race riots doesn't happen every time a police officer or one race arrests a chap from another race, doesn't mean that the police force would be able to handle itself in all situations, especially racially charged ones ..... since you probably need spoon feeding .... in this case, gurkha = our emergency torch, savvy ? ... and that it doesn't mean that our local power grids and national power stations are crap and unrealiable all the time, do you understand ? ...
to use what you've quoted back on you ......
People also talked indignantly about the partiality of the Malaysian Armed Forces in dealing with those suspected of involvement in the rioting; Chinese that were caught were severely punished on the spot and these rumours aggravated tension in Singapore.[2]
now ... imagine if we had the "torch" then ..... wouldn't it have been useful in this case ? ....
neways ... are you now ashamed of being an "opposition supporter" now ? .... is the label actually uncomfortable for you ? .... or you're going to throw back a label and call me a PAP running dog or what now ? ....
i'm still waiting for your "ulterior motives" btw ......
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
You are just out to prove you're "smart". When you need to prove you're smart, you're obviously not.
"On the other hand, has the presence of Gurkhas prevented riots racial or otherwise?"
I'm telling you the rationale behind the presence of Gurkhas, not their actual effectiveness.
If you can't differentiate between one or the other, it's high time for you to GTFO because u're wasting everyone's valuable time. I'd rather go preach to a wall. Besides, whether you believe or not, facts remain as facts. Its time to ask who is the real juvenile one here, one who constantly challenges facts for the sake of face, or one who has spent a chunk of her own valuable time trying to educate the ill informed.
So correct me if I am wrong, but your idea behind this rationale behind the presence of the Gurkhas is not about their effectiveness, but as a psychological deterrent?So is this psychological deterrent going to be pervasive enough to stop a racially charged crowd from committing riots?
Just discuss the points leave the insults behind.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Maybe you want a "very clever Maurizio13, heres a lollipop and a gold star" for being asinine when others try to make an informed post to educate?
Not what I want.I just find it amiss for a person to be keeping a private army.
Like you said, I could be an idiot and you a genius for rebutting all the points I raised. Or you could just accept facts superfluously supplanted to you by the controlled mass media.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Singapore is small and easy to manage, that I agree. But that doesn't have anything to do with the use of Gurkhas to reduce the likelihood of racial tension.So are you talking about the use of foreign military for the suppression of racial tensions or the used of Gurkhas to massacre ALL Singaporeans? There is a difference between the two, Malays, Chinese and Indians are of different race. Ireland and UK are the same race just different country, moreover what you quoted was a dispute between the unification of Ireland and UK, much like the Civil War of USA. What form of racial riot is this? Or is it a racial issue at all?
I am asking you to rebutt my points, but seems like all you and Fatum can do is cast insults.
Very clever Maurizio13, heres a lollipop and a gold star.Now here is your rebuttal:
ALL your points are invalid, because it has no bearing on the actual rationale for the Gurkhas being here. IF you want to poke holes at the rationale for being a stupid one, please send all corresponence to:
Blk 57B, New Upper Changi Road,
#01-1402, PCF Building, Singapore 463057With the subject title: Dear PAP, I think your rationale for having Gurkhas here is stupid.
I'm telling you what the rationale is, not why its sound or not.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Not what I want.I just find it amiss for a person to be keeping a private army.
Like you said, I could be an idiot and you a genius for rebutting all the points I raised. Or you could just accept facts superfluously supplanted to you by the controlled mass media.
ah ....
so anyone who doesn't agree with you has been 'brainwashed by the controlled mass media" ? ...
that's what the bunch of opposition lunatics like to accuse people of in here, isn't it ? ...
blah ... try something new ...
-
The facts are not fed to me by the mass media. Please show me any proof that the media has actually stated "to kill singapore citizens with impartiality" as the rationale for Gurkhas being here. In fact that'd be a bit of a PR disaster. I'm surprised you didn't realise the glaringly obvious. Logic lacking? Seems like it.
Where I got my facts are from people in the know within the British Army.
And yes, you are an idiot because you just can't understand that whatever your points are, the rationale remains the same.
-
The day will come when even kindergarten kids will tell you they want to migrate to other countries.
Yesiree.
That day might just come.
-
Ah Heng so naughty.
-
And go read up more about NI and UK.
"Ireland and UK are the same race just different country, moreover what you quoted was a dispute between the unification of Ireland and UK, much like the Civil War of USA. What form of racial riot is this? Or is it a racial issue at all?"
Any brit or NI would laugh their asses off at this.
The Irish and the British are the same race but different country yes. However, since in this case its NORTHERN IRELAND we're talking about, which is a part of GREAT BRITAIN and not part of the REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, the point is moot. North Irish ARE British.
The struggle in NI was a religious and political(national) one. Most everyday citizens couldn't be bothered either way, although during the independence process of Ireland, NI voted to remain part of GB. You also need to understand that while NI, Scotland, Wales and England are all part of GB, they see themselves as distinct nationalities. Hence I mentioned it was very much a nationalistic struggle, and when things are nationalistic it means politics.
NONE of it was about the Unification of Ireland and GB, since Ireland sought and received independence from GB, while NI was always part of GB. There is no unification movement or anti-unification movement for the simple fact that there was NO unification.
Neither was it a civil war like the US Civil War. It is in fact more akin to the situation in Iraq today.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
ah ... the boy's gone back to his favourite thing, wikipedia....
it's not that you've been refuted, but that you refuse to acknowledge it, or it's a bit beyond your capacity .... you think a long dense post like some of the other lunatics here would help you win arguments ? ...
okie, I shall borrow heng's argument again, maybe you're the type who response best to route learning ...
Is like saying Just because I keep a torch light at home for emergencies, it means my local power grid and national power stations are crap and utterly unreliable."
Bad logic and reasoning. Are you sure u're not playing with the grown ups here by mistake?
just because race riots doesn't happen every time a police officer or one race arrests a chap from another race, doesn't mean that the police force would be able to handle itself in all situations, especially racially charged ones ..... since you probably need spoon feeding .... in this case, gurkha = our emergency torch, savvy ? ... and that it doesn't mean that our local power grids and national power stations are crap and unrealiable all the time, do you understand ? ...
to use what you've quoted back on you ......
People also talked indignantly about the partiality of the Malaysian Armed Forces in dealing with those suspected of involvement in the rioting; Chinese that were caught were severely punished on the spot and these rumours aggravated tension in Singapore.[2]
now ... imagine if we had the "torch" then ..... wouldn't it have been useful in this case ? ....
neways ... are you now ashamed of being an "opposition supporter" now ? .... is the label actually uncomfortable for you ? .... or you're going to throw back a label and call me a PAP running dog or what now ? ....
i'm still waiting for your "ulterior motives" btw ......
Good that you quoted the Malaysian article.
Are you suggesting that the SAF be replaced by the Gurkhas? Of course with the benefit of hindsight, one can say the use of Gurkha would be suitable in such situation. But say there is a national emergency and the SAF was deployed country wide to suppress the riotings. Does this mean that the whole of the SAF would have to be replaced by the Gurkhas, since without this benefit of hindsight. How would you know where would possible racial tensions occur.
During all these riots, the Gurkhas was in Singapore, did it stopped or mitigated the riots?
If you look at my previous post, I have made little support for specific opposition political party, to one particular opposition candidate, I just asked that people remain objective and not be swayed by propaganda from the media. I don't deny that the opposition is weak, nobody fits the bill ascribed by me. The reason for a weak opposition is the machinations of an old man. But that doesn't cow me into voting for them. I believe that for a stronger opposition to happen, it must be led by the overthrow of this current dominant force, despite voting in a weaker opposition force for the first term. Else, there will never ever be a stronger opposition force.
Let's face it, racial tensions do occur, for the government to placate the dissenting rioters, a proper judicial inquiry has to be conducted. Not the use of violence to quell another violence. Haven't we not heard the all too familiar "violence begets violence", the Israel and the Palestinians are good examples.
Say if such a case regarding MAF (re-quoted by you) happened in Singapore with the SAF where you feel a great travesty has occured. Would you as a rioter be appeased if:
1) They send in the Gurkhas and proceed to bludgeon everybody up to a pulp, impose curfew, beat up violators again.
or
2) Apprehend the accused and with the use of an independent judiciary, find the accused guilty or innocent with the evidence provided.
Would 1) or 2) appease your discontent with the other race?
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Very clever Maurizio13, heres a lollipop and a gold star.Now here is your rebuttal:
ALL your points are invalid, because it has no bearing on the actual rationale for the Gurkhas being here. IF you want to poke holes at the rationale for being a stupid one, please send all corresponence to:
Blk 57B, New Upper Changi Road,
#01-1402, PCF Building, Singapore 463057With the subject title: Dear PAP, I think your rationale for having Gurkhas here is stupid.
I'm telling you what the rationale is, not why its sound or not.
Sounds all so familiar, "I'm telling you what the rationale is, not why its sound or not".
Sounds so forceful and Authoritative.
-
Agree to disagree lah.
Otherwise, fight, fight.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Sounds all so familiar, "I'm telling you what the rationale is, not why its sound or not".
Sounds so forceful and Authoritative.
Don't be daft. If I told u Ted Bundy's or Charles Manson's rationales for committing the murders they did, whether you agree or disagree with their rationales, it doesn't change the fact that THAT IS THEIR RATIONALE, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. I'd be simply stating a fact. End of. I won't be bothering to waste anymore time, since you like to shoot the messenger for telling you the rationales of other people for doing something they do. -
Originally posted by Fatum:
ah ....
so anyone who doesn't agree with you has been 'brainwashed by the controlled mass media" ? ...
that's what the bunch of opposition lunatics like to accuse people of in here, isn't it ? ...
blah ... try something new ...
It would seem to me that he is, don't see him countering the points I raised. No firm logic to support his argument, at least that's what I think, maybe like you said, I am stupid.There are only 2 possible dichotomy between our 2 points. I can't find substantive proof to his logic, maybe you can.
Propaganda does exist, depends on your perspective anyway.
Maybe propaganda doesn't exist in your highly regarded P4P.
I am just looking at issues from an objective perspective. If your perspective is supported by logic, it's highly regarded, but if it's not, it's just another number in the propaganda statistics.
Use of guns for hire by politicians. I am sure PM Gordon Brown, President Bush, PM Kevin Rudd all keep Gurkha army beholden to him in his service.
-
You obviously are stupid. You can't differentiate between someone telling you an actual existing fact and someone telling you a theory they cannot substantiate.
Maybe you don't realise that just because it's a stupid rationale or one that isn't sound isn't going to stop our government from having that as their rationale. It's not like I'm the one who decided to have Gurkhas in SG because thats my rationale. It's the govts, u want to be an arse and complain about it, do it to the right people.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
You obviously are stupid. You can't differentiate between someone telling you an actual existing fact and someone telling you a theory they cannot substantiate.
Ok.I am stupid, you are smart.
Are we happier now?
V peace.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Ok.I am stupid, you are smart.
Are we happier now?
V peace.
Continue to miss the point. You were never near to it in the 1st place. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Good that you quoted the Malaysian article.
Are you suggesting that the SAF be replaced by the Gurkhas? Of course with the benefit of hindsight, one can say the use of Gurkha would be suitable in such situation. But say there is a national emergency and the SAF was deployed country wide to suppress the riotings. Does this mean that the whole of the SAF would have to be replaced by the Gurkhas, since without this benefit of hindsight. How would you know where would possible racial tensions occur.
During all these riots, the Gurkhas was in Singapore, did it stopped or mitigated the riots?
If you look at my previous post, I have made little support for specific opposition political party, to one particular opposition candidate, I just asked that people remain objective and not be swayed by propaganda from the media. I don't deny that the opposition is weak, nobody fits the bill ascribed by me. The reason for a weak opposition is the machinations of an old man. But that doesn't cow me into voting for them. I believe that for a stronger opposition to happen, it must be led by the overthrow of this current dominant force, despite voting in a weaker opposition force for the first term. Else, there will never ever be a stronger opposition force.
Let's face it, racial tensions do occur, for the government to placate the dissenting rioters, a proper judicial inquiry has to be conducted. Not the use of violence to quell another violence. Haven't we not heard the all too familiar "violence begets violence", the Israel and the Palestinians are good examples.
Say if such a case regarding MAF (re-quoted by you) happened in Singapore with the SAF where you feel a great travesty has occured. Would you as a rioter be appeased if:
1) They send in the Gurkhas and proceed to bludgeon everybody up to a pulp, impose curfew, beat up violators again.
or
2) Apprehend the accused and with the use of an independent judiciary, find the accused guilty or innocent with the evidence provided.
Would 1) or 2) appease your discontent with the other race?
weird ... you seems to have this mental image of gurhkas spraying down rioting crowds with machine guns .....
is this how you think riot control is done, or should be done ? ...
we're talking about using gurhkas to quell ongoing riots .... you talk about judicial enquiries to fix the blame afterwards ...... har ?.... do you know what "non-sequitur" means ? ... or in hokkien "lang gong kway, ler gong gau" people talk about chickens, you talk about dogs ...
again, your logic fail ... how do you propose to stop an on-going race riots then ? .... "Not to use violence to quell another violence ? ".... but with an independent panel to conduct an inquiry AFTERWARDS ? ....
*police black maria goes around with loud hailers ... "ladies and gentlemen, don't fight ! don't fight ! ... there'll be an full and independent judicial inquiry afterwards to determine the root causes of this race riot, but in the mean time please go back to your homes and stop killing each other " ....
and, I see that the label of being an "opposition supporter" has just become very uncomfortable all of a sudden ...