The "Protest" in Britain

Today the British were rioting. Many will say protesting, but a protest, at least here in America, is not supposed to be violent. When a large group of people shouting, breaking windows, defacing things, and screaming some more get in the news, they are often called rioting. Who do they legitimize the event that occured today by saying they were protesting? They threw eggs at the police, what message does that send? What cause does throwing eggs at police promote? It doesn't. This was not a protest. It was a riot. I'll also point out that I believe at least 20% of the crowd present were reporters, there were more cameras than people it seemed. Reporters, sadly, were pushing protesters aside trying to get to the center of the violence to get the hot shot of the event for their journalistic or hobby projects. They were protesting Obama's capitalism, which in and of itself is a mistake. Obama has not done anything so far that would in the long run preserve the capitalist system. While their message was wrong, and it has no value because of the presentation, the message matters to display the stupidity of these people. Emotion in a protest can lead to riot conditions, and it is these conditions that people lose control in and begin the riot. However, by preparing on a basis of a lie, Obama's capitalism, they were rioting before they arrived. They had allowed their emotion, their anger, not their discomfort, not their sadness about the situation they may be in, but their anger to get them to the protest. If you go to a 'protest' because of anger, you are not going to protest. If you go because you have a message, a story to tell someone, to let someone know then you are going to protest. These people had no message, some did, but the majority had emotion. Emotion, in the world of laws and diplomacy, has no value. Stop calling it a protest. It was not a protest. Thank you and let me know if you agree, meow, have a good day.