Mountainhare: this is the orginal post I responded to: Originally Posted by Krieg Order I was pointing out that the Aussies were, in fact, rioting. Since you both apparently disagree, lets get down to the crux of the issue (and I think it's stupid that we even have to go into this); were they? The first 2 meanings of 'riot': riot n. 1. A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people. Law. 2. A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose. There were about 5,000 people at the original Cronulla 'incident'. By any standards they created a 'wild or turbulent disturbance'. Violent? They attacked random people of middle-eastern appearance. They were also, clearly, assembled for a common purpose. How can you possibly deny they were rioting?! I can understand all the arguments of why, but why would you contend this basic, basic fact?