This is a slightly tired and broadly awful analogy. The rioters this week haven't shared the same motivations, determination or moral conviction of "rebel" (but now recognised) Libyan Government. If I were Libyan, this comparison would be frankly insulting.
Good points all around, but any government that wants to maintain it's rule will portray freedom fighters as unruly rioters. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't, but giving the government the ability to restrict communication if it says they are is a dangerous precedent.
How do you know this? I sure hope you aren't unquestioningly swallowing what the state run media tells you.
Have you talked to any rioters? Have you entered their homes and seen how they lived? Maybe if you got to know them you would think up some reasons why they would be angry and feel like burning and robbing.
Maybe those reasons would be something like recent austerity measures further condemning them and their children to a life of abject poverty in one of the richest places in the world.
Maybe those reasons would be lack of access to decent education, medicine, mental health services.
A democracy that is widely seen as unrepresentative and broken where social mobility has been declining for 40 years.
How about an utter lack of job prospects while a consumer culture bombards them with media that tells them they are worthless for being trapped in a cycle of poverty.
At a certain point your underclass realizes that their only hope of ever getting nice shoes (and by extension, respect from society) is by taking those shoes.
Cmon London, you are smarter than this. Are you TRYING to bring back Marxism? Or does the English upper class not fear the guillotine?
I agree with Anigbrowl. The middle point doesn't stand alone and was not meant to. You've gaken it out of contest which is disingenuous. Given your phrasing he claimed with motivation and moral conviction, determination to achieve their goal would have him liking the "rioters" more. Though rioters would doubtfully be the correct word in that case.
The correct way to write the quote would have been ">The rioters this week haven't shared the same [...] determination", where the [...] shows you're editing: by implication you're not doing so misleadingly, but the reader gets the chance to check whether they agree.
The problem with your post as you wrote it is that you appeared to be making the claim that the word "same" immediately preceded the word "determination" in the source you were quoting. Which isn't true. This matters not because the difference is important in this case (we all agree it's not), but because people think poorly of you and your arguments when you make false assertions through carelessness (they think you might do it again and it might matter next time).
No surprise that when the protests happen here, governments swap position right away.