ISIS flag flown in east London

[irishScott]

How about you admit when you're wrong instead of trying to be right all the time? You can't expect to have a reasoned discussion if you're going into it with an attitude like that. If you don't want to have a reasoned discussion, and go into it like people like TH do (saying what they think until they're blue in the face and ignoring evidence / arguments to the contrary), then by all means feel free, but I'm not interested in listening to people ranting with their fingers in their ears.

It's not just the fact that you were wrong about thinking the flag was still up, your argument has been that the UK is going to tolerate itself out of existence. If the flag stayed up, then while your point was a touch hyperbolic to say the least, it's a potentially valid argument standpoint. However, "flag that people have issues with gets put up, taken down a few days later" isn't a scenario that your argument can get its teeth into.

Didn't I just admit as much? The fact that my timing was off is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The fact that you keep pushing it regardless seems like a weak attempt at character assassination.

The argument was always a touch hyperbolic. You honestly think I'd formally argue that in several generations the UK Government will tolerate itself out of existence, based solely on immediate reactions to a flag? Seriously? Here's a more formal translation of what I was saying.

"Legal tolerance of public support for terrorist, genocidal, or violently fanatical groups will result in said groups obtaining more power and and influence than they otherwise would, to the detriment of the public. Imparting any measure of public support, however small, to groups who are actively perpetrating crimes against humanity should not be tolerated."

IMO they're just as ambiguous. One guy feels the need to hang a flag up that he knows could be misconstrued but gets his wording right, a group of guys do the same thing but don't, is a way of looking at it. While I'm only slightly more inclined to give the NJ guy the benefit of greater doubt, IMO there's little point in making a distinction because actions speak louder than words. The action in both cases is ONLY hanging a flag, which imparts very little information.

The "are you Jewish" wording is also ambiguous in its intent, because if the Poplar guys hung the flag as a protest about what's going on in Gaza, then it's plausible that they could have confused say Zionism (AFAIK) with Judaism, and so it would possibly matter to them whether someone is Jewish when they're asking questions.

Apparently the NJ guy has been hanging that flag since before ISIS even existed.

As for the gang members, what they said was a pathetically thinly veiled threat of violence against any Jews that might approach the flag. It's the maximum you can get away with saying and not get a visit from the cops. If you can't see that then I guess either you've been extremely sheltered, or the UK has the most polite and intellectual gangs on the planet. Those gang members were clearly looking for a fight, preferably with a Jew. I've never heard of or witnessed any similar exchange that implied anything else.

Considering that the Swastika was generally used in conjunction (pre Nazi era) with other symbolism (such as the Buddha or other symbolism commonly associated with encouraging peace), your question is pointless, but I've seen Swastikas in the UK with four dots between the lines in the centre of the symbol (which isn't associated with the Nazis). I think a hippy was wearing something with it the last time I saw it (PS, I'm in my thirties).

But to answer your question another way, I would only expect a complete idiot to start harassing some hippy because they had a visible Swastika on them. I wouldn't expect such an idiotic occurrence in say central London, but vaguely possibly (but still very unlikely) if one goes into poorer urban areas.

The problem in either case is the context, the flag is just a flag. People are likely to choose to read its presence depending based on their personal bias. Judging by this thread, lots of that around. A Swastika symbol that looks like the Nazi one in its style and say adorning the outfit of a skinhead is somewhat different to a Swastika that a hippy might have on their outfit.

And no, the OP is not an example of how a flag has directly caused religious violence, because there's no evidence of it causing that in Poplar, I think that's an example of your personal bias at work.

My argument isn't pointless at all, that's why I supplied context. A Swastika on a hippie or in a buddhist temple supplies context that offsets the stereotype, but there's no denying that the average person on the street will see a swastika and think "nazi".

As for the bolded, see the 2nd part of my response; I think you're just a little naive. I know school children who would recognize an obvious threat like what those gang members said. That flag may not have succeeded but it was clearly there to provoke religious violence.

In any case, any show of support for ISIS promotes ISIS, and promotes all ISIS is doing. Right now ISIS is committing far more religious violence and crimes against humanity than anything else. It's not a case where you can say "well they do more than that..." no, not in any comparatively significant capacity, they don't. ISIS was born of violent religious extremism and exists because of violent religious extremism. To support them is to support violent religious extremism, or to be so wantonly ignorant as to defy belief.

 

[irishScott]

I haven't mentioned free speech at all.

Is flying the Confederate flag worth it if it inspires one disaffected youth to join the KKK or some other racist group?

Getting your knickers in a twist about isolated incidents like this is shallow and naive.

Matter of probabilities. The odds of the confederate flag inspiring anyone to join the practically non-existent KKK is extremely low, virtually unheard of. Even if the odds were higher the KKK isn't doing much more than burning crosses in their backyards these days and bitching; for all the violence they preach they're surprisingly non-violent. Odds of an undereducated British Muslim being recruited as a fighter and actually hurting someone, much higher.

For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Contemporary_Klan:_1970s.E2.80.93present

The modern KKK is not one organization; rather it is composed of small independent chapters across the U.S.[157] The formation of independent chapters has made KKK groups more difficult to infiltrate, and researchers find it hard to estimate their numbers. Estimates are that about two-thirds of KKK members are concentrated in the Southern United States, with another third situated primarily in the lower Midwest.[158][159][160]

The Klan has expanded its recruitment efforts to white supremacists at the international level.[161] But in the long run, the Klan's numbers are steadily dropping. This decline has been attributed to the Klan's lack of competence in the use of the Internet, their history of violence, a proliferation of competing hate groups, and a decline in the number of young racist activists who are willing to join groups at all.[162]

Recent membership campaigns have been based on issues such as people's anxieties about illegal immigration, urban crime, civil unions and same-sex marriage.[163]

As for getting my knickers in a twist, well I guess my tolerance for the support of religion-fueled crimes against humanity is a little closer to zero than yours. Just because a mosquito is a relatively insignificant threat doesn't mean you don't swat it.

 

[mikeymikec]

Didn't I just admit as much? The fact that my timing was off is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The fact that you keep pushing it regardless seems like a weak attempt at character assassination.

If you prefer to believe that, that's entirely up to you. I'm wondering how you can believe that it is irrelevant for the reasons I've already pointed out, but anyway.

The argument was always a touch hyperbolic. You honestly think I'd formally argue that in several generations the UK Government will tolerate itself out of existence, based solely on immediate reactions to a flag? Seriously?

What was the point in the hyperbole? There's no way for me to tell what you really think because I don't know you and text doesn't infer much in the way of tone.

Here's a more formal translation of what I was saying.

"Legal tolerance of public support for terrorist, genocidal, or violently fanatical groups will result in said groups obtaining more power and and influence than they otherwise would, to the detriment of the public. Imparting any measure of public support, however small, to groups who are actively perpetrating crimes against humanity should not be tolerated."

So now that the same thing has happened in the US and UK, you're going to drop your point?

Apparently the NJ guy has been hanging that flag since before ISIS even existed.

I don't know what went on in Poplar before ISIS existed despite me living only a few miles from there about a decade ago. Neither do you. It seems to me like you're taking a sympathetic attitude towards your own country and you wish to go on believing what you want to regarding other countries.

As for the gang members, what they said was a pathetically thinly veiled threat of violence against any Jews that might approach the flag.

Was that in the OP's article that I just read? I guess I must have missed that...

My argument isn't pointless at all, that's why I supplied context. A Swastika on a hippie or in a buddhist temple supplies context that offsets the stereotype, but there's no denying that the average person on the street will see a swastika and think "nazi".

But my point was that there's almost always context.

In any case, any show of support for ISIS promotes ISIS, and promotes all ISIS is doing. Right now ISIS is committing far more religious violence and crimes against humanity than anything else. It's not a case where you can say "well they do more than that..." no, not in any comparatively significant capacity, they don't. ISIS was born of violent religious extremism and exists because of violent religious extremism. To support them is to support violent religious extremism, or to be so wantonly ignorant as to defy belief.

And the Poplar situation wasn't an explicit show of support for ISIS, so I'm failing to see the point of this statement.

 

[irishScott]

If you prefer to believe that, that's entirely up to you. I'm wondering how you can believe that it is irrelevant for the reasons I've already pointed out, but anyway.

Well in my mind we were talking about whether the flag should be taken down or not and why. Whether the flag is still up or not is completely irrelevant to such a conversation.

What was the point in the hyperbole? There's no way for me to tell what you really think because I don't know you and text doesn't infer much in the way of tone.

So now that the same thing has happened in the US and UK, you're going to drop your point?

The point that the UK will "tolerate itself out of existence" that was 95% sarcasm? Sure I'll drop that.

I don't know what went on in Poplar before ISIS existed despite me living only a few miles from there about a decade ago. Neither do you. It seems to me like you're taking a sympathetic attitude towards your own country and you wish to go on believing what you want to regarding other countries.

I'm going off of the gangbanger's remarks vs the NJ man's remarks.

Was that in the OP's article that I just read? I guess I must have missed that...

It was the quote I posted earlier.

When a passerby tried to take a picture of the flag on a phone, one of the gang asked him if he was Jewish. The passerby replied: "Would it make a difference?" The youth said: "Yes, it fucking would." Asked if the flag was an Isis flag, one local man said: "It is just the flag of Allah." But another man asked: "So what if it is?"

^^^ That's a threat. Perhaps it's different in the UK, but here in the US in most contexts if someone talks like that it's universally understood they're looking for a fight, likely a physical one, particularly if it's coming from a goddamn gang member over someone taking a picture. What other interpretation is there? I thought this was common knowledge.

But no, I'm sure the impoverished Islamist gang member confronting someone over taking a picture was merely implying that if the passer-by was a Jew it would start more aggressive intellectual discourse, or that it would hurt his feelings and make him cry inside, or that he would simply yell insults until the jew left.

But my point was that there's almost always context.

Sure. Stereotypes are born from a commonly perceived context. I'm just saying good intentions don't matter when others are unaware or unaccepting of said intentions. The flag may be a generic Muslim flag, but like it or not it's now a commonly understood symbol of ISIS.

Swastikas may or may not be Nazi-related, but like it or not it's a commonly understood symbol of Nazis. Going back to your hippie example, I wouldn't be shocked at all for someone to see that, be confused and think "so Nazi hippie? What the hell?"

And the Poplar situation wasn't an explicit show of support for ISIS, so I'm failing to see the point of this statement.

Sure looked like it given the gang member comments and recent events. You're just refusing to add 1 and 1 together because no one's explicitly told you that they equal 2.

 

[mikeymikec]

Lots of sarcasm and no actual religious violence occurred, so you're dropping your point regarding flags directly inciting religious violence?

"Gangbangers"? More assumption.

Sure looked like it given the gang member comments and recent events. You're just refusing to add 1 and 1 together because no one's explicitly told you that they equal 2.

And neither was the NJ situation but shall we take that as you "refusing to add 1 and 1 together"?

When you want to talk about actual events and actual evidence, let me know. You mentioned discussing whether the flag should be taken down and why, then surely that involves the law, which relies on actual evidence and events rather than your interpretation of them.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Once again, can you argue without descending into sweeping generalizations? There is one context:

Time: Present Day
Subject: ISIS flag in London
Related: ISIS actively prosecuting genocide, extreme religious persecution and holy war as part of stated purpose for existence.
Question: Should the flag representing and attempting to attract support for the above be allowed to fly?

Whatever any flag stood for generations ago is irrelevant. Right now the ISIS flag directly incites violence and genocide. Not the idea or moral perspective of religious violence and genocide, but actual, happening at this very second, religious violence and genocide. In fact judging by the statements of those who raised the flag, their goal was to incite violence. They openly admitted that "things would be different" if a Jew had challenged it.

If so much as one innocent dies however indirectly from that flag's presence, which is hardly an unlikely outcome given ISIS's nature and current activities, I'm sure the family will be greatly comforted to know that their loved one was murdered as a sacrifice on the alter of 100% free speech; in righteous defiance of those tyrannical influences that would insist on an unacceptable level of 95% free speech.

Good night!

Ok, so the bottom line here seems to be, you are afraid of a piece of cloth with some symbols on it.

Fair enough I suppose. If you were standing next to it and it caught fire I suppose you could get burned. Also, I guess if it's flying at head height the wind could wrap it around your neck or over your nose and mouth and you could suffocate.

So yes, I guess a piece of cloth with or without markings could be considered as dangerous.

Ok, you win.

 

[irishScott]

Lots of sarcasm and no actual religious violence occurred, so you're dropping your point regarding flags directly inciting religious violence?

"Gangbangers"? More assumption.

So because religious violence was narrowly avoided, everything's fine? Last I checked threats were criminal acts even if the threat doesn't directly result in violence. They made the worst threat you can legally get away with. So no, I'm not dropping that point. The fact that your blind to the threat simply makes you a dupe. I hope you never walk through a ghetto area, someone could ask you for the time (a common mugging tactic to reveal your hands and/or expose your cell phone) and you wouldn't even think to look around for the other 2 guys. Hell I bet you'd think the guy leaning up against your car was just taking a break. The situation in the OP is even more obvious, they aren't even trying to be subtle about it.

And yes, gang members. The article uses the word "gang", unless that has some alternate meaning the UK. I know "Asians" is often used to describe Arabs and Persians in the UK press.

a group of about 20 Asian youths swore at Guardian journalists and told them to leave the area immediately. One youth threatened to smash a camera.

When a passerby tried to take a picture of the flag on a phone, one of the gang asked him if he was Jewish. The passerby replied: "Would it make a difference?" The youth said: "Yes, it fucking would." Asked if the flag was an Isis flag, one local man said: "It is just the flag of Allah." But another man asked: "So what if it is?"

If you can read that passage and tell me with a straight face that their intent was something other than religious violence, I have a bridge to sell you (you don't know until you have evidence that I don't, right? You have no such evidence. I'll send you my paypal. ).

And neither was the NJ situation but shall we take that as you "refusing to add 1 and 1 together"?

When you want to talk about actual events and actual evidence, let me know. You mentioned discussing whether the flag should be taken down and why, then surely that involves the law, which relies on actual evidence and events rather than your interpretation of them.

Once again, you don't appear to be reading the articles.

Dunaway says he has flown the flag every Friday and during the Muslim holiday Ramadan for the past 10 years with no problems.

If that's true, then there's no relation to ISIS. There is more evidence against the UK ISIS flag than the NJ ISIS flag.

Regardless, whether the flag "should" be taken down is a hypothetical matter, I'm not proposing legislation here. Once again you keep trying to deflect by bringing in irrelevant topics. What the law is has no bearing on hypothetical debates about what the law should be.

 

[irishScott]

Ok, so the bottom line here seems to be, you are afraid of a piece of cloth with some symbols on it.

Fair enough I suppose. If you were standing next to it and it caught fire I suppose you could get burned. Also, I guess if it's flying at head height the wind could wrap it around your neck or over your nose and mouth and you could suffocate.

So yes, I guess a piece of cloth with or without markings could be considered as dangerous.

Ok, you win.

Funny how you responded to this post and not my actual response to you.

In any case, you see a piece of cloth with no real meaning. I suppose that's the reason for the flags hanging outside of recruitment stations for... just about anything that has a flag. Has nothing to with the effect of the flag, human psychology, nothing like that. No, it's just there because whoever put it up thinks it looks pretty and has absolutely no effect on anyone else.

Can't teach a blind man color I suppose. If you don't understand the potential power of symbols, that's your loss. It's certainly clear you have no future in politics.

As I said, it simply appears that my tolerance for public support of religion-fueled crimes against humanity is closer to zero than yours. I'm not afraid of the flag in any of itself, I'm afraid of what it represents, which should not be allowed a public foothold anywhere in any capacity, no matter how small and insignificant.

 

[Jay5]

Just look at California.....mind you the Hispanic people are not our enemies but they will eventually be the majority population.

and then california can enjoy the result of who they voted for.like every other idiot liberal filled state that will get over ran by immigrants

 

[Victorian Gray]

Funny how you responded to this post and not my actual response to you.

Nothing funny about it at all given that it was basically a dissertation on how you were afraid of a piece of cloth. And, in the end I agreed with you that a piece of cloth could, indeed, be dangerous.

In any case, you see a piece of cloth with no real meaning. I suppose that's the reason for the flags hanging outside of recruitment stations for... just about anything that has a flag. Has nothing to with the effect of the flag, human psychology, nothing like that. No, it's just there because whoever put it up thinks it looks pretty and has absolutely no effect on anyone else.

Can't teach a blind man color I suppose. If you don't understand the potential power of symbols, that's your loss. It's certainly clear you have no future in politics.

As I said, it simply appears that my tolerance for public support of religion-fueled crimes against humanity is closer to zero than yours. I'm not afraid of the flag in any of itself, I'm afraid of what it represents, which should not be allowed a public foothold anywhere in any capacity, no matter how small and insignificant.

So, again we come to the issue of thought crime. You are not allowed to think or say something that I don't like, or agree with, or fear because it *might* be dangerous.

I understand symbols and their power. I also know that no one is ever killed by a symbol. A flag is just a piece of cloth that different people imbue with different meanings.

You don't ban speech, you give *better* speech.

Edit: (I think I've expressed what I want to but sorry if it seems a bit incoherent, I'm not feeling well and my thoughts aren't always transitioning smoothly)

 

[irishScott]

Nothing funny about it at all given that it was basically a dissertation on how you were afraid of a piece of cloth. And, in the end I agreed with you that a piece of cloth could, indeed, be dangerous.



So, again we come to the issue of thought crime. You are not allowed to think or say something that I don't like, or agree with, or fear because it *might* be dangerous.

I understand symbols and their power. I also know that no one is ever killed by a symbol. A flag is just a piece of cloth that different people imbue with different meanings.

You don't ban speech, you give *better* speech.

Edit: (I think I've expressed what I want to but sorry if it seems a bit incoherent, I'm not feeling well and my thoughts aren't always transitioning smoothly)

No, we don't. We can't control what people think, we can control what they're allowed to display and do in many cases.

The right to free speech does not cover terrorist recruitment or inciting violence (at least not in a functioning democracy). That ISIS flag was just a miniscule incarnation of both IMO.

By your logic Al Qaeda should be able to set up shop and give out recruitment pamphlets. After all they'd just be handing out harmless pieces of paper, right?

 

[mikeymikec]

So because religious violence was narrowly avoided, everything's fine?

You raised a point a few pages ago that flags directly incite religious violence. I asked how this occurs and for you to provide examples. You said the Poplar situation. It clearly isn't an example.

So no, I'm not dropping that point.

If you can read that passage and tell me with a straight face that their intent was something other than religious violence

So... you want to change it to "flags directly incite... threats of violence"?

The fact that your blind to the threat simply makes you a dupe.

Ooh, more hyperbole!

And yes, gang members. The article uses the word "gang", unless that has some alternate meaning the UK.

You said "gangbangers", which I'm pretty sure has a particular (sexual) definition. Furthermore, unless a gang is wearing some particular "known to be a particular gang" identifying symbol, it's just a group of people that people fear and assume has violent intent.

If that's true, then there's no relation to ISIS. There is more evidence against the UK ISIS flag than the NJ ISIS flag.

So you're taking someone at their word that you've never met of flying a flag that you have been arguing an entire thread about it having terrorist links and their effects on society, yet this guy obviously is telling the truth? And you're calling me naive?

Regardless, whether the flag "should" be taken down is a hypothetical matter, I'm not proposing legislation here. Once again you keep trying to deflect by bringing in irrelevant topics. What the law is has no bearing on hypothetical debates about what the law should be.

What exactly have I deflected? The points I've been countering of yours are as follows:

"The UK is going to tolerate itself out of existence"
"Flags directly incite religious violence"

And my point generally speaking has been "it's just a flag, nothing else has happened here".

If you're talking about "what the law should be", then surely you're proposing legislation, unless you just want to shout "that ought to be illegal!" and that's your entire argument, in which case I'd respond, "Insightful stuff!".

 

[Veliko]

Matter of probabilities. The odds of the confederate flag inspiring anyone to join the practically non-existent KKK is extremely low, virtually unheard of. Even if the odds were higher the KKK isn't doing much more than burning crosses in their backyards these days and bitching; for all the violence they preach they're surprisingly non-violent. Odds of an undereducated British Muslim being recruited as a fighter and actually hurting someone, much higher.

As for getting my knickers in a twist, well I guess my tolerance for the support of religion-fueled crimes against humanity is a little closer to zero than yours. Just because a mosquito is a relatively insignificant threat doesn't mean you don't swat it.

It's fair to say that those who fly the Confederate flag are somewhat more 'prejudiced' than others when it comes to black people, so you're vastly underestimating the odds that they'll go out and hurt someone. It's kind of weird how you're excusing those who preach violence in the same thread that you're banging on about the ISIS flag.

There must be thousands of Confederate flags flying in the US yet you're worried about one ISIS flag.

 

[irishScott]

It's fair to say that those who fly the Confederate flag are somewhat more 'prejudiced' than others when it comes to black people, so you're vastly underestimating the odds that they'll go out and hurt someone. It's kind of weird how you're excusing those who preach violence in the same thread that you're banging on about the ISIS flag.

There must be thousands of Confederate flags flying in the US yet you're worried about one ISIS flag.

Underestimating? The numbers have been in for decades on that front.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/incidents-and-offenses

In 2011 there were 6,216 convicted hate crimes in the US. Of those, the number of people physically assaulted consists of 4 murders, 7 rapes, 895 victims of aggravated assaults, and 1,595 victims of simple assault.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/tables/table-2

Now only 47.9% of these crimes were racially motivated, so for the sake of argument let's assume that percentage applies to the specific crimes.

So 2 murders, 3 rapes, 428 aggravated assaults and 764 simple assaults.

By contrast ISIS just slaughtered 80 men and kidnapped over 100 women a few hours ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/world/meast/iraq-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

So ISIS has killed ~40x more people in 24 hours than US racism did in an entire year.

Give one more bullet to someone who flies a confederate flag, odds are that bullet won't kill anyone. Give one more bullet to ISIS, and odds are it will.

 

[Veliko]

Oh, is that all?

And just how many people do you think have ISIS managed to kill in the UK?

 

[Braznor]

Flags have no meaning. Yea right.

 

[irishScott]

You raised a point a few pages ago that flags directly incite religious violence. I asked how this occurs and for you to provide examples. You said the Poplar situation. It clearly isn't an example.





So... you want to change it to "flags directly incite... threats of violence"?

Not at all. You're just insisting on an irrationally binary view. If that flag had been a bomb, and the bomb failed to detonate due to some technical failure, judging by this thread you'd deny that there was ever a bomb in the first place.

Ooh, more hyperbole!

More truth. From what you've posted you're extremely naive about such things. Nothing wrong with being naive, just a fact.

You said "gangbangers", which I'm pretty sure has a particular (sexual) definition. Furthermore, unless a gang is wearing some particular "known to be a particular gang" identifying symbol, it's just a group of people that people fear and assume has violent intent.

Actually it means "member of a violent street gang." Further evidence of your naivete that you didn't know this BTW.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gangbanger?s=t&path=/
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gangbanger

So you're taking someone at their word that you've never met of flying a flag that you have been arguing an entire thread about it having terrorist links and their effects on society, yet this guy obviously is telling the truth? And you're calling me naive?

As I said I give people the benefit of the doubt. There's also the fact that he hasn't threatened anyone over the flag in any way (in stark contrast to the gang surrounding the UK flag) and readily took it down when challenged.

What exactly have I deflected? The points I've been countering of yours are as follows:

"The UK is going to tolerate itself out of existence"
"Flags directly incite religious violence"

And my point generally speaking has been "it's just a flag, nothing else has happened here".

If you're talking about "what the law should be", then surely you're proposing legislation, unless you just want to shout "that ought to be illegal!" and that's your entire argument, in which case I'd respond, "Insightful stuff!".

My first "point" was and always has been sarcastic. The 2nd point was proven by the article in the OP. See my bomb analogy earlier in the post. Or is it common in the UK to not take threats seriously?

If I was proposing legislation I'd be citing current UK criminal code and suggesting which sections should be modified with which language. I'd also be a member of Parliament. What we're debating here is whether the flag should have been taken down or not, on philosophical, moral and practical grounds. Current law has no bearing on an inherently theoretical discussion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Oh, is that all?

And just how many people do you think have ISIS managed to kill in the UK?

The future potential if it was allowed to grow and fester like a disease... everyone not "them".

 

[mikeymikec]

Not at all. You're just insisting on an irrationally binary view. If that flag had been a bomb, and the bomb failed to detonate due to some technical failure, judging by this thread you'd deny that there was ever a bomb in the first place.

Since a flag is nothing like a bomb in any way that I can think of, I'm wondering how you came up with this analogy. Also, if this gang had a bomb (detonated or not), we wouldn't be having a discussion that in any way resembles this one.

More truth. From what you've posted you're extremely naive about such things. Nothing wrong with being naive, just a fact.

No substance to your argument, just personal attacks.

Actually it means "member of a violent street gang." Further evidence of your naivete that you didn't know this BTW.

Actually no, it's evidence that I'm not American.

Furthermore, look up the definition of naivety before you flourish your sentences with it liberally.

My first "point" was and always has been sarcastic. The 2nd point was proven by the article in the OP.

Yeah, now we're going in circles because you've ignored points I've made. There is no evidence of religious violence here, and you've provided no evidence of what you stated, that flags directly cause religious violence.

Furthermore, you accused me of deflecting, then when I challenged you on that point, you deflected, again.

See my bomb analogy earlier in the post. Or is it common in the UK to not take threats seriously?

A flag is nothing like a bomb.

 

[Veliko]

The future potential if it was allowed to grow and fester like a disease... everyone not "them".

That's a nice and vague way of saying zero.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's a nice and vague way of saying zero.

That's a nice and direct way of deflecting the threat a genocidal group poses.

Invite some of them over for dinner will you?

 

[mikeymikec]

That's a nice and direct way of deflecting the threat a genocidal group poses.

Invite some of them over for dinner will you?

So what do you propose, a zero tolerance policy of sorts, based on the threat that you perceive them to be?

 

[irishScott]

Since a flag is nothing like a bomb in any way that I can think of, I'm wondering how you came up with this analogy. Also, if this gang had a bomb (detonated or not), we wouldn't be having a discussion that in any way resembles this one.

The flag has the potential to incite religious violence, and it practically did as per the article in the OP. Apparently people in the UK don't consider threats as a precursor to violence, guess it's different over there.

No substance to your argument, just personal attacks.

Your own posts provide the substance, you just don't want to hear it. If I was personally attacking you I'd be using much harsher language.

Actually no, it's evidence that I'm not American.

Fine.

Furthermore, look up the definition of naivety before you flourish your sentences with it liberally.

Ok.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive?s=t&path=/

adjective
1.
having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2.
having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:
She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.
3.
having or marked by a simple, unaffectedly direct style reflecting little or no formal training or technique:
valuable naive 19th-century American portrait paintings.
4.
not having previously been the subject of a scientific experiment, as an animal.

Yeah, now we're going in circles because you've ignored points I've made. There is no evidence of religious violence here, and you've provided no evidence of what you stated, that flags directly cause religious violence.

The evidence is directly quoted in the article in the OP. You simply don't know an obvious threat when you see one. That or you just don't associate threats with violence for some unimaginable reason. Is making empty threats some universal UK custom I'm not aware of?

Furthermore, you accused me of deflecting, then when I challenged you on that point, you deflected, again.

You repeatably brought up utterly irrelevant points (the current state of the law, the timing of my post relative to the flag being taken down, etc) in an apparent attempt to artificially shift the discussion. Points I repeatably addressed for that matter.

A flag is nothing like a bomb.

It is if it has the potential to cause violence, and given the nature of ISIS that potential is all too real, as corroborated by the statements of the gang and the fundamental nature of terrorist networks.



But whatever. The argument's getting all jumbled among the points and counter-points and I don't feel like repeating my points in yet another format in a vain attempt to get you to understand them. So I'll just sum them up here as best I can:

The ISIS flag, wherever it may be flown, has the potential to both directly (through personal confrontation) and indirectly (through garnering support for ISIS) incite violence against innocent victims.

Evidence for such direct violence can be seen in the blatant threats quoted in the OP's article. Evidence for indirect violence comes from general knowledge of how terrorists organizations receive funding. You'd be surprised what a simple flag can do if it leads a potential supporter to someone with ISIS connections.

All I see you doing is denying that verbal threats were ever made, despite not providing any alternate interpretation for the statements made by the "gang". This lends credence to my argument that you are extremely naive about such matters and have likely never encountered similar threats or known anyone who has.


If you have a problem with any of this, then re-read my previous posts. I've read every last word of yours and I see nothing that prompts me to even begin to reconsider my arguments. And that's not my issue, I've admitted I was wrong and changed my arguments more than once on this very forum on various issues.

Clearly we have a failure to communicate here. I'll be sure to be painfully explicit and less hyperbolic if there's a next time. Over and out.

 

[irishScott]

Oh, is that all?

And just how many people do you think have ISIS managed to kill in the UK?

I dunno, but last I checked Al Qaeda bombed your subways in 2005 killing 52 and beheaded one in the street last year. Right now ISIS is arguably more brutal and almost certainly better funded than al-quaeda. I'd think the UK would be more sensitive to such things.

 

[Veliko]

I dunno, but last I checked Al Qaeda bombed your subways in 2005 killing 52 and beheaded one in the street last year. Right now ISIS is arguably more brutal and almost certainly better funded than al-quaeda. I'd think the UK would be more sensitive to such things.

Was it really that hard for you to type the word 'zero'?