Apparently people in the UK don't consider threats as a precursor to violence, guess it's different over there.
There's a difference between a threat and actual physical violence, wouldn't you say?
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.
No, you have a tendency to throw words around to try and provoke an emotional reaction based on your feelings and assertions about a situation. It doesn't seem to matter to you that the words don't make much sense when putting your argument forward.
Things like:
"all too real"
"Flags directly cause religious violence"
"Flags are like bombs"
"The UK is going to tolerate itself out of existence"
Call it sarcasm, a colourful analogy/bit of language, hyperbole, whatever you like, then you don't like it when people call you out on it. They're deflecting, or being naive, or they're just stupid. If you pollute your argument standpoint with sarcasm, analogies, and other colourful language which isn't strictly what you mean, just because they seem appropriate to the situation in some way to you, it doesn't mean they do to others.
(Re: American) So you're admitting that I wasn't being naive?
Read all four definitions, naivety is about a trusting, ignorant attitude towards something. If you lose the 'trust' element from the definition, the word is completely unnecessary.
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?
You think a threat and violence are the same thing?
You repeatably brought up utterly irrelevant points (the current state of the law,
I don't think I've mentioned the state of the law at all, so I'm curious about how you came to that conclusion. I asked you for evidence of your claims, you've provided none (unless everyone goes with the same assumption that threats are the same as violence).
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.
Your initial comments were basically that the UK is too tolerant of this sort of situation. Let's say that the flag was still up, people flocked to it and set up camp there, threats were followed up with violence, and yet the state was unwilling to get involved because let's say they were afraid of being accused of religious persecution or something. In this scenario, I would have agreed with you that the UK are being too tolerant of such a situation.
However, none of that happened. Some journalists got threatened, a Jewish guy was spoken to in an intimidating manner, then the flag was taken down within a few days. Aside from what was said, the situation was pretty similar to what happened in NJ. The fact that the flag was taken down pretty shortly after it was put up is a similarity, the situation was dealt with in a similar way. So how does this make the UK any more tolerant than the US?
So hopefully you now see that I am countering a point you made, it's not an attempt to shift the discussion.
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.
You've managed to draw an assumption that this has anything to do with ISIS out of one flag and a handful of words spoken, which didn't include an explicit statement to base your assumption on.
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.
Wasn't it already pointed out that it isn't an ISIS flag?
Here's a picture from the OP article:
Here's a picture of the symbol that ISIS use (from Wikipedia):
Sorry, not the same flag. So much for what you regard to be fact.
Aside from that, the flag doesn't do any of that. Assuming that it's ISIS for a second, the people holding the flag do that. It's their actions that draw support, and they use a symbol to denote their presence. Without their actions, you would not think that was a flag for ISIS, because you would never had heard of them. It doesn't matter (to them) what the symbol is, it could be a care bear, the gay pride rainbow flag, as long as people know that they're using that symbol.
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".
Please point out where I denied that they acted in a threatening manner. I just think you read an awful lot into what little was said. You don't even know whether they had anything to do with ISIS (allied themselves with the goals of ISIS, whatever), you just think you do.
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.
You've encountered an extremist religious organisation and have been threatened by them? Do tell. If not, then please drop this "you're so naive and I'm so much more knowledgeable and experienced than you" bullshit act, because it lends no credence to your argument.
Your interpretation of the events is in question here, there isn't enough evidence to determine what you regard to be facts. Here's the key quote from the article (I didn't put the second paragraph in bold though it is important):
The flag bears similar writing to the jihadi flags that have been flown by the extremist group in Iraq and other jihadi groups since the 1990s. When the estate was approached last night, 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?"
My impression of ISIS is that they aren't in the habit of swearing at locals and then scurrying off after putting a flag up.
Btw, there's quite a lot more news on this situation, but I haven't been able to build up a compatible picture of what's happened. A few stories agree with elements of this one:
http://www.london24.com/news/jihadist_flag_flying_on_poplar_housing_estate_1_3718361
Facebook
Twitter