Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35011737)

Gary, I would again draw your attention to the content of the article wherein it states that Mr Shah "refused to give an explanation for his actions".

As such, and without same, one cannot reasonably arrive at an opinion as to what the basis of his motivation was. Attempts to do so will only evidence a fundamental lack of understanding in relation to facts, reason, logic, consistencty and rationale.

It's the equivalent of trying to predict the future.

Oh, hold on there......

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35011740)

Rubbish. you can form an opinion on anything and everything. you don't need to hear the explanation beforehand from the person or persons. :)

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35011737)

Gary, I would again draw your attention to the content of the article wherein it states that Mr Shah "refused to give an explanation for his actions".

As such, and without same, one cannot reasonably arrive at an opinion as to what the basis of his motivation was. Attempts to do so will only evidence a fundamental lack of understanding in relation to facts, reason, logic, consistencty and rationale.

It's the equivalent of trying to predict the future.

Oh, hold on there......

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------



Perfect example of flawed logic.

Someone unhappy about and offended by someone expressing anti british sentiments attempts to undermine the argument by suggesting that the individual concerned, rather than limiting their activities to vandalism, should swan off to a conflict and attempt to kill british soldiers in an attempt to validate their argument.

You see what you did there? You obviously haven't really though that one out.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35011757)

But the BNP's membership policy didn't target a particular group. So, if you target more than one group you are ok?

If X attacks Y and they are different races, as long as X doesn't volunteer an explanation, it is not classed as racist?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35011750)

and you are obviously having a bit a trouble understanding peoples posts ,i'll try to be clearer

if this bloke feels so strongly about muslims being killed then he should go and support them in a meaningful way like fighting with them in the cause that they feel is worth dieing for ,this would show a bit of character instead of the cowadice he shows now

there's nothing flawed about that logic

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35011845)

Thank you for the clarity - it confirms, and simply reiterates, exactly what I thought you said initially ie. that you'd rather he were off killing british soldiers in Afghanistan than offending their (and your) sensibilities by painting slogans on war memorials.

As I said earlier, it's a flawed logic.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35011673)

... (and one has to wonder how the police came to have his dna before the offence was committed) ...

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 35011917)

Interesting point.

I wonder if anyone on the forum thinks this use of DNA evidence was a violation of the man's human rights?

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 35011917)

Interesting point.

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 35011694)

Mr A - don't get dragged down into the maelstrom of illogicallity and perverse reasoning that is the "World of Gary Lâ„¢".....

Here's a Venn Diagram that might help explain things.

You might get out, but you'll never be the same again....:D

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35011659)

as distasefull as it is ,i rather think some EDL or NF members will want to have a little chat with this bloke

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35014863)

May well happen considering his full address appears on page 2 of the Google search re this story, guess he'll need police protection with the public'll end up footing the bill and I am betting that plays right into Tohsser Shah's agenda.