Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

Yes, because I disagree with you I am a sad troll. :rolleyes: Perhaps you should join a debating club.

I think your last post amply demonstrates just how narrow minded you are. "Deal with people like you." Well, you've certainly nailed your true colours to the post, anyone whose opinion differs to yours must be a terrorist :rolleyes:

Now why don`t you step back from this thread a bit and read it again. Why don`t you pay close attention to the fact that this is an argument as to how to use a flag effectively in protest, and which started out with the point that banning the burning of flags as a means of protest is not acceptable. Now please explain how a knowledge of how to use psychology and a disagreement over a point of symbolism makes someone either a troll or a suitable candidate for anti-terrorism legislation. I`ll be waiting, I could do with a laugh.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

dr wadd.............you really take the biscuit :(

You started off denying that we should get worked up by arabs burning our flag (because the flag doesn't mean anything) and then moved your argument to stating that they do that because it gets us worked up (because they know it means something to us).
You want it both ways.........

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

There is nothing contradictory there. If people didn`t get wound up by it they wouldn`t do it. I argue that we shouldn`t get wound up by it, and if we didn`t I doubt they would continue. It is perfectly valid for me to state that we shouldn`t get wound up over it while recognising why people do get wound up by it.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

You mean we're NOT debating here? My understanding of the definition of that word says we are. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=debate
In any case I'm not the only one you are in disagreement with, so the fact that you're trying to argue (blindly) with all comers is looking rather troll-like.

I never said "people like you" - I said "with you" - so I wasn't generalising, I was specifically picking you out as a possible terrorist suspect.
And since you seem keen to dispel the idea that you might be a troll, you're just adding fuel to the fire. (lol. we're back to burning!)

I don't need to 'step back'. I've been following it quite closely. You may have been trying to espouse the efficacy of using a flag to insult a nation, the rest of us were definitely defending the flag.
Free speech doesn't give anyone the right to say whatever they want, or to express themselves in whatever manner they please. Anyone who thinks that clearly doesn't understand the concept at all.

Now you're trying to make it sound really intellectual - psychology is it? No - nothing of the sort. You're defending incitement as a valid form of free speech.
Since that's the kind of thinking that put Abu Hamza where he is, I do indeed think that makes you a candidate to join him.

There you go - you didn't have to wait long, and if you want to laugh, go right ahead. It's still a free country!

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

First, I suggest you start to consider carefully what accusations you throw around in a public forum. You are sailing dangerously close to the wind there. But once again, you clearly demonstrate that you consider someone with a differing opinion to you to be a potential terrorist. I suggest you volunteer to be the post-child for FUD.

When you stop throwing around wild allegations you may have a point, until then you are simply a hypocrit.

Ok, so if this is incitement, it does make me wonder what sort of person you are. If something as non-threatening as burning a flag is enough for incitement, I have to ask, do you have any degree of self-control? You see, for incitement to work it relies on those being incited to lose control. If it works on you as incitement, does that suggest you are rational?

Really, so the authorities have been lying about all the accusations against him? It's just that I swear I could recall a bigger list of charges than simply flag burning.

Yes, it is, which is ironic considering that if you got your way and the burning of the flag was banned the country would actually have had a freedom removed. Contradictory perhaps?

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

First of all you don't like me generalising. Now you don't like me picking on you. Make up your mind.
And while we're here, I'm just exercising freedom of speech - if you feel accused by that then that's your problem.

The only thing I'm demonstrating is that your argument has fallen apart.

I have made no wild allegations, and even if I had, that would not make me a hypocrite. http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/hypocrite

You are the kind of person that would burn a flag to make a point. You would like to make that point in a way that maximally upset someone.
You would do that because you would like to cause that someone to 'lose control' because then you could try to claim the moral high ground.
I am the kind of person who, quite rationally, points these facts out and then it is you that makes the accusations.

What pipe are you smoking? Did anything I say shorten that list? No.

No contradiction at all. Just goes to show that you completely fail to understand the concept of freedom of speech. It's not an absolute freedom - there is not such thing.

Do come back if you think you can demonstrate that you do understand what it really means.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

You what??! Your first words on the subject were:
Several pages of backpedaling produces:
.......where you state that it is more than just a piece of cloth (to us).........changing your mind is ok.....just don't deny that you are doing it.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

I have not changed my mind in any way. I have:-

1. Pointed out that I do not feel it is worth while getting wound up over a flag being burnt, I do not believe that it means anything.

2. I acknowledge that there are some people that have some sort of attachment to the flag. That does not contradict point 1. I cannot understand that attachment.

3. Since there are people of the sort outlined by point 2, it is logical that burning a flag can be an effective means of protest. As I do not consider the flag special it means nothing to me personally other than it being an effective tool of protest. But if people have an attachment that I do not agree with, and I wish to make a protest, then it is only sensible to strike for the weak spot.

So, I do acknowledge that it is more than a piece of cloth to some, but I neither share nor agree with that viewpoint. However, if a weakness is there you may as well go for it when you make a protest. There is nothing contradictory in that, merely strategic thinking.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

Today, 16:55 #61
skunk4u

Just need to know are you English?


Today, 18:48 #67
Ramrod


....and in the case of those flag burning arabs outside parliment it represents freedom to upset the inhabitants of the country that has given them refuge. To protest against freedoms greater than they have at home.

Today, 21:42 #75
ScaredWebWarrior

You are either a sad troll or else they're currently debating in Parliament how to deal with you.


------------------------
Apologies, long-time reader but very rare poster here. Jumping into the middle of a rather loud debate, but I just wanted to back up Dr Wadd in some respects here.

The tone of this debate, along with several others in this forum, is extremely unpleasant. I've snipped out a few comments above to particularly comment on:

The first one "are you English", has no relevance whatsoever. Firstly I am English and it does not concern me one iota whether someone burns the English flag, the Union Jack or a Red Rose (I'm from Lancashire). I note that the poster implicitly defines themself as English rather than British.

The second comment "those flag burning arabs".."To protest against freedoms greater than they have at home"..(see original reply for full context) again includes several implicit opinions and makes me ask several questions. Which "arabs"? Where is their "home"? Why are they protesting? I don't know the poster but that post is full of meaningless rhetoric.

The third comment " You are either a sad troll or else they're currently debating in Parliament how to deal with you." is also distasteful. I cannot imagine how someone can jump from a flag-burning discussion to accusing someone of being a terrorist and would love to see a real justification of that statement.


Finally, I think the original news story was regarding Abu Hamza being attacked in prison. From all that I have read he comes across as an unpleasant and particularly distasteful individual. That does not justify any individual actions, especially as he is now in the hands of the judicial system. Given the hype that surrounds him, I'm surprised that he was left in a situation where he could be attacked.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

Indeed. Only 2 posts so far.
Long-time reader you say? Who joined the forum maybe no more than maybe 10 days ago. A lurker if ever I saw one.

Looking at the comments you chose, I am not convinced that you have been following this debate much at all.

For one, there's plenty of people in the UK who will use the term 'English' to mean 'British' - quite a large section of the population doesn't really bother to distinguish. Maybe they're wrong, but the question is valid enough. Considering this forum is open to the entire Internet anyone could be from any country on Earth, just about.

The second comment simply shows that you are not following the debate, or you would understand the context in which the comments were made. If you did understand the context, the answer to your questions would be obvious.

So you want me to justify myself? OK - if you know what a 'troll' is in common parlance around the Internet, then you will understand why I accused the poster of being such. Or is that not the bit you found distasteful? So offering the poster the alternative he found it necessary to challenge me on it, just as you have. (Odd that...) Instead he could have simply accepted the fact that he is a troll and continued his fun or perhaps think that maybe his rhetoric was possibly being mistaken for something altogether more radical.
No, he chose the 3rd alternative of trying to make out he was involved in an intelligent, reasonable, rational, intellectual debate.
And then promptly spoiled the illusion by talking twaddle.

Your final paraghraph kind of sums it up. You are attempting to moderate the discussion.
Reminding us what this thread was all about - let's get back to what we were trying to talk about, instead of pondering on the motives of "Dr Wadd" - interesting you chose to capitalise his handle like that, because in the forum he's just "dr wadd". I wonder what made you do that...

Lastly you are chastising us for leaving poor Abu Hamza vulnerable to this attack, having already clearly laid the blame at the door of the judicial system.

Go back to reading long-time.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

I can understand your reasoning, but I have to ask what the goal in your protest is? Is it to make your voice heard and possibly achieve your aims, or is it to p$ss off the 'enemy' as much as possible (or perhaps to just rally more supporters who are willing to resort to extreme measures (in the opinion of the general public) to achieve a more important goal?).

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

OK, I have a few questions that I would like to put to an open forum. I am interested in all answers, with reasoning if you wish to add it:

1) Do you agree to Hamza being detained?
2) Do you think Hamza should be deported?
3) Do you think he should be allowed to publicly burn the flag of ANY country, unchallenged?
4) Do you know what he is protesting about?

or the record, my thoughts are as follows:

1) Yes. He incites racial hatred and openly supports acts of violence against others.
2) Yes. He clearly loathes Britain and all that it stands for.
3) No. It is offensive to many, and is a form of provocation. It also symbolises and supports his loathing of those countries whose flag he burns, and his desire to see harm come to those countries and their people.
4) "The West", America, and everything non-Muslim. That is my understanding, but I may be wrong. Feel free t correct me.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

1) Yes. His actions were unlawful.
2) Whatever is appropriate, legally. Personally, I'd rather he was locked up here and unable to continue his campaign of hate.
3) No-one (not just Hamza) should be allowed to burn any national flag. For all the reasons already discussed at length here.
4) I have no idea if he's even protesting about anything. All I know is that he is preaching hatred. He tries to convince others to commit illegal acts.

On the last point, it always amazes me that these extremist groups are always 'led' by someone who is ready to convince others to kill themselves for their cause. Yet when these leaders get a chance to face the enemy they run and hide...

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

Yes, because him being bailed would mean he would commit further crimes (inciting racial hatred, etc).

Yes. His citizenship was illegal, even if he is found innocent.

So long as it doesn't cause a public order offence. (i.e. cause a riot). If it was done in front of me, i'd just tut and walk off. I know others would react differently.

He is following his own party line. Its the same old rubbish. Anti-west, anti-civilisation, anti-tolerance, etc.

Re: Abu hamza attacked
 

Again, I think you've clearly demonstrated where you are coming from. Someone comes in to post their opinion and you immediately resort to personal attacks. Highly indicative of someone who doesn`t have a valid argument. You've even siezed on someone`s use of captilisation as an attack. You can complain about other posters all you like, but now I see just how petty you are I can see it's not worth debating with you further.
__________________

Getting your voice heard is one thing, but sometimes protest needs to push those emotive buttons so that those on the receiving end actually sit up and pay attention. I'd like to point out that burning a flag doesn`t necessarily imply extreme measures are to follow.