Tommy Robinson quits EDL

Post Reply New Topic

Even the EDL leader is now admitting what its opponent's have been saying about the EDL's true colours.

"We had fought for three years to keep fascists and racists out of the EDL. When I attended our demonstration in Manchester I saw White Power flags that didn't represent me.

Am I willing to be the public face for them? No I'm not".

http://news.sky.com/story/1151663/tommy ... om-the-edl

From what I've been reading of Robinson, he agrees with what the EDL stands for but he's become disillusioned with the extremist elements in the movement. I personally understand his honesty - I would trust him to root out extremists far more than I'd trust, say, the London Muslim Centre.

Apparently he's been aiding Quilliam (they are a secular anti-Islamist Muslim group composed of, amongst other people, a number of ex-jihadis.

Would you support Quilliam, thomas81? I don't know quite enough about Maajid Nawaz, but he seems a decent chap.

Particularly as they are considered kuffar by many Islamists?

Lots of possible implications behind this one.

For one, he went from his normal, EDL-glorifying self last night to having quit it this morning, claiming he'd been considering doing so for months.

His worries about extremism and violence entering the EDL? Don't make me laugh. The EDL's another fad in the sad chain of chiefly association football-supporting racists wanting to have their not-so-latent behaviour excused on regular piss-ups around the country. Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon himself was a former BNP card-holder. No far-right extremism there then! And he's a convicted criminal who only recently stalked the wrong man by trying to turn up at his house. That's only one of the latest tricks he's got up to.

Truly a nasty piece of work. If we're not a jihadist ourselves, we're almost definitely going to be against Islamist extremism. Of those, most of us are dead against it. It's no tectonic plate-shaking statement to be against it, and I'd avoid any organisation who would welcome Yaxley-Lennon as a member as his influence is toxic.

I believe him. He's made sceptical statements that I remember at least once in the past.



Have you got any evidence to back this up?



He says that this was a family membership.



it's a dichotomy I don't subscribe to. There are 'moderate' Muslims that secretly endorse whilst theoretically rejecting violence (i.e. they'd never carry it out personally). There are those leftists that make excuses for Islamist terrorism. There are those people that aren't particularly concerned about it. It's all on a spectrum. So you might have a son that's born into a conservative Islamic family that rejects violence, who then decides to take his belief a step further by bombing a church. (Him bombing the church wouldn't necessarily be the fault of the parents, by the way.)

A significant number of young British Muslims sympathise with Islamic terrorists' aims, even if few wouldn't carry them out.

I'll give you an example:

If the EDL bombed a mosque, and people said:

"Ooh, it were terrible what 'appened to that mosque, but if them Muslims wouldn't stop doing this, that and the other, it would never have happened."

That's really the excuse that "moderate Muslims" often come out with.



It is a tectonic plate-shaking statement to fully repudiate (rather than just manipulate or apologise) for Islamic scripture in this area.

Make no mistake: this is religious terrorism.

Last question: what do you think of the question of apostasy in Islam?

From reading their website, no I wouldn't. It might be different if their manifesto also offered direct opposition to the likes of BNP, C-18 etc but that barely receives a footnote and they seem totally fixated against Islamic extremism only. It is a reactionary standpoint that does little but pay lip service to extremists on the political extreme right.

Quilliam can get stuffed.

I've been hearing the usual Internet loons saying things like Quilliam are part of the Zionist conspiracy and that they're on MI5's payroll. The first of those is obviously tosh, but the second of those is probably true - that just proves that MI5 are actually doing something useful, for my POV (provided Quilliam don't waste the money they've been given.)

So for focusing on one type of extremism (the one that it's founders know the most about) they can get stuffed?

I hate that argument that because your movement doesn't address every issue under the sun, it can get stuffed. They say that one to feminists all the time. No-one says it to gay rights and ethnic minority rights groups - they just mostly say it to people who want to focus on either women or Islamism.

Its one matter when you're talking about specific campaign groups in the case of gay rights or feminism.

Its very much another when you have a group that is a self subscribed advocate of pluralism and moderation, supposedly standing on a platform of 'anti extremism' that focuses entirely on one branch of extremism and one branch alone. One has to wonder if they have an ulterior agenda or motive. It arguably even worse when they focus on theological ideas because it implicates them as religious sectarians. Are we to take it they are fine with other strands of religious extremism?

At least groups like the Anti-Nazi League, UAF or Antifa aren't hypocrites, because they make no claim of being non-partisan. If Quilliam have aspirations of becoming the EDL-lite, I would respect them far more if they came out with it instead of hiding behind a facade of centralism and false approachability. They are shady as night and they won't be receiving a sinew of support from me.

the mirror tells it how it is

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/br ... on-2355581

I think anyone would have to doublethink about that organisation. If you take his words that seriously . . .







Yes, he's violent himself. Here was just one incident: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-14278957

If you are actually unaware of the EDL's inherent link to football hooligans then you're either being disingenuous or are thankfully sheltered. And violence has emerged from EDL protests from the beginning 'til the end.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHbXhstXG4 (3:10)



They're clearly both very wrong, both sympathising with burning down a mosque or with beheading a soldier, and the like. I think lay-politics comes into it: so little thought has come into their evaluations that they see it as a "they started it" situation and one where higher provocation is inevitable on either side. It's badly-considered, but along with your example I feel that attitude representative of people on both sides. Seeing a mosque arbitrarily being attacked as a legitimate sequitur to the Muslim outrage of the week is a sentiment that can carry both a "no sympathy, they provoked the other side first" response that can be equally dismissively distancing yourself from it as well as potentially excusing it. It's an ambivalent air that I'm not alien to feeling myself, but the bottom line is that provided both sides aim to bring tension off the boil in each individual's way, one fewer Muslim boy will grow up to become a jihadist and one fewer white British boy will grow up in hooligan gangs. Some people may have more latent traits of both, on a spectrum as you said, but the least we can do is stop that rising to the surface.

I can't speak for every leftist. I recognise that some statistics on Muslims and Islam are horrifically bad and there are manifold deep-rooted problems with Islamic culture as it is today. Whereas I'm uncomfortable with seemingly the majority view of friends who may hush away the misogyny and homophobia stats, the honour killing stats, the inbreeding stats, the extents of these aren't quite as major in Britain and as we meld together I'd hope we continue to overall influence a more tolerant Islam. I feel Islam in Britain doesn't have nearly as many problems as say Islam in Egypt and Iran or any other Muslim nation, proportionally. Many leftists, we want to tolerate all religion and people, especially as it's surprisingly easy to paint a Muslim as a southern Asian in our country which is what lends itself to racism much of the time. But we also want to tolerate the entire sexual spectrum, harmony between faiths, etc. I think that creates cognitive dissonance, the term "Islamophobia" is used, and that's the end of it.



Any apostasy should be a non-issue, and it obviously isn't that. This is obviously awful. Yaxley and the EDL though? Toxic. Alienating, slurring, violent, forceful, angry and out on the piss. How is anyone with opposing beliefs likely to come around to it? It's just a lad's beano for troubled racists. It's inseparable from the hate it fuels. And it's because of people like those in the EDL that we can't have sensible discussions on contemporary Islamic beliefs. They are a continuation from the NF, a diet Combat 18. If the views of a Muslim or an Islamic institution irk you, and this of course goes for any person or institution, then speak up about it or write about it. Marching about it while trying to lay claim to your country is deconstructive passive aggressiveness at best. I hope Yaxley leaving the EDL will make them more feeble than ever. They must go.