Total shock, there were no hints at all and as for Quilliam no idea that T and K were talking to them.
Yes, we do feel betrayed and angry that they could do such a thing and also anger at Geller and Spence, who just a few weeks ago we were all signing a petition asking for them to be allowed in and they have now accused us all of being nazis.
They have lost the trust of all of us, there is no road back for them either.
How does the financial thing work? Has he scarpered with any EDL money?
And who's making the decisions now in the interim; whose viewpoint is it that the media team are disseminating?
Is there not, however, the opportunity to consider what has been said and look at the EDL and what he has accomplished to date and ask yourselves how you honestly measure progress so far ?
In other words if you could go back in time to Arthur a few years ago and compare what you know of the EDL now with what he might have hoped it would have become how do you think those views would differ ? As you know I consider the EDL a farce in how they have operated to date but I do share a belief that extremism (Islamic in this case) should always be opposed but I have to ask if all the effort expended to date by the EDL has achieved what you would have hoped ? Hindsight is a wonderful thing so using that I wonder what issues you would advise younger Arthur lay ahead (assuming he could then use that info).
We have high lighted a problem that needed to be high lighted and enabled discussion on that subject. I think that's an achievement of the EDL.
I would have liked to see more effort put into banning some of the EDL chants and more thought given to the idea of having a membership, which meant that people could have been thrown out for not following our mission statement.
More democracy, because I believe in democracy and there should never have been a leader without an election, I'm hoping that we can now have more democracy and it's what I am arguing for at the moment.
I wish that I could have been more vocal in pushing forward that there are such a thing as a moderate muslim, which many EDL see as taqua, excuse spelling.
But my core beliefs are the same, Ismalism, stealth jihad, sexual jihad and violent jihad are the biggest threat to our way of life.
I believe that we are in a war against these people and that to some extent there will be collateral damage against ordinary hard working muslims, I do, genuinely regret this.
Muslims do need to come out onto the streets to prove that they are for our way of life and do not hate that way of life, our freedom was not gained by people who ran away, it was fought for by people who were prepared to die to gain that freedom, so it is not asking a lot for moderate muslims to take to the streets to protect the freedom that allows them to live in freedom.
Total shock, there were no hints at all and as for Quilliam no idea that T and K were talking to them.
Yes, we do feel betrayed and angry that they could do such a thing and also anger at Geller and Spence, who just a few weeks ago we were all signing a petition asking for them to be allowed in and they have now accused us all of being nazis.
They have lost the trust of all of us, there is no road back for them either.
This is too funny!
You have been told on numerous occasions that Lennon was not trustworthy but you rolled out the mantra that he was a brave courageous man who could do no wrong (and had been forgiven for any bad things he had said). You just wouldn't listen would you? For that and that alone I thank Lennon for what he has done. He has taken you and other EDL members/supporters for a ride getting you to spend your time and money on Lennon's little vanity project and cast you aside like the fools you have been.
Remember, he's really not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy!
I would have liked to see more effort put into banning some of the EDL chants and more thought given to the idea of having a membership, which meant that people could have been thrown out for not following our mission statement.
This should have happened all along, but it's always been quite convenient for the EDL to have no fixed membership, partly for plausible deniability (imho) but also so you can claim inflated numbers. It'd be interesting to see what the membership figures actually WERE, especially if the racists were removed.
More democracy, because I believe in democracy and there should never have been a leader without an election, I'm hoping that we can now have more democracy and it's what I am arguing for at the moment.
I wish that I could have been more vocal in pushing forward that there are such a thing as a moderate muslim, which many EDL see as taqua, excuse spelling.
That's something the EDL have been incredibly poor at; I suspect it's because it was never a concern for many/most, but obviously you're gonna feel differently about that. But it should be addressed if it's actually the belief.
Muslims do need to come out onto the streets to prove that they are for our way of life and do not hate that way of life, our freedom was not gained by people who ran away, it was fought for by people who were prepared to die to gain that freedom, so it is not asking a lot for moderate muslims to take to the streets to protect the freedom that allows them to live in freedom.
A couple of things- you've already accepted that you weren't as vocal as you could have been in condemning your own extremists, so surely you must sympathise. And the EDL hasn't exactly been the best advert for taking to the streets to protest one's legitimate concern. I rather suspect you've all been somewhat counter-productive if the aim has been to inspire moderate Muslims to take action. Especially given that the EDL has, by accident or design, been perceived as the enemy of Islam. Bit intimidating, really, and not likely to bring Muslims out onto the streets if they don't want trouble.
Also DON'T PUT PEOPLE ON PEDESTALS. As richclever just pointed out, you've refused to hear a bad word said against Tommy (even last week when he was stalking the wrong guy!!!) because you've all idolised him as this heroic figure. Nobody deserves that level of uncritical devotion. Nobody. It's exactly the wrong way to run an organisation, and quite ironic for one which claims to be opposed to religious fanaticism.
Muslims do need to come out onto the streets to prove that they are for our way of life
Perhaps if your organisation hadn't spent the last few years coming across as anti-Muslim, as opposed to anti-extremist, some of them might might have more sympathy for your cause and joined you.
Muslims do need to come out onto the streets to prove that they are for our way of life and do not hate that way of life, our freedom was not gained by people who ran away, it was fought for by people who were prepared to die to gain that freedom, so it is not asking a lot for moderate muslims to take to the streets to protect the freedom that allows them to live in freedom.
This statement always worries (maybe too strong a word) as what does this *actually* mean ?
First off no one has to prove anything, innocent until proven guilty surely ? Secondly how do they prove they are for 'our way of life' ? Is there a check list of things they need to do (like football, watch Corrie, moan about the weather, queue polietly...). If we are talking about the stuff like not being a terrorist then surely the very act of not actually being a terrorist is kinda proof of that ? So if I was a Muslim what would I have to ACTUALLY do in order to prove I was ok ? Does every single Muslim need to do this or will a sample be ok ? You see its statements like that which seem, to me, to be so woolly and vague as to be almost impossible for a Muslim to prove they are "one of us". As a white male (and therefore maybe in the biggest demographic regarding some sort of crime I have no doubt) so I need to take to the streets to prove anything ? Come on Arthur surely you can see this kind of suspicion and division is just feeding into the climate that extremists love.
In your skewed vision of Islam, a lot of things don't add up. I can sympathise but you just have to move away from extremism.
It's quite amazing. Morality is core to the idea of Islam. I wonder who has taught you about it or where you have learnt such strange ideas as there being no morality. I worry about what radicalised documentation you may have come across that you think is the norm.
My information comes from the standard sources on Islam.
Slavery is allowed, bacon is forbidden, the rape of female prisoners is allowed, freedom of speech is forbidden.
In Christian theology, god has to be good - he has to keep his promises, dispense justice, etc. In Muslim theology, there are no limits to allah's power. He can do whatever he likes. It is a critical difference.
EDL is well on its way to degeneration. I seem to remember this guy was one of the better spokespeople and now it turns out he's a criminal - not just in the past, but right now. Also, Tommy Robinson has left - it really says something when the organization doesn't dump the leader for being crazy, but the leader dumps the organization. I'm wondering if it'll end up in the hands of an actual far-right leadership now (contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe Robinson was ever far-right), or just break up.
Not sure if getting a guy who was arrested in connection with a bomb plot, even if he didn't do it, is a particularly wise PR move if you're trying to prove you're not a dangerous far-Right organisation, somehow.
Not sure if getting a guy who was arrested in connection with a bomb plot, even if he didn't do it, is a particularly wise PR move if you're trying to prove you're not a dangerous far-Right organisation, somehow.
Any of our EDL supporters gonna be in Bradford tomorrow? Given that it looks like the future of the organisation probably depends on how many people show up, an' all. If it's a washout then I think it's goodnight Vienna.
My information comes from the standard sources on Islam.
Slavery is allowed, bacon is forbidden, the rape of female prisoners is allowed, freedom of speech is forbidden.
In Christian theology, god has to be good - he has to keep his promises, dispense justice, etc. In Muslim theology, there are no limits to allah's power. He can do whatever he likes. It is a critical difference.
You really do need to read, both the bilble and other books before you come out with trash like that:
"In terms of its bloodthirsty and intolerant passages, the Bible raises considerably more issues than does the Qur'an. Some Bible passages justify genocide and multigenerational race war; the Qur'an has nothing comparable. While many Qur'anic texts undoubtedly call for warfare or bloodshed, these are hedged around with more restrictions than their biblical equivalents, with more opportunities for the defeated to make peace and survive. Furthermore, any of the defenses that can be offered for biblical violence--for instance, that these passages are unrepresentative of the overall message of the text--apply equally to the Qur-an." - Philip Jenkins, author of Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses
For the Islamophobia industry* there are two main lines of rhetorical attack against Islam. One challenges the character of the Prophet Mohammad. The other claims that Islam is a uniquely violent or even a terrorist religion due to the nature of scripture found in the Koran.
But in his 2011 book Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins, one of the more respected scholars of religion in America, challenges the second claim head on; the Bible, demonstrates Jenkins, contains scriptural violence that is categorically more extreme than scriptural violence found in the Koran. The Bible even offers, according to Jenkins, a much more specific scriptural justification for suicide terrorism than does the Koran.
Writes Jenkins, in his introductory chapter,
"If Christians or Jews needed biblical texts to justify deeds of terrorism or ethnic slaughter, their main problem would be an embarrassment of riches. Is someone looking for a text to justify suicide terrorism? The Qur'an offers nothing explicit beyond general exhortations to warfare in the name of God. Some passages of the Bible, in contrast, seem expressly designed for this purpose. Think of the hero Samson, blinded and enslaved in Gaza, but still prepared to pull down the temple upon thousands of his persecutors:
And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house feel upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
You really do need to read, both the bilble and other books before you come out with trash like that:
"In terms of its bloodthirsty and intolerant passages, the Bible raises considerably more issues than does the Qur'an. Some Bible passages justify genocide and multigenerational race war; the Qur'an has nothing comparable. While many Qur'anic texts undoubtedly call for warfare or bloodshed, these are hedged around with more restrictions than their biblical equivalents, with more opportunities for the defeated to make peace and survive. Furthermore, any of the defenses that can be offered for biblical violence--for instance, that these passages are unrepresentative of the overall message of the text--apply equally to the Qur-an." - Philip Jenkins, author of Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses
For the Islamophobia industry* there are two main lines of rhetorical attack against Islam. One challenges the character of the Prophet Mohammad. The other claims that Islam is a uniquely violent or even a terrorist religion due to the nature of scripture found in the Koran.
But in his 2011 book Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins, one of the more respected scholars of religion in America, challenges the second claim head on; the Bible, demonstrates Jenkins, contains scriptural violence that is categorically more extreme than scriptural violence found in the Koran. The Bible even offers, according to Jenkins, a much more specific scriptural justification for suicide terrorism than does the Koran.
Writes Jenkins, in his introductory chapter,
"If Christians or Jews needed biblical texts to justify deeds of terrorism or ethnic slaughter, their main problem would be an embarrassment of riches. Is someone looking for a text to justify suicide terrorism? The Qur'an offers nothing explicit beyond general exhortations to warfare in the name of God. Some passages of the Bible, in contrast, seem expressly designed for this purpose. Think of the hero Samson, blinded and enslaved in Gaza, but still prepared to pull down the temple upon thousands of his persecutors:
And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house feel upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
I am not religious at all but does not a Christian follow the teachings of Christ? Also does not a Muslim believe that the Qu'ran is the perfect book and Muhammad the perfect example of a man whose example of living life should be followed?
I am of course open to correction on those points.
I am not religious at all but does not a Christian follow the teachings of Christ? Also does not a Muslim believe that the Qu'ran is the perfect book and Muhammad the perfect example of a man whose example of living life should be followed?
I am of course open to correction on those points.
You really do need to read, both the bilble and other books before you come out with trash like that:
"In terms of its bloodthirsty and intolerant passages, the Bible raises considerably more issues than does the Qur'an. Some Bible passages justify genocide and multigenerational race war; the Qur'an has nothing comparable. While many Qur'anic texts undoubtedly call for warfare or bloodshed, these are hedged around with more restrictions than their biblical equivalents, with more opportunities for the defeated to make peace and survive. Furthermore, any of the defenses that can be offered for biblical violence--for instance, that these passages are unrepresentative of the overall message of the text--apply equally to the Qur-an." - Philip Jenkins, author of Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses
For the Islamophobia industry* there are two main lines of rhetorical attack against Islam. One challenges the character of the Prophet Mohammad. The other claims that Islam is a uniquely violent or even a terrorist religion due to the nature of scripture found in the Koran.
But in his 2011 book Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins, one of the more respected scholars of religion in America, challenges the second claim head on; the Bible, demonstrates Jenkins, contains scriptural violence that is categorically more extreme than scriptural violence found in the Koran. The Bible even offers, according to Jenkins, a much more specific scriptural justification for suicide terrorism than does the Koran.
Writes Jenkins, in his introductory chapter,
"If Christians or Jews needed biblical texts to justify deeds of terrorism or ethnic slaughter, their main problem would be an embarrassment of riches. Is someone looking for a text to justify suicide terrorism? The Qur'an offers nothing explicit beyond general exhortations to warfare in the name of God. Some passages of the Bible, in contrast, seem expressly designed for this purpose. Think of the hero Samson, blinded and enslaved in Gaza, but still prepared to pull down the temple upon thousands of his persecutors:
And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house feel upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
That Samson. You couldn't be up to him, could you? But in his defence, he was a prisoner of war and they were displaying him for the sake of mocking him. So not exactly the equivalent of walking into a tube train filled with civilians and detonating your semtex waistcoat.
But he wasn't the worst culprit. The boss man himself even destroyed entire cities of sinners with fire and brimstone, and even if you were a good person but you tried to sneak a peek at this, you were then turned into a pillar of salt.
And then there was the wicked queen who used to look into the mirror and ask who was the fairest in the land... oh wait, that was snow white...
Comments
How does the financial thing work? Has he scarpered with any EDL money?
And who's making the decisions now in the interim; whose viewpoint is it that the media team are disseminating?
We have high lighted a problem that needed to be high lighted and enabled discussion on that subject. I think that's an achievement of the EDL.
I would have liked to see more effort put into banning some of the EDL chants and more thought given to the idea of having a membership, which meant that people could have been thrown out for not following our mission statement.
More democracy, because I believe in democracy and there should never have been a leader without an election, I'm hoping that we can now have more democracy and it's what I am arguing for at the moment.
I wish that I could have been more vocal in pushing forward that there are such a thing as a moderate muslim, which many EDL see as taqua, excuse spelling.
But my core beliefs are the same, Ismalism, stealth jihad, sexual jihad and violent jihad are the biggest threat to our way of life.
I believe that we are in a war against these people and that to some extent there will be collateral damage against ordinary hard working muslims, I do, genuinely regret this.
Muslims do need to come out onto the streets to prove that they are for our way of life and do not hate that way of life, our freedom was not gained by people who ran away, it was fought for by people who were prepared to die to gain that freedom, so it is not asking a lot for moderate muslims to take to the streets to protect the freedom that allows them to live in freedom.
This is too funny!
You have been told on numerous occasions that Lennon was not trustworthy but you rolled out the mantra that he was a brave courageous man who could do no wrong (and had been forgiven for any bad things he had said). You just wouldn't listen would you? For that and that alone I thank Lennon for what he has done. He has taken you and other EDL members/supporters for a ride getting you to spend your time and money on Lennon's little vanity project and cast you aside like the fools you have been.
Remember, he's really not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy!
This should have happened all along, but it's always been quite convenient for the EDL to have no fixed membership, partly for plausible deniability (imho) but also so you can claim inflated numbers. It'd be interesting to see what the membership figures actually WERE, especially if the racists were removed.
Again, yes, that should always have been a thing.
That's something the EDL have been incredibly poor at; I suspect it's because it was never a concern for many/most, but obviously you're gonna feel differently about that. But it should be addressed if it's actually the belief.
A couple of things- you've already accepted that you weren't as vocal as you could have been in condemning your own extremists, so surely you must sympathise. And the EDL hasn't exactly been the best advert for taking to the streets to protest one's legitimate concern. I rather suspect you've all been somewhat counter-productive if the aim has been to inspire moderate Muslims to take action. Especially given that the EDL has, by accident or design, been perceived as the enemy of Islam. Bit intimidating, really, and not likely to bring Muslims out onto the streets if they don't want trouble.
Also DON'T PUT PEOPLE ON PEDESTALS. As richclever just pointed out, you've refused to hear a bad word said against Tommy (even last week when he was stalking the wrong guy!!!) because you've all idolised him as this heroic figure. Nobody deserves that level of uncritical devotion. Nobody. It's exactly the wrong way to run an organisation, and quite ironic for one which claims to be opposed to religious fanaticism.
Perhaps if your organisation hadn't spent the last few years coming across as anti-Muslim, as opposed to anti-extremist, some of them might might have more sympathy for your cause and joined you.
This statement always worries (maybe too strong a word) as what does this *actually* mean ?
First off no one has to prove anything, innocent until proven guilty surely ? Secondly how do they prove they are for 'our way of life' ? Is there a check list of things they need to do (like football, watch Corrie, moan about the weather, queue polietly...). If we are talking about the stuff like not being a terrorist then surely the very act of not actually being a terrorist is kinda proof of that ? So if I was a Muslim what would I have to ACTUALLY do in order to prove I was ok ? Does every single Muslim need to do this or will a sample be ok ? You see its statements like that which seem, to me, to be so woolly and vague as to be almost impossible for a Muslim to prove they are "one of us". As a white male (and therefore maybe in the biggest demographic regarding some sort of crime I have no doubt) so I need to take to the streets to prove anything ? Come on Arthur surely you can see this kind of suspicion and division is just feeding into the climate that extremists love.
My information comes from the standard sources on Islam.
Slavery is allowed, bacon is forbidden, the rape of female prisoners is allowed, freedom of speech is forbidden.
In Christian theology, god has to be good - he has to keep his promises, dispense justice, etc. In Muslim theology, there are no limits to allah's power. He can do whatever he likes. It is a critical difference.
Well, Guramit definitely won't there seeing as he's safely locked up now!
ROTFLOL!
Not sure if getting a guy who was arrested in connection with a bomb plot, even if he didn't do it, is a particularly wise PR move if you're trying to prove you're not a dangerous far-Right organisation, somehow.
He is chairman of the ROs committee.
Do you think he's a good choice?
You really do need to read, both the bilble and other books before you come out with trash like that:
"In terms of its bloodthirsty and intolerant passages, the Bible raises considerably more issues than does the Qur'an. Some Bible passages justify genocide and multigenerational race war; the Qur'an has nothing comparable. While many Qur'anic texts undoubtedly call for warfare or bloodshed, these are hedged around with more restrictions than their biblical equivalents, with more opportunities for the defeated to make peace and survive. Furthermore, any of the defenses that can be offered for biblical violence--for instance, that these passages are unrepresentative of the overall message of the text--apply equally to the Qur-an." - Philip Jenkins, author of Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses
For the Islamophobia industry* there are two main lines of rhetorical attack against Islam. One challenges the character of the Prophet Mohammad. The other claims that Islam is a uniquely violent or even a terrorist religion due to the nature of scripture found in the Koran.
But in his 2011 book Laying Down The Sword: Why We Can't Ignore The Bible's Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins, one of the more respected scholars of religion in America, challenges the second claim head on; the Bible, demonstrates Jenkins, contains scriptural violence that is categorically more extreme than scriptural violence found in the Koran. The Bible even offers, according to Jenkins, a much more specific scriptural justification for suicide terrorism than does the Koran.
Writes Jenkins, in his introductory chapter,
"If Christians or Jews needed biblical texts to justify deeds of terrorism or ethnic slaughter, their main problem would be an embarrassment of riches. Is someone looking for a text to justify suicide terrorism? The Qur'an offers nothing explicit beyond general exhortations to warfare in the name of God. Some passages of the Bible, in contrast, seem expressly designed for this purpose. Think of the hero Samson, blinded and enslaved in Gaza, but still prepared to pull down the temple upon thousands of his persecutors:
And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house feel upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.
By "new IRA" do you mean the organisation formerly known as the Real IRA??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Irish_Republican_Army#Merger_with_other_groups
What on Earth is an "RO" committee?
Regional organisers committee. In other word the head honcho fascists.
I am not religious at all but does not a Christian follow the teachings of Christ? Also does not a Muslim believe that the Qu'ran is the perfect book and Muhammad the perfect example of a man whose example of living life should be followed?
I am of course open to correction on those points.
How many who profess to be Christians do that?
That Samson. You couldn't be up to him, could you? But in his defence, he was a prisoner of war and they were displaying him for the sake of mocking him. So not exactly the equivalent of walking into a tube train filled with civilians and detonating your semtex waistcoat.
But he wasn't the worst culprit. The boss man himself even destroyed entire cities of sinners with fire and brimstone, and even if you were a good person but you tried to sneak a peek at this, you were then turned into a pillar of salt.
And then there was the wicked queen who used to look into the mirror and ask who was the fairest in the land... oh wait, that was snow white...