English Defence League chief Tommy Robinson has just sent this statement to SIOA regarding the conflict within the EDL. I am pleased to see this statement and will continue to monitor the situation closely.
The English Defence League was formed two years ago. One of the fundamental beliefs that this movement was built on was its support for Israel’s right to defend itself. In our first demonstrations, we went to Birmingham, and we flew the flag of Israel, the Star of David. In the first public speech I ever gave, I wore the Star of David in Leeds. The reason for this is because Israel is a shining star of democracy. If Israel falls, we all fall. This is what our movement has been built on for two years.The English Defence League will not be deterred from its support for Israel and the Jewish people. Recently, in the EDL there have been internal arguments, which are nothing more than that. Every large family has its disagreements, but when push comes to shove, we all stand on the same side.
Meanwhile, some people on the fringes of this movement wish to direct it toward their own agenda. This will never happen. Israel is a beacon of democracy amid repressive Arab states. Recently some people have jumped on the EDL bandwagon and tried to use our platform to express anti-Semitic views. These statements are not in accord with the fundamental beliefs of the English Defence League. These people are not welcome, never have been welcome, and never will be welcome within the EDL. We reject all anti-Semitism. The EDL stands where it always has stood, which is side-by-side with Israel.
We repudiate any individual, group or writing that favors anti-Semitism, neofascism, and any race-based ideology. Any rogue elements within the EDL who go against our mission statement and our beliefs will be removed from the organization; we are determined to remain true to our mission. Anti-Semitism will not ever be tolerated within the EDL.
The EDL stands for freedom. It always has, it always will. We want the Jewish people and all free people to remain free forever, and we all stand together in this fight against Islamic jihad.
I'm glad Tommy Robinson is publicly acknowledging that some bad elements creep in, and is seen to be condemning them. It only lends weight to his stand and removes ammunition from his many islamist and dhimmi detractors
Hear Hear.
I never doubted it, i watch nazis trying to post racist and anti-Semitic crap on the edl forum and fb page regularly, the members and moderators pull them apart every time.
OT
Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan: Any Muslim Who Refuses to Pray Is an Infidel, and Must Be Killed
http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/06/shaykh-salih-al-fawzan-any-muslim-who.html
We had a similar problem in our local Republican Executive Committee in which I was a committeeman for eight years. In that instance it was a local racist militia group that came into the party espousing many conservative principles. This is a problem with which the political right needs to be ever vigilant. Ultimately I ran afoul of our (self-professed Christian officers in the party) when I publicly repudiated George W. Bush's anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian Muslim policies.
Contrary to what some conservatives (like Jonah Goldberg; see "Liberal Fascism") argue, it was the political right in Germany to which the Nazis attached themselves like a parasite. Such is the case with other conservative movements today, like the tea party movement and the Republican party itself. This Ron and Rand Paul contingent (which activist leaders like Erick Erickson - Red State - and others support) within the tea party movement is worrisome. Clearly Dr. Ron Paul is sympathetic to jihadist movements like Hamas. I'm not sure about his son.
Mr. Robinson might do well to concern himself with extreme nationalist tendencies within the EDL, if there are any. Extreme nationalists often harbor xenophobic and racist tendencies. To be anti-jihad, to worry about Islam itself is not xenophobic.
In the fight against Islam the solidarity we show is for the Jews and Israel. We stand together with all of Israel.
Excellent (and quick) statement of Tommy Robinson :-)
(Jose Maria Aznar, former President of Spain)Other Muslim apologist talking points:
(Co-opt: Alinsky at his finest, and similar to described above by wildjew)
"Anti-Semitism is hate directed against Arab Muslims, too, because we're all Semitic people in terms of ethnicity."
To diffuse the stab of anti-Semitism, they bare their own backs and say, "See? It doesn't hurt."
I have a friend who lives in Israel and is active in an interfaith organization - Jews, Muslims, Christians. He believes, like some / many Jews, Arab Muslims (or Muslim Arabs) are our brothers or cousins because we have a common father. Ishmael's mother was also an Egyptian; a daughter of Mizraim. Genesis chapter 10 says, "The sons of Ham were Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan...."
I tell my Jewish friend, if a Muslim or an Arab Muslim claims to be my brother because Abraham is our father, he or she had better act like a brother rather than - like a Canaanite - strap explosives on his or her children as suicide bombers in order to please Allah. Just as the Palestinian Muslims do, the ancient Canaanites also sacrificed their sons and their daughters to their gods.
Bravo to the EDL! EDL should reclaim back the UK from pathetic Islam-loving Conservative and Labour Party! Cameron has betrayed the great Churchill's legacy! Unfortunately, the PM of the once great U,K Cameron is being made a puppet, a dhimmi SLAVE by his hero, that suspected Islamic Trojan horse and Muslim Brotherhood agent, Hussein Obama, whilst UK/West is being conquered through stealth by the likes of Tariq Ramadan, Europe-based grandson of one of Hitler’s main adviser or collaborator, Hassan al-Banna, the Egytian Muslim Brotherhood founder! Cameron didn’t even raise a whisper when Hussein arrogantly and insultingly send Churchill’s painting back despite that Churchill freed the world from the evil Nazis and Fascism – really, why do Hussein hate Churchil so much? Because Churchill saw through the evil of Islam and Hussein can’t stand that! See – http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Winston-Churchill-Islamism.htm
How Churchill saw through the evil of Islam at - http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Winston-Churchill-Islamism.htm
Winston Churchill On Islamism
by Adrian Morgan
10 April, 2007
Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill…was born into privilege but he gained first-hand knowledge of Islam in the army. He joined the Fourth Hussars in 1895, and was posted in the North-West Frontier of India (now Pakistan), bordering Afghanistan. During this time, he became a war correspondent, working with full approval of Sir Bindon Blood, chief staff officer of the Chitral relief force. Originally, Churchill’s reports were sent anonymously by telegram and letter to the Pioneer Mail. Eventually he was writing for the London Daily Telegraph under his own name…. Churchill wrote: “Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”……
When he was describing Nazism, Churchill said: “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.” He also said: “Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Those words should be heeded. In the current struggle against the spread of Islamism, they are as true today as they were 65 years ago.
wildjew wrote:
"Such is the case with other conservative movements today, like the tea party movement and the Republican party itself. This Ron and Rand Paul contingent (which activist leaders like Erick Erickson - Red State - and others support) within the tea party movement is worrisome."
You've managed to indict almost everyone except Democrats and liberals in that assertion. That's odd, since I see overt anti-Israel sentiment openly, and almost exclusively, from the Left in the US.
awake wrote: "That's odd, since I see overt anti-Israel sentiment openly, and almost exclusively, from the Left in the US."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You've got no argument with me. Over the years, I have participated on several leftist websites and discussion groups. I have been banned from several. I have been told I am a "right-wing" extremist and a racist for my comments on Israel and Islam. You really don't know me too well awake. Today's left is the repository of racism, bigotry, extremism and anti-Semitism. The Democratic party, the party of Andrew Jackson, is the party of slavery. It still is. I have never bought the left's argument that anti-Zionism (that is, questioning Israel's right to exist or her right to self-defense) is not anti-Semitism when clearly it is. You've not been reading what I've written on this site over the past few years. My concern is not with the left - the left is the left. My concern is with "my side," the political right. If the right had its house in order, there would be no successful assault from the immoral, unprincipled left.
Why shouldn't I (why don't you) hold my / our side to a higher standard than we do the immoral left? Why don't you hold your side to a higher standard? It is my view that we have this dangerous Muslim-born president in the White House because conservatives gave George W. Bush a pass, even as he repeatedly lied about Islam and Israel. Repeatedly awake. What did you say? What did you write during the Bush years? What did you do during those eight long years of repeated lying?
As regards freedom of speech, everyone should have the right to say and to believe anything. We must judge people according to their deeds, however every organisation has the right to exclude anyone that disagrees with its basic principles.
We judge Islam by its deeds and anyone that opposes Islam is my ally even though I may disagree with their beliefs, I only judge them by their actions. Jesus did not rape, murder torture and plunder, Mohammed did.
Why are you so quick to believe this man? I'm not saying he is lying. I'm saying with England's (history of) anti-Semitism there is reason for caution and scepticism. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are learning a hard lesson about alliances; in politics you've got to be very careful who you associate with and who you allow to attach your good name to. We look at the people Obama associated with and rightly so. I learned the hard lesson in the Republican party. I'm not saying the Republican party is anti-Semitic or racist - it is not - but don't be so naive to believe anti-Semites and racists will not attach themselves to the GOP, especially in hard times like the ones we are going through. England has a very questionable not-too-distant past with Israel, with their handling of the League of Nations Mandate, with their blockade of desperate Jewish refugees during the Nazi occupation of European countries. During the Holocaust the British blockaded "Palestine." Jews were turned back to the not-so tender mercies of the Nazis. The British put other Jewish refugees in squalid camps on Cyprus. It was Winston Churchill who was prime minister during much of this! Churchill was a great man in many respects but he failed Europe's Jews during the Holocaust; both he and FDR. He played into Hitler's hands during the Final Solution. Churchill and FDR will answer for it one day I believe. So will the British.
winoceros, antisemitism does not apply to the Arabs since the first people to commit murderous antisemitism towards the Jews were the Arabs under Mohammed, the creator of Islam. Where, the history of the first brutal and systematic racial Genocide of the Jews (antisemitism i.e. systematic and racialized Jew-hating was thus born) in history, that include the wiping out the last village of the Jews in 627AD in extremely sophisticated and wealthy Khaybar (that now became part of Saudi Arabia), is by the Arabic PREDATORY Pedophile rapist and slave-owner (including sexual slaves such as young Jewish captive girls), Mohammed, in his goal to construct pure Arabian kingdom and Arab race, through creating Islam and its false god, to justify such evilness – see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html#23 or http://www.andrewbostom.org/content/view/25/1/ or in the book Dr. Andrew G. Bostom (Ed.), The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, Reprint edition (Prometheus Books, 2008, New York).
wildjew, Churchill can only do so much; he is not a dictator with absolute power that can do whatever he wants - see http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=382&PID=0&IID=2969
by Dr. Daniel Mandel
Published May 2009
Jewish Political Studies Review 21:1-2 (Spring 2009)
Winston Churchill - A Good Friend of Jews and Zionism?
......Churchill frequently intervened to ease the escape of Jewish refugees from Europe and to allow those reaching Palestine to stay. As first lord of the admiralty (1939-40), Churchill instructed Royal Navy vessels not to intercept ships suspected of bringing illegal Jewish immigrants to Palestine when he discovered that notice of this practice had been withheld from him by subordinate officials. When, in November 1940, the British commander in the Middle East, General Archibald Wavell, sought to have deported from Palestine a group of Jewish refugees who had reached the country aboard the Patria, Churchill intervened to prevent it and they were permitted to stay, despite the objections of officials.
When the Palestine government approved a policy of deporting Jewish illegal immigrants to Mauritius, Churchill retrospectively approved it only on the proviso that their treatment would be humane and that they not be sent back to Europe. Lord Lloyd, the colonial secretary, deliberately left him unaware of the fact that the policy precluded any future return of the deportees to Palestine.
In February 1942 Churchill argued successfully in the War Cabinet, in the face of opposition from the new colonial secretary, Lord Moyne, to release from internment approximately eight hundred Jewish refugees from the Darien II who had reached Palestine (Makovsky, 187). The same year, the Colonial Office proposed that five thousand Bulgarian Jewish children be allowed into Palestine. Churchill was enthusiastic, the War Cabinet approved, but the move was blocked by German pressure applied on Bulgaria....n April 1943 Churchill leaned heavily on the Spanish ambassador to have the Franco regime reopen its border to Jewish refugees fleeing the Reich, something which occurred within a few days. The following July, he vigorously opposed in the War Cabinet plans for British naval searches of ships to find illegal Jewish immigrants. He also advocated that continued Jewish immigration be permitted beyond the White Paper's March 1944 cut-off up to the full limit of the seventy-five thousand quota. The War Cabinet approved Churchill's proposals.....
Mr. Robinson wrote: "The English Defence League will not be deterred from its support for Israel and the Jewish people. Recently, in the EDL there have been internal arguments, which are nothing more than that. Every large family has its disagreements, but when push comes to shove, we all stand on the same side..."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question is this. What are the internal arguments? What are the disagreements? In every political movement there should be certain fundamentals of which there are no arguments or disagreements. I will return to my years as a Republican party activist. We had arguments and disagreements over the issue of abortion. Prior to the 9/11/2001 attacks, I strongly pushed the pro-life issue in the Committee. I recruited pro-life Christians on the Committee. It caused much dissension in the party as there are many pro-abortion Republicans (some call these RINOs) who insist they are not pro-abortion. Yet they are. There should be no argument. Our party platform is on the side of the innocent unborn. The Republican party platform is pro-life on abortion. Nevertheless there were arguments. But when one of these militia committeemen handed out vile racist and anti-Semitic material before one of our party meetings, at the next meeting when I presented a resolution on racism and anti-Semitism (which is also in our national party platform), there were no internal arguments or disagreements. We were united. From then-on would be no dissemination of racist or anti-Semitic literature on the property before or after mettings, and that was that.
So I return to Robinson's statement: "Recently, in the EDL there have been internal arguments, which are nothing more than that. Every large family has its disagreements, but when push comes to shove, we all stand on the same side....."
What are the internal arguments? What are the disagreements? Are they about the Jews and Israel? Why doesn't Mr. Robinson say?
wildjew wrote:
"It is my view that we have this dangerous Muslim-born president in the White House because conservatives gave George W. Bush a pass, even as he repeatedly lied about Islam and Israel. Repeatedly awake. What did you say? What did you write during the Bush years? What did you do during those eight long years of repeated lying?"
Well, I certainly did not give him a pass. Most neo-cons still love the Muslim wars that Obama is perpetuating. Calling out Bush's weakness, naivete, or lack of comprehension of Islam, whatever you wish to call it, was disheartening, if not nearly universal amongst the political elites, but you are suggesting something else,something insidious.
Specifically, your references to those who you deem as suseptible to nationalistic, anti-Semitic infiltration is what I am taking exception to.
You have not substantiated in my opinion, that the Tea Party movement is ripe with nationalistic anti-Semites. On the contrary, most examples that the liberal media has portrayed have been proven to be intentional outliers.
I also fail to accept on the face value of your statement that the Nazis and the political right were ideologically aligned.
Most specifically, you refer to Byush as egregiously anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. I would appreciate some supporting documentation to research before i could even remotely accept that claim.
By the way wildjew, it wasn't Churchill who inhumanely intern all the Jews in the post-war squalid camps in Cyprus - Churchill lost the 1945 election to the Labour Party as led by Clement Attlee! That's the Left/Socialist - as nasty as ever! Don't forget too, Hitler was a Socialist!
I'm not suggesting Churchill was an out and out anti-Semite. His legacy with Israel and the Jews is a mixed one. I do know the Patria was anchored off the coast of Haifa and some 250 Jewish refugees drowned as a result of a botched Haganah effort to immobilize the ship. Under these circumstances Churchill wrote: "...in view of the suffering of these immigrants, and the perils to which they had been subjected through the sinking of their ship, it would be necessary on compassionate grounds not to subject them again immediately to the hazards of the sea...." etc.
Also I notice on the piece you linked to, Sir Martin Gilbert is an author. I've got a few of Gilbert's books, including, "Israel, A History." I believe Gilbert is Churchill's official biographer so he is not exactly an impartial observer. Additionally Gilbert is pretty solidly on the left in so far as Israel is concerned. He is a close personal friend to Israeli President Shimon Peres, the author of the murderous Oslo Accords. In Gilbert's book, there is a pretty strong antipathy for Irgun and other militia groups who fought Arab terror and later the British after the war. Suffice it to say, England has a terrible record when it came to administration of its League of Nations Mandate. They betrayed the Jews terribly as well as their obligations under the Mandate to facilitate Jewish immigration and Israel as the National Homeland of the Jewish people. Like the US is doing presently, the British sought to appease the Muslim world at Israel's expense. In other words, Great Britain sold out, just as the US is selling out.
Best wishes to Tommy Robinson and what I hope remains EDL policy on Israel.
Yes, there are many Islamic and leftist political groups which want the streets of Britain cleared of the EDL so that there is a clear run for the Islamisation of England.
Such groups are not at all concerned with, e.g. the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and its conference which is disgracefully allowed to go ahead in London next week, campaigning for a global caliphate.
That is where the enemy is to be found.
I'm not sure you are worth a man's time. I'm beginning to remember you as the member who repeatedly invoked something for which I had apologized earlier; which spoke to your low character. I don't have to prove anything to you. Who are you that I need to justify myself? Your pejorative us of "neo-cons" is more often than not code for "the (perfidious) Jews." Bush's policies were anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian Arab, though not nearly so egregious as Obama's anti-Israel / pro-Muslim Arab policies. Nevertheless that does not excuse this self-professed born again Christian who pretended to serve a Jewish savior; to whom he will little doubt offer an explanation one day. Perhaps Mr. Bush might tell God's servant something to the effect, "It was a mistake." (e.g. Ecc 5:6) That you defend Bush's anti-Israel policies is telling.
nationalistic, anti-Semitic infiltration
I think this would be a contradiction in terms.
And why?
Quite simple, actually: If you don't respect other nations, you cannot be a good nationalist. Respecting the nation of the Jews, of the Serbs, of the Swiss and others is a sine non qua of being a good nationalist, no matter what nation is your own.
Islam doesn't respect any nation, as is proven through 1400 years of history.
The National Socialists of Germany may or may not have been good socialists, but they surely were not good nationalist: For they assaulted each and every nation around them.
Except Switzerland - sorry :)
"You have not substantiated in my opinion, that the Tea Party movement is ripe with nationalistic anti-Semites. On the contrary, most examples that the liberal media has portrayed have been proven to be intentional outliers."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Ripe with...?" I think I wrote (or meant to write) there is a strain in the tea party movement - the Dr. Ron Paul faction in particular - that concerns me. Why do you twist my words? What is your background in political activism. Is there any?
I believe I wrote extreme nationalism. There is a distinction I think between extreme nationalism and patriotism or pride in one's country and people.
Neo-cons is code for "the (perfidious) Jews"?
For real? I thought it was short for neo-conservatives or new conservatives, nearly all of whom are lovers of US imperialism and perpetual warfare, like Charles Krauthammer, Monica Crowley, Karl Rove, and yes, GWB, etc.
I don't recall Monica Crowley ever wavering against Israel, though I will certainly concede that certain neo-cons have been notably critical of Israel like Pat Buchanan. That said, they are not exclusively owners of a critical stance on Israel, as most if not all on the left are guilty.
Since you just baselessly rendered me an anti-Semite, by a rant bereft of any logical substantiation, I must also agree that indeed, you do not have to prove anything to me.
Unfortunately, and by willful omission of demonstrating Bush's anti-Israel policy when challenged, while again subtly accusing me of being an anti-Semite in your estimation, you are proving to the JW community that you either cannot or will not back up your claims. Whether I am worth it is irrelevant. You essentially just damned Bush's soul. One would hope that the denial of eternal salvation would require some empirical evidence to support it, no?
Methinks you throw about the charge of anti-Semitism far too much here at JW.
Meanwhile:
"Raed Salah Hires Hizb ut Tahrir’s Lawyer"
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/06/30/raed-salah-hires-hizb-ut-tahrirs-lawyer/
awake wrote: "I also fail to accept on the face value of your statement that the Nazis and the political right were ideologically aligned."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
According to my reading, German field marshal Paul von Hindenburg and other German Army officers were politically conservative, as were many German industrialists. Hitler had to adroitly win these people over to his cause. Hitler was by no means conservative but like any parasite, Nazism attached itself to an otherwise "healthy" tree. That is why conservatives must be ever vigilant. I know from personal experience. What is your political background?
I have no political background, but is this round a respite from being egregiously labeled an anti-Semite in favor of being dismissed by a lack of credentials?
You wrote: "though I will certainly concede that certain neo-cons have been notably critical of Israel like Pat Buchanan."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where did you get the idea Patrick Buchanan is a "neo-conservative?" I don't know what you are other than a hater; nor do I care what you are. Why do I need to do your homework for you regarding former President George W. Bush?
You don't remember any of this in the days following the 9/11/2001 Muslim terror atrocities in New York and Washington?
October 2, 2001 Posted: 1:49 PM EDT (1749 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Tuesday that a Palestinian state was always "part of a vision" if Israel's right to exist is respected. He said the two parties needed to get to work "on the Mitchell process" which he said provides a clear path to solving the crisis in the Middle East.
He refused, when asked, to say whether he had been prepared to announce his support for a Palestinian state prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.....
ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: "I call on the western democracy, and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States (led by George W. Bush - wj), do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient, temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism."
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: As the president tries to build this international coalition, a major target of the White House effort, moderate Arab nations. But as the president reaches out to the Arab world, some tensions and remarkably blunt exchanges back and forth between the United States and a long- time ally.
KING: What angered Washington most was Sharon's comparison to Europe ceding parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, suggesting that in its aggressive effort to court Arab nations for the coalition against terrorism, the United States was turning its back on Israel's security.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel can have no better or stronger friend than the United States, and better friend than President Bush.
KING: Secretary of State Colin called Sharon once to voice the president's displeasure, then again later, after the prime minister agreed to issue a conciliatory statement.
Following is the full text of President Bush's address to a joint session of Congress and the nation.
September 20, 2001
"The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam..... (see "Stealth Jihad, How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs," pg. 67)
"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its (Islam's) teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah....
(APPLAUSE)
"The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself."
What you are awake, is an apologist for evil.
And I believe that "extreme nationalism" simply isn't.
This is where people exploit healthy and natural nationalism to assault other nations, which constitutes a profound misunderstanding of what nationalism is about in the first place.
As a historical example, I present World War I, where the empires, in an attempt to promote nationalism for their multi-national states, assaulted genuine nation-states like Serbia, France and (to some extent) England. That failed, and empires were carved into nation-states, which was basically healthy.
Then Germany, in an evil coctail of anti-semitism, misunderstanding of Capitalism and unquestioning militarism, wrecked havoc against the nation-states again.
That is fortunately history now - but now we face Islam :(
I'm reposting this from the original page, as it seems that people are saying Roberta left because EDL have been taken over by Nazis.
This is all a nonsense, EDL have not been taken over by Nazis.
Roberta made some very foot in the mouth statements,
That it was ok to be a racist or a Nazi provided you kept quite about it.
She linked EDL, without consulting, to an extremist group.
She celebrated the murder of 2 UN personnel.
She disrespected service men killed in Israel.
She was involved in a plot to get rid of Tommies PA Hel Gower.
She sent her friend Robert over to our forum where he made the vilest post I have ever read, wishing that one of our patriotic women should be raped and other quite disgusting stuff that I won't repeat.
All of this in public and picked up by our enemies and making us look like a joke.
EDL are very happy to have a vibrant Jewish division run by some one else and to say that the reason she has gone is down to Nazis taking over is a foolish nonsense and has done a great deal of damage.
How on earth can people dismiss thousands of us based on the word of a single person is completely beyond me, no attempt to get the other side of the story at all.
"What you are awake, is an apologist for evil."
Nonsense. By the way, Bush urged for peace in the Middle East just as every useless President before and after did. Naivete that it could ever happen with the Muslims is universal, but far from inherently evil.
That said, what you provided does not support your claim that Bush was anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. Actually the passages reflect the opposite sentiment, especially:
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: "The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel can have no better or stronger friend than the United States, and better friend than President Bush."
KING: "Secretary of State Colin called Sharon once to voice the president's displeasure, then again later, after the prime minister agreed to issue a conciliatory statement."
Bush is guilty of a good many things, but being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic are not qualities that I would attribute to him.
Buchanan, allthough he self-defines as a "paleoconservative", he is a staunch supporter of basic neoconservative principles, particularly military intervention and he for sure is quite critical of Israel.
What is in President Bush's heart, God only knows. I do not know whether Bush is or is not anti-Semetic, even if mildly so. Pamela Geller and others - in the face of much outcry from the left - say Obama is anti-Semitic. I would not dispute her instincts. I judge a man by his actions. Like Bush's savior said, "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."
If you, like many others, believe Bush's policies were pro-Israel - in spite of his often repeated public support for a Muslim-enemy state in Israel's historic and strategic heartland, his insinuation that Israel illegally "occupies" Muslim land, that Israel is oppressing and humiliating the Palestinians, etc. - I don't know what is anti-Israel in your mind. Ari Fliescher's statement that "Israel can have no better or stronger friend than the United States, and better friend than President Bush" is as empty as Obama's assurances of affection for the Jewish state even as he twists the knife in Israel's back.
Has anyone else considered the possibility that individuals might have infiltrated the EDL with the intent of discrediting it?
Over the last several years, I have noticed many Muslims and haters of Jews and Israel posing as Jews or Israelis in order to spew disinformation that aids anti-Semitic propagandists.
"Buchanan, allthough he self-defines as a "paleoconservative", he is a staunch supporter of basic neoconservative principles, particularly military intervention and he for sure is quite critical of Israel."
I watched Buchanan for a few years on CNN's Crossfire. Buchanan was solidly on the side of Israel's enemies, the Muslim Arab world. Buchanan and Robert Novak were kindred spirits on Israel and the Arabs; both anti-Israel, pro-Arab. I cannot remember any war by either the U.S. to protect her interests in the region or any defensive war on the part Israel in the Middle East that Buchanan did not condemn. Buchanan struck me as a non-interventionist, just as Ron Paul is a non-interventionist or a Charles Lindbergh isolationist. It seems to me Buchanan used the slogan "America First," which is similar to the America First Committee that opposed FDR's Lend-Lease which helped arm the British arm against the Nazis menace; they opposed every other form of "interventionist" policy toward Germany prior to the second world war. Immediately following the Pearl Harbor sneak attack, the America First Committee dissolved.
What will it take for criticism of the anti-jihad movement (largely from the left) to dissolve? A nuclear attack on an American city? I am neither an interventionist nor a non-interventionist. These non-interventionist / isolationists like Ron Paul and his followers are dangerous in my opinion.
Although you have backed off a bit on your initial point, there is a deliberate and consistent ring to your comments.
"Ultimately I ran afoul of our (self-professed Christian officers in the party) when I publicly repudiated George W. Bush's anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian Muslim policies."
What are you implying by self-professed? Were they simply self-identified Christians that you were pointing out or were you suggesting that they were really not Christian because they didn't agree with your position on Bush being anti-Israel / pro-Palestine?
I am skeptical that you were simply doing the former.
"Nevertheless that does not excuse this self-professed born again Christian who pretended to serve a Jewish savior; to whom he will little doubt offer an explanation one day."
Again, thinly-veiled accusations that Bush lied about being a Christian because of your perception of his Israel policy. The additional "Jewish savior" label you applied is also quite revealing, with your capitalization of Jewish and lower-case attribution to savior.
"Perhaps Mr. Bush might tell God's servant something to the effect, "It was a mistake." (e.g. Ecc 5:6)"
Again, with the intentional lower-case "servant", as if writing the name Jesus, regardless of whether you believe him to be divine or not, is something you can not or will not do in the discussion, even though wholly appropriate as Bush obviously does believe in Jesus, or "Bush's savior", as you will according to his own words.
It's condescending, yet wholly consistent with the sentiments you put forth here at this forum. But don't for a second think that it is not obvious.
"What are you implying by self-professed? Were they simply self-identified Christians that you were pointing out or were you suggesting that they were really not Christian because they didn't agree with your position on Bush being anti-Israel / pro-Palestine?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not implying, I am stating (and have stated for several years) George W. Bush is a phony. Don't tell me you are a disciple and a follower of Jesus the Jew - and then not behave like a Christian. Any self-professed Christian that goes against Israel is a phony. These self-identified Christian officers in our local party who sought my removal for criticizing Bush's pro-Muslim (anti-Israel) policies were and are phonies.
People said Bush looked at things in black and white and so did his (professed) Jewish savior. Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me..." That is black and white, don't you think? Clearly Bush is not (was not) with his savior. I'm not sure what Bush's motives were. Maybe he wanted that rich Evangelical base of support in the Republican party. Who knows? But in the final analysis, I read an interview he did with a reporter as he was leaving office. Bush told the reporter he did not take the Bible literally. Is it any wonder Bush sought mightily to divide God's land, the land of Israel, and give our land to God's declared enemies, in spite of all the warnings in the Bible; on the part of our prophets? You think this is the mark of a Christian believer?
Mike, their are all sorts of people that have tried it on with the EDL, but on this occasion the facts are that many felt that Roberta had to go and after the rape post Robert too, this had nothing what so ever to do with Jewish people not being welcome in the EDL because they are welcome.
There were no Nazis involved, this is Roberta's parting shot to discredit the EDL and the worst thing about this whole affair is that it is now going to be a difficult task to get English Jewish people to join us.
Maybe you are right, perhaps she set out to discredit the EDL, making a statement saying it is ok to be racist or a nazi as long as you keep quite and saying this on facebook for all to see is rather a strange thing to say.
The EDL is not a political party mate, it's a working class street protest group that is fighting the Islamification of England, it supports others that are doing so in the USA,Israel, Europe.
It has thousands of supporters who are united against the Islamists and take to the streets to reclaim them from the Islamists, it is a very loose federation of people with different political views who get out on the streets to fight Islam.
We don't sit behind keyboards pontificating about politics, we just get out there and fight for our freedoms.
You wrote: "The EDL is....a working class street protest group that is fighting the Islamification of England, it supports others that are doing so in the USA,Israel, Europe.
It has thousands of supporters who are united against the Islamists and take to the streets to reclaim them from the Islamists, it is a very loose federation of people with different political views who get out on the streets to fight Islam.
We don't sit behind keyboards pontificating about politics, we just get out there and fight for our freedoms."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you saying the EDL is a working class protest mob which is united against or fighting UK's Muslim mob or mobs? Fine. I have participated in protest movements myself, albeit non-violent protest. The point of this piece which at issue, is not the tactics you use fighting the Muslim mob(s) in the UK, but whether there are fascist or neo-nazi or anti-Semitic or anti-Israel elements within your street protest movement. Are there?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_and_christianity.html
In the training camps of the Nazi Party it was repeatedly stated that National Socialism has three enemies: Judaism, Masonry and Christianity. Martin Bormann hated Christianity even more than most Nazi leaders. Goebbels frequently made fun of Christian morality. Nazis in general considered Christianity a "soul malady," "foreign" and "unnatural." Heinrich Himmler despised Christianity and members of the SS had to formally renounce their Christian faith and formally become agnostic in order to become a member of the Schutzstaffel.
Erich Ludendorff, the earliest and most important political figure in Germany to support the Nazis, said:
"The Jews are not our enemies because of their race, but because one of their subtlest rabbis, that man called Saint Paul, distilled the poison of the Christ myth out of the life of the story of Jesus of Nazareth. The Jews are enemies of the Nordic race because they produced Christianity, which has been the poison that has destroyed the vitality of the Aryan people."
================
wildjew wrote:
Don't tell me you are a disciple and a follower of Jesus the Jew - and then not behave like a Christian. Any self-professed Christian that goes against Israel is a phony.
Agreed to a point. Israel is not synonomous with the global community of Jews or Judaism. That said, I can't recall a single comment of mine ever that was critical of Israel, mainly because I find no fault in her, and I understand the near-universal adversity she faces. I am, always was, and most likely always will be a staunch supporter of Israel and that is non-negotiable in the face of Islamic imperialism.
I must maintain however that you have declared Bush a phony because you have perceived his position to be anti-Israel, though you have not adequately substantiated that claim.
wildjew wrote:
"Bush told the reporter he did not take the Bible literally. Is it any wonder Bush sought mightily to divide God's land, the land of Israel, and give our land to God's declared enemies, in spite of all the warnings in the Bible; on the part of our prophets? You think this is the mark of a Christian believer?"
Another baseless, spurious assertion. I challenge you to put forth a shred of empirical evidence to support your claim that... "Bush sought mightily to divide God's land, the land of Israel, and give our land to God's declared enemies"...
Your routine anti-Christian sentiment is certainly showing again, but let me ask you a question...How did you judge the validity of any and all Christians in term of adeherence to what you believe are non-negotiable core values, prior to the creation of what is modern-day Israel?
And another...Were there any historical pre-Israel Christians that passed your smell-test?
You call me anti-Christian because you believe phony, self-professed Christians and anti-Israel Christians can be authentic Christians. I do not.
How did I judge the validity of any and all Christians in terms of adherence to what I believe are non-negotiable core values, prior to the creation of what is modern-day Israel?
Don't know because I was born in 1953. Apart from Israel I judge Christians on the basis of the Torah, the law of Moses. Where do you stand for instance on social issues? Protecting the innocent unborn and the defenseless amongst us? Where to you stand on the definition of marriage? Where do you stand on not causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals if one is not a vegetarian or a vegan? Few are. How do you do business with and treat your neighbor? Do you honor your mother and your father? etc.
But yours is not a fair question because we are talking about Israel and restored Israel is a central theme in our prophets. Thus it is Israel first and foremost that I judge Christians. For example, watch this video. If she is honest; if she is sincere, this is a Christian.
watch: http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/06/god-bless-michele-bachmann.php
Wildjew,
I watched the video, in its entirety, and I concur that Caroline Glick is indeed a kindred spirit, but I must ask you why you fell for that video by Bachmann so quickly?
Now I like Michele Bachmann to a degree, and I agree that support of Israel is, and should remain, paramount to American politics (amongst other reasons), but I noticed a few worthwhile points in that video.
First, Bachmann espoused her Christian beliefs as eminating from the "cradle of Judaism", to which I do not disagree at all with, but she also qualifies Israel as paramount to US ineterests in the region. Again, this is not a condemnation of Bachmann against Israel or Jews in general, but rather an important nuance by a potential presidential candidate. She does not speak in terms of Judaic doctrinal support more than she speaks in terms of political US interests. Maybe you need to watch the video again.
Second, and most importantly, Bachmann, in that 4-minute plus video does not utter a single time, the words, Muslim, or Islam. Interesting.
That said, if and when Bachmann is elected President of the US, and makes a plea for peace in the Middle East in terms of Israel and Palestine, (if elected, she is most assuredly prone to do), is she automatically disqualified as a phony Christian?
Remember, it is you, not I that dragged Bush, (still unsupported) into the equation on this post. You say that we are talking about Israel, not anti-Semitism, but I counter-argue that this, and in the previous thread, did no such thing, with the exception that they go hand-in-hand. I have a Christian heart, plain and simple, and I fall in line with Jesus' teachings. That is all I need to say about that.
Now why do you call me an anti-Semite based solely on that ground?
Arthur London -
Thank you for bringing this topic back to the main issue. I'd like to add my own "two cents" in calling everyone's attention to what the prime focus should be right now.
This former EDL member, Mrs Roberta Moore, appears to have been the person to set this controversy in motion. Why not demand of her a public explanation, corroborated by documented facts, so that we can decide for ourselves whether these specific allegations about the EDL merit the initial round of denouncing that followed.
On a further note. The EDL, in origin at least, seems to be a grassroots movement of common English citizens defending their neighbourhoods. It might be possible that the opinion of some notorious blogger counts as a serious blow to this movement, but given its grassroots nature and support in their own community, I can't see why. Vlaams Belang also survived attacks from the blogosphere. Same goes for the EDL, I reckon.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
"She does not speak in terms of Judaic doctrinal support more than she speaks in terms of political US interests. Maybe you need to watch the video again."
____________________________________________________________
I think you are right.
"I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.
Right now in my own private Bible time, I am working through Isaiah . . . and there is continually a coming back to what God gave to Israel initially.....
http://minnesotaindependent.com/55061/bachmann-america-cursed-by-god-if-we-reject-israel
"That said, if and when Bachmann is elected President of the US, and makes a plea for peace in the Middle East in terms of Israel and Palestine, (if elected, she is most assuredly prone to do), is she automatically disqualified as a phony Christian?"
If by a plea for peace in the Middle East you mean a plea for Israel to relinquish land to their enemies, yes. That is why I qualified my guarded support with, "If she is honest; if she is sincere, this is a Christian." We'll see.
I say it again; the EDL will not gain widespread support in the U.K as long as it holds 'rent a mob' style demonstrations. As it operates at the present time, its demonstrations are proving to be more beneficial than detrimantal to Islam within the U.K. The EDL needs more brains and less brawn.
Bravo, Tommy Robinson!
wildjew wrote:
Your pejorative us of "neo-cons" is more often than not code for "the (perfidious) Jews."
..............................
Huh? I have *never* heard this. "Neo-cons" have been accused of being all sorts of things—"warmongers" and cold cutters of social program and many negative things.
The term "neo-con" is clearly meant as pejorative, but I have never heard it used as a veiled form of antisemitism.