Tommy Robinson: when somebody writes ‘David Cameron’ on a mosque, would you blame him for burning it down?

EDL leader: It’s not going to end pretty

Once again, Tommy is up against a nauseating Al BeBeeCeera tart. Click on the link for the audio.

He said that he wanted “all aspects of Sharia outlawed” in the UK and explained that the idea that EDL initials were written on a mosque by his members “seems ridiculous”.


The English Defence League’s initials were scrawled on the mosque that was burnt down in north London last week and the Met Police has said there has been “a rise in Islamophobic attacks”  following the Woolwich murder. (false alarm on all accounts, its simply not the case.)

Related links from our Islamophobic Mullah:

Muslims keep the police busy:

More Mustard grievances:

Opposing Islam Causes Violent Jihad

Tommy Robinson on Fox:

O’Reilly interviews EDL’s Tommy Robinson about Islamist violence in the UK–  Daily Caller

A few weeks ago I told you about a guy named Tommy Robinson, who co-founded something called the English Defence League. He gets beat up a lot in the British press — and in person, as you’ll see — for speaking his mind about the spread of Islamic ideology throughout Britain.

He’s been branded a racist and a bigot and a hatemonger because he disagrees with an ideology. Because he believes that when you move to another country, you should assimilate into that country’s culture instead of trying to supplant it with your own. People from all over the world move to the UK and add to the country’s culture, without giving up their beliefs or sense of self-identity. And they think of themselves as Britons. Because they are. (You can listen to Robinson talking about this a few weeks ago, right after the savage beheading of a British soldier in the streets of London by rhetoric-spouting jihadis, here. It’s half an hour, but it’s well worth listening to every word.)

I missed Robinson when he was on “The Factor” the other night, because he was on “The Factor.” But here he is, and I think he states his case well:


I hope Robinson makes the transition from street-protest leader to TV pundit, because I think he’s much more effective when he’s laying out his case like this, calmly and plainly. People see him yelling in the street, with a bunch of guys in ski masks jumping around chanting “EDL!”, and it just turns them off. It distracts from the message. In our 24/7 news cycle, image is everything. Especially when the media are more sympathetic to red-handed, knife-wielding, dogma-babbling terrorists than to the people protesting them.

To give you an idea of what Robinson goes through on a daily basis, here’s a clip of him being interviewed for Current TV (remember them?) a couple of years ago, while driving through a Muslim neighborhood in London.

WARNING: Islamic violence and harsh language in response

Religion of peace.

BTW, that clip was posted by someone calling himself “Muslim Brother,” with this description:

Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon gets punched then shits himself in luton.

“Muslim Brother” and his mates like this. They want this. They think this is the way things should be done. And yet, according to Current TV, Robinson’s reaction to it is “Islamophobia.”

Wow, Current TV’s sale to Al Jazeera is just a lateral move, innit? Enjoy that extra $100 million in oil money, Al. Buy a few more carbon-spewing cars and mansions and private jets, you bloated hypocrite.

But back to the point: A guy should be able to criticize your ideology — not your race, not your religion, but your ideology — without getting punched in the face for it, shouldn’t he? Does he deserve to get beheaded in the street? Or shot? Or blown up? Or have a commerical airliner flown into his building? Just for disagreeing with you and daring to say so?

Oh wait, I forgot. Not All Muslims do that. Therefore, there’s nothing tying any of those acts of violence together. There’s no common motive. My bad.

Never mind.

Update: Here’s a report from Canada’s Sun News Network on another literal beating Robinson has taken from ROP’ers.

Read more: 

4 thoughts on “Tommy Robinson: when somebody writes ‘David Cameron’ on a mosque, would you blame him for burning it down?”

  1. Poor Tommy Robinson (Steve Lennon?) is a brave man, but it’s utterly craven of him to separate “good” (ahmadi) moslems from the “radical” (normative, according to the Qur’an and Moe’s Example) ones.

    Islam is islam, there’s only one Qur’an, and it’s a terror & crime manual.

  2. Tommy and millions of others are opposed to Islamic ideology!
    Islam and Western Democracrys are incompatible!
    Cannot co exist together!
    I can’t spell it out any clearer!
    If your a sheep! You can’t be friends with The Wolf! That’s suicide!
    F Islam!
    Long Live EDL, ADL!!

  3. Hugh Fitzgerald Asks David Cameron to Define Radical Islam.

    Hugh Fitzgerald at New English Review asks an important question of Cameron et al, who refuse to accept the reality of core Islam. Quote:

    Cameron and Clegg and Teresa May and others should be asked, publicly, to define ‘radicalization’ among Muslims. Is there a different Qur’an that the ‘radicals’ read? A different biography of Muhammad, the Perfect Man?

    No, the radicals read exactly the same Qur’an, the same Hadith, the same Sira. And the testimony of every defector from Islam is always the same: Islam is violent, Islam is dangerous, Islam is deceptive, Islam is based on an uncompromising division of the world between Believer and Unbeliever and is obsessed with territory, with the further division of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, that is between the lands of where Muslims rule and what, for now, are still the lands of the Infidels.

    Between the two camps, according to the texts and tenets of Islam, there exists a state of permanent war, though not necessarily of open warfare on the battlefield. Islam teaches that the supreme duty of Muslims is to engage in Jihad, that is the “struggle” to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, so that ultimately, as is only right and just, Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere.

    Cameron should be asked to name a single text on which the “radicals” rely that is not also read, and regarded as part of an immutable text, by all other Muslims. If he cannnot do so — and he cannnot, nor can Clegg or May or the columnists in The Guardian and The Independent — then they will be shown up. And shown up they must be.

    Quite so Mr Fitzgerald, but unfortunately we are not yet in a position to ask Mr Cameron such an obvious question, and we know our MSM certainly won’t.

    Posted by Paul Weston

    Now it is true that some Muslims are peacable enough. Yet it has to borne in mind that some very peaceful Muslims, to the utter “surprise” and “shock” of their friends and family, have become shaheeds.

    This ongoing discussion since 9/11 on the existence moderate Islam or Muslims, as opposed to just Islam and Muslims, is predicated on the belief, or fervent hope, that moderate Muslims will somehow be able to civilise Islam, such that it no longer poses an existential threat to us. There seems to be no end to this debate. Let us therefore consider two scenarios where moderate Islam does actually exist, and there are sufficient numbers of Muslims to show this to be the case.

    Case 1. Let us consider the situation that moderate Muslims prove that the correct interpretation of Islam was the moderate one (whatever that is). They even go further and make the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the Jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a great relief to all. But I counter that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the Koran. They will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

    The larger the number of Muslims, moderate or radical, the greater will be the demands for Sharia, and politicians will rush to accommodate that demographic. The distinction between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims is therefore meaningless; it is of no help to us.

    Case 2. Let us suppose that moderate Muslims came out of hiding and utterly trounce their Jihadi cousins on what constitutes “true” Islam i.e., the moderate, non-violent one. Having got rid of “radical” Islam’s main reasons for waging Jihad would not be the end of the matter. Moderate Muslims will demand their price for having kept Jihad, the fundamental directive of Islam, at bay. That price will again be the implementation of Sharia, initially for Muslims anyway. This will come about since moderate Muslims have not abandoned Islam, but are still dutiful Muslims (we will end up with a kind of permanent social coalition government of non-Muslims and moderate Muslims). Even if we agree to this, the “radicals” will still be out there, and amongst us. To keep them at bay, moderate Muslims will be forced to make ever-increasing demands for greater Islamisation. “Good cop bad cop” scenarios come to mind. It will never end.

    In effect moderate and radical Muslims work together. There is no actual treaty as such; it is simply understood.

    The real problem of course is the central tenets of Islam. As Ali Sena succinctly puts it ” There may be moderate Muslims, but their is no moderate Islam”

  4. At least people are finally starting to ask this hard yet simple question:


    Re: “This ongoing discussion since 9/11 on the existence moderate Islam or Muslims, as opposed to just Islam and Muslims, is predicated on the belief, or fervent hope, that moderate Muslims will somehow be able to civilise Islam, such that it no longer poses an existential threat to us. There seems to be no end to this debate.”

    Liberals need to be told, and told over and over again, it seems, that:

    HOPE. IS. NOT. A. PLAN!!!!

    Here’s the real difference between “radical” and “moderate” moslems:

    Radical moslems want to kill us.
    Moderate moslems want radical moslems to kill us.


Comments are closed.