Omackeral wrote: » This is bang on the money. It’s perfectly reasonable for people with a shoddy past or even a shady present to tell truths. You can understand, agree with or even sympathise with some of what Robinson says without absolutely subscribing to all of his ideologies. Those who are dead set against him either can’t or won’t accept that as a possibility. To them, you’re far-right, alt-right, a facist, a nazi or their favourite... a racist.
FTA69 wrote: » thebull85 wrote: » Whats your point? That people who are giving Nazi salutes are marching alongside supposed supporters of Israel is a massive contradiction and that it highlights the dopey nature of many of those attending. In fairness, the ones in Belfast were Loyalist types who have always been prone to bigotry and stupidity anyway so probably not big news there.
thebull85 wrote: » Whats your point?
nicedryturf wrote: » Listened yesterday to the wonderful Antonia Fraser talk about her book about Catholic emancipation in Britain in the early 19th century. There's very little new about the wave of anti-Islam fervor. Anti-papist hysteria in the 18th century was even more extreme and widespread. Just as some would equate all muslims with sharia law, for centuries Catholics were viewed as agents of Britain's eternal enemies Spain and France and, as subjects of the Pope, they were generally suspected of disloyalty. An attempt to roll back some of the more extreme anti-papist measures in 1780 led to the murderous Gordon Riots. While some of Yaxley-Lennon's minions might actually think they're crusaders at some kind of cultural precipice, they're just another gaggle of dummies on the conveyor belt of history.
Stephen15 wrote: » Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » I would venture he went to a reliable source. In this instance, Ann Cryer I believe.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » But you would label anybody from the community who spoke about it as racist before the 'actual journalist' exposed it. Do you think the journalist found out about it by just thinking 'hmmm i wonder are there are any muslim rape gangs', or is it more likely that people of similar ilk to Tommy and people in the sikh community highlighted that there might be something going on. Your attitude seems to support the idea that you would not have wanted the journalist to investigate based on the racist ramblings of some working class bigots.
omta wrote: » Hi FTAxx which parts of his personal story are fictitous? Sounds very much like you are quoting from second and third hand sources - you need to go to the original and watch the video of him speaking at the Oxford Union.... then make up your own mind.
Stephen15 wrote: » No I believe it was real. They tell the truth about Islam and mass immigration but I don't agree with some of their conspiracy theories.
Captain Obvious wrote: » No. It's not really about agreement. You accept them as sources even though you know they are liars. The only reason you accept them as a source is because they are saying something you already believe.
Stephen15 wrote: » So you have agree or disagree with everthing a person or organisation says. You can't agree with some times and disagree with others.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I think you are confused. the story in Rotheram was investigated by an actual journalist not Tommy. Tommy did not expose this story and the coverup. He is just using it for publicity.
Captain Obvious wrote: » You know they are liars but you accept their evidence on the stuff you already believe to be true.
Captain Obvious wrote: » It's not about agreeing with what they say, it's about them making stuff up. Or do you believe Sandy Hook was not real?
Mutant z wrote: » He's helped to highlight the pc sickness thats been inflicting the UK if they had their way it would never have been reported on all those abused girls have been let down by the ignorant authorities shame on them all.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » You think tommy is responsible for these people being taken to court?
Stephen15 wrote: » Look I don't agree with everthing they say but they say what the mainstream media is too afraid to say at times due to the PC brigade.
Mutant z wrote: » What actual evidence have you got for that i see all this mud throwing coming his way without solid proof i mean he isnt keen on islam so what so most of us with our heads screwed on aren't if the police did their jobs in the first place you wouldn't need to worry about him. Someone had to stand up for what was happening no one else was willing to but Tommy Robinson maybe the establishment shouldn't be so ignorant to what is happening around them in future if it takes TR to achieve that then its a job well done as far as im concerned.
Stephen15 wrote: » And you the man some time to change his ways? Which he is, but he's still a thug because he continues to criticize Islam.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » It is perfectly rational. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But we are talking about tommy robinson and rational does not apply to him. He is a far right thug who has taken up this "cause" because it attracts publicity for him.
Mutant z wrote: » The logic of the left you either stand with us or you're a far right neo nazi bigot like there's no other alternative its perfectly rational to have concerns about immigration without being a neo nazi in fact the majority aren't they are just sick of being ignored by the politicians who claim to represent them does anyone think they want whats best for this country because i sure as hell don't they are only in it for themselves to screw the rest of us over.
Omackeral wrote: » Ah come on. I'm a massive card carrying BNP and EDL member and Tommy supporter (not really, just think some of what he says holds merit :P) but listing those as credible sources is barmy.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)