Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & RulesSPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:50 pm
This is a cross-post from the Southern Poverty Law Centre
June 18, 2018
Today, we entered into a settlement with and offered our sincerest apology to Mr. Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for including them in our publication A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted. But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.
Among those who contacted us were human rights advocates affiliated with the United Nations who emphasized that Mr. Nawaz’s work combatting extremism “is actually analogous to that of the SPLC over the years in the South.” Indeed, one of the reasons Mr. Nawaz has said that he was so troubled by our listing was the fact that he had respected our work for many years. Although we may have our differences with some of the positions that Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have taken, we recognize that they have made important contributions to efforts to promote pluralism and that they are most certainly not anti-Muslim extremists.
As part of our settlement, we have paid $3.375 million to Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism. It was the right thing to do in light of our mistake and the right thing to do in light of the growing prejudice against the Muslim community on both sides of the Atlantic. We will look to our insurance carrier to cover the cost of the settlement.
In addition to apologizing to Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, we offer our sincerest apology to our supporters and all those who depend on our work. We pride ourselves on the accuracy of our reports and, although we know we are not perfect, it pains us greatly whenever we make a mistake. As we move forward, we are committed to redoubling our efforts to ensure that our work is always carried out with the utmost care and integrity. The stakes in the battle against hate and extremism are simply too great to be satisfied with anything less.
http://hurryupharry.org/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-the-quilliam-foundation/
Might have had something more to do, with the court case against them by Nawaz. Knowing they would lose.
Glad to see they apologised
June 18, 2018
Today, we entered into a settlement with and offered our sincerest apology to Mr. Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for including them in our publication A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted. But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.
Among those who contacted us were human rights advocates affiliated with the United Nations who emphasized that Mr. Nawaz’s work combatting extremism “is actually analogous to that of the SPLC over the years in the South.” Indeed, one of the reasons Mr. Nawaz has said that he was so troubled by our listing was the fact that he had respected our work for many years. Although we may have our differences with some of the positions that Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam have taken, we recognize that they have made important contributions to efforts to promote pluralism and that they are most certainly not anti-Muslim extremists.
As part of our settlement, we have paid $3.375 million to Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism. It was the right thing to do in light of our mistake and the right thing to do in light of the growing prejudice against the Muslim community on both sides of the Atlantic. We will look to our insurance carrier to cover the cost of the settlement.
In addition to apologizing to Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, we offer our sincerest apology to our supporters and all those who depend on our work. We pride ourselves on the accuracy of our reports and, although we know we are not perfect, it pains us greatly whenever we make a mistake. As we move forward, we are committed to redoubling our efforts to ensure that our work is always carried out with the utmost care and integrity. The stakes in the battle against hate and extremism are simply too great to be satisfied with anything less.
http://hurryupharry.org/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-the-quilliam-foundation/
Might have had something more to do, with the court case against them by Nawaz. Knowing they would lose.
Glad to see they apologised
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Andy Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:33 pm
Maajid Nawaz is one of the best presenters on radio
Last edited by Angry Andy on Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Andy- Poet Laureate & Traveling Bard of NewsFix
- Posts : 6421
Join date : 2013-12-14
Age : 67
Location : Winning the fight to drain the swamp of far right extremists.
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:52 pm
Angry Andy wrote:Masjid away is one of the best presenters on radio
Agree 100%
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:15 pm
He talks shite... his arguments are twisty waffle...!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Andy Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:47 pm
I KNEW you would say that.
For the usual 2 reasons.
But your second reason is horseshit because he is a non practicing Muslim
For the usual 2 reasons.
But your second reason is horseshit because he is a non practicing Muslim
Andy- Poet Laureate & Traveling Bard of NewsFix
- Posts : 6421
Join date : 2013-12-14
Age : 67
Location : Winning the fight to drain the swamp of far right extremists.
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:43 pm
Really...?
What reasons have I stated here...?
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:56 am
Tommy Monk wrote:
He talks shite... his arguments are twisty waffle...!
"Wisty twaffle.."
'Wolfie- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 8189
Join date : 2016-02-24
Age : 66
Location : Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:07 pm
Pressured, the Southern Poverty Law Center Admits It Was Wrong.
Any free society must expect that a certain number of chancers, hucksters, and shake-down artists will prosper among them. But rarely have they come in so grossly endowed and shameless a guise as the “Southern Poverty Law Center.”
The SPLC was founded in the 1970s, and back then it did some respectable campaigning work to target and shut down — through legal means — actually racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. All well and good, and the SPLC can still be applauded for this work. And yet students of non-profits and charities worldwide will be familiar with a certain tendency in this field, which is that such organizations rarely shut themselves down. Or, to put it another way, a charity set up to cure a disease may find a cure for that disease and yet strangely also find some reasons to continue. For of course salaries and pensions are at stake. Comfortable halos have been created. Who would want to divest themselves of the gold and glory that comes from such a sinecure? And so the charity will become, for instance, a charity to help people who once suffered from the disease that has now been cured.
So it is — though in far worse form — with the KKK and the SPLC. Of course as the KKK dwindled to an all but negligible fringe, the SPLC could not afford to bask in its victories. There was still cash to collect. Indeed more cash than ever. And who but a fool, or an honest man, would leave tens of millions of dollars on the table? So it is that in recent years the SPLC reoriented itself. It became an organization that looked into all those things that were not racist but that might be deemed right of center. It decided to look into not terrorism and racism but “extremism.” It decided, in particular, that it should become the self-appointed arbiter of what is acceptable in American life and what is unacceptable. For years the mainstream press, lazy on its memories of the SPLC’s past manifestation, indulged it in its new self-definition. Indeed for a few years the words “whom the SPLC has described as” wormed their way into some of America’s — and the world’s — most otherwise respectable and usually fact-reliant publications.
Yet the SPLC has repeatedly shown itself to be woefully unfit to perform its self-assigned task. For instance in 2015 it “designated” (as though this should have had any standing anywhere other than in the minds of the SPLC’s employees) Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson as an “extremist.” So within the space of only a few decades the SPLC moved from targeting the KKK to targeting a black conservative. Elsewhere it has attempted to anathematize multiple mainstream scholars of a conservative persuasion, including Charles Murray (no relation). About the radical Left it has shown a strange lack of interest.
Like many other organizations, the SPLC has spent recent years attempting to make any links it can between any conservative who says anything and any terrorist who does anything. So it was almost moving to observe their own standards come back to bite them in 2012 when a gunman walked into the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., intent on killing its staff. The gunman on that occasion admitted that he had chosen his target because the SPLC had listed it as a “hate group” on its website.
So it has consequences, this sinister and spendthrift game that the SPLC has been playing. In any other context the SPLC might be regarded as participating in a game of exceptionally dangerous target selection. But somehow the organization has clung on to its halo, even as it has time and again shown itself to be a dangerously ill-informed group that has turned from anti-racism to incitement within a generation.
Which brings us to today. For as of today it seems possible that the SPLC’s position may finally be taken back down to the position it should have been reduced to years ago. Perhaps after today those donors who still give money to the SPLC will realize that they are backing a disgraced and disgraceful organization, if any were unaware of and unbothered about this before.
For today it has been announced that the SPLC has been forced to pay $3.375 million to the British Muslim reformist and anti-extremism campaigner Maajid Nawaz.
Two years ago the SPLC published one of its typically poorly put-together hack jobs. It described this one grandiloquently as a “Field guide to anti-Muslim extremists.” Like their opposite numbers in the U.K. (the incorrectly titled “Hope Not Hate”), the SPLC has decided in recent years that it has the ability to judge not merely what is a correct interpretation of Islam and what is an incorrect interpretation of Islam, but also (mirabile dictu) who may criticize Islam with some legitimacy and who may not. In both cases the general sense is given off that in fact nobody can criticize any aspect of Islam legitimately without being named in a “field guide” put together by a gaggle of people who are overfunded and underinformed.
Even by its own standards the SPLC’s 2016 report was more than usually sloppy. For among the many other people they incorrectly labeled “anti-Muslim extremists,” the SPLC listed Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Which, given that Ayaan was born a Muslim and Maajid still is a Muslim, is really the sort of thing would give any sensible person pause. Or, to put it another way, how many more black people do the white far-leftists at the SPLC have to target before having to put themselves on one of their piss-poor “field guides”?
Anyhow — Nawaz very sensibly sued. Not just to clear his name, but also to make up for the fact that in the wake of the SPLC’s designation, Nawaz’s think tank (the counter-extremism organization Quilliam) found its fundraising efforts to be seriously affected. Of course they would be. Because even two years ago there were still people who took the views of the SPLC seriously. A “designation” by the SPLC that a Muslim reformer is in fact, secretly or otherwise, an “anti-Muslim extremist” is the sort of thing that might scare away all but the most robust and rigorous foundations and individuals from supporting said outfit. The SPLC’s actions were also a serious warning note sounded against any other Muslims keen to get into the realm of counter-extremism. After all, now they must know that if they do dedicate their lives and careers to the cause of battling the extremists in their faith, then they not only face the potential retributions of the jihadists — as Nawaz has done — but the anathematizing and target-selection practices of the SPLC.
Anyhow — Quilliam has released the news of Nawaz’s stunning victory just this afternoon. Every person who wishes for a cleaner debate on the issues around Islamic extremism (issues that the SPLC has again shown itself wholly uninterested in exploring) will welcome the news. Everybody who has seen through the baleful effect that the SPLC has had on public life will rejoice with Nawaz and Quilliam in their victory over an entity many hundreds of times better endowed than them. And every person who wants politics to breathe that little bit cleaner may well be mulling over the same thought that I am having.
What if everybody whom the SPLC has erroneously smeared over recent years — the individuals, the groups, the scholars and activists — took this precedent to launch legal actions of their own? The SPLC has a vast endowment of tens of millions of dollars. But going by this precedent, if everybody decided to correct the lies that the SPLC has taken upon itself to spread over recent years, then the SPLC, which failed to shut itself down when its work was done, could be shut down by the very people it has spent recent years trying to shut up. Which would not just be poetic, but justice too.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/southern-poverty-law-center-maajid-nawaz/
Any free society must expect that a certain number of chancers, hucksters, and shake-down artists will prosper among them. But rarely have they come in so grossly endowed and shameless a guise as the “Southern Poverty Law Center.”
The SPLC was founded in the 1970s, and back then it did some respectable campaigning work to target and shut down — through legal means — actually racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. All well and good, and the SPLC can still be applauded for this work. And yet students of non-profits and charities worldwide will be familiar with a certain tendency in this field, which is that such organizations rarely shut themselves down. Or, to put it another way, a charity set up to cure a disease may find a cure for that disease and yet strangely also find some reasons to continue. For of course salaries and pensions are at stake. Comfortable halos have been created. Who would want to divest themselves of the gold and glory that comes from such a sinecure? And so the charity will become, for instance, a charity to help people who once suffered from the disease that has now been cured.
So it is — though in far worse form — with the KKK and the SPLC. Of course as the KKK dwindled to an all but negligible fringe, the SPLC could not afford to bask in its victories. There was still cash to collect. Indeed more cash than ever. And who but a fool, or an honest man, would leave tens of millions of dollars on the table? So it is that in recent years the SPLC reoriented itself. It became an organization that looked into all those things that were not racist but that might be deemed right of center. It decided to look into not terrorism and racism but “extremism.” It decided, in particular, that it should become the self-appointed arbiter of what is acceptable in American life and what is unacceptable. For years the mainstream press, lazy on its memories of the SPLC’s past manifestation, indulged it in its new self-definition. Indeed for a few years the words “whom the SPLC has described as” wormed their way into some of America’s — and the world’s — most otherwise respectable and usually fact-reliant publications.
Yet the SPLC has repeatedly shown itself to be woefully unfit to perform its self-assigned task. For instance in 2015 it “designated” (as though this should have had any standing anywhere other than in the minds of the SPLC’s employees) Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson as an “extremist.” So within the space of only a few decades the SPLC moved from targeting the KKK to targeting a black conservative. Elsewhere it has attempted to anathematize multiple mainstream scholars of a conservative persuasion, including Charles Murray (no relation). About the radical Left it has shown a strange lack of interest.
Like many other organizations, the SPLC has spent recent years attempting to make any links it can between any conservative who says anything and any terrorist who does anything. So it was almost moving to observe their own standards come back to bite them in 2012 when a gunman walked into the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., intent on killing its staff. The gunman on that occasion admitted that he had chosen his target because the SPLC had listed it as a “hate group” on its website.
So it has consequences, this sinister and spendthrift game that the SPLC has been playing. In any other context the SPLC might be regarded as participating in a game of exceptionally dangerous target selection. But somehow the organization has clung on to its halo, even as it has time and again shown itself to be a dangerously ill-informed group that has turned from anti-racism to incitement within a generation.
Which brings us to today. For as of today it seems possible that the SPLC’s position may finally be taken back down to the position it should have been reduced to years ago. Perhaps after today those donors who still give money to the SPLC will realize that they are backing a disgraced and disgraceful organization, if any were unaware of and unbothered about this before.
For today it has been announced that the SPLC has been forced to pay $3.375 million to the British Muslim reformist and anti-extremism campaigner Maajid Nawaz.
Two years ago the SPLC published one of its typically poorly put-together hack jobs. It described this one grandiloquently as a “Field guide to anti-Muslim extremists.” Like their opposite numbers in the U.K. (the incorrectly titled “Hope Not Hate”), the SPLC has decided in recent years that it has the ability to judge not merely what is a correct interpretation of Islam and what is an incorrect interpretation of Islam, but also (mirabile dictu) who may criticize Islam with some legitimacy and who may not. In both cases the general sense is given off that in fact nobody can criticize any aspect of Islam legitimately without being named in a “field guide” put together by a gaggle of people who are overfunded and underinformed.
Even by its own standards the SPLC’s 2016 report was more than usually sloppy. For among the many other people they incorrectly labeled “anti-Muslim extremists,” the SPLC listed Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Which, given that Ayaan was born a Muslim and Maajid still is a Muslim, is really the sort of thing would give any sensible person pause. Or, to put it another way, how many more black people do the white far-leftists at the SPLC have to target before having to put themselves on one of their piss-poor “field guides”?
Anyhow — Nawaz very sensibly sued. Not just to clear his name, but also to make up for the fact that in the wake of the SPLC’s designation, Nawaz’s think tank (the counter-extremism organization Quilliam) found its fundraising efforts to be seriously affected. Of course they would be. Because even two years ago there were still people who took the views of the SPLC seriously. A “designation” by the SPLC that a Muslim reformer is in fact, secretly or otherwise, an “anti-Muslim extremist” is the sort of thing that might scare away all but the most robust and rigorous foundations and individuals from supporting said outfit. The SPLC’s actions were also a serious warning note sounded against any other Muslims keen to get into the realm of counter-extremism. After all, now they must know that if they do dedicate their lives and careers to the cause of battling the extremists in their faith, then they not only face the potential retributions of the jihadists — as Nawaz has done — but the anathematizing and target-selection practices of the SPLC.
Anyhow — Quilliam has released the news of Nawaz’s stunning victory just this afternoon. Every person who wishes for a cleaner debate on the issues around Islamic extremism (issues that the SPLC has again shown itself wholly uninterested in exploring) will welcome the news. Everybody who has seen through the baleful effect that the SPLC has had on public life will rejoice with Nawaz and Quilliam in their victory over an entity many hundreds of times better endowed than them. And every person who wants politics to breathe that little bit cleaner may well be mulling over the same thought that I am having.
What if everybody whom the SPLC has erroneously smeared over recent years — the individuals, the groups, the scholars and activists — took this precedent to launch legal actions of their own? The SPLC has a vast endowment of tens of millions of dollars. But going by this precedent, if everybody decided to correct the lies that the SPLC has taken upon itself to spread over recent years, then the SPLC, which failed to shut itself down when its work was done, could be shut down by the very people it has spent recent years trying to shut up. Which would not just be poetic, but justice too.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/southern-poverty-law-center-maajid-nawaz/
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:40 pm
Nawaz is a convicted islamist terrorist and a liar!!!
Now he and his crony 'quilliam foundation' get millions of pounds of tax payer funds from UK govt...!!!
Recently he was arguing that the 2 remaining living ISIS terrorists from the terrorist cell known as 'the beatles' should be allowed to come back to UK to face trial... ie a soft trial and likely to result in a soft sentence in a soft prison... rather than face trial in Syria where they committed all their barbaric crimes, and face a sentence that they deserve...!
Now he and his crony 'quilliam foundation' get millions of pounds of tax payer funds from UK govt...!!!
Recently he was arguing that the 2 remaining living ISIS terrorists from the terrorist cell known as 'the beatles' should be allowed to come back to UK to face trial... ie a soft trial and likely to result in a soft sentence in a soft prison... rather than face trial in Syria where they committed all their barbaric crimes, and face a sentence that they deserve...!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:48 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:Nawaz is a convicted islamist terrorist and a liar!!!
Now he and his crony 'quilliam foundation' get millions of pounds of tax payer funds from UK govt...!!!
Recently he was arguing that the 2 remaining living ISIS terrorists from the terrorist cell known as 'the beatles' should be allowed to come back to UK to face trial... ie a soft trial and likely to result in a soft sentence in a soft prison... rather than face trial in Syria where they committed all their barbaric crimes, and face a sentence that they deserve...!
How is he a liar?
Are you saying that convicted criminals have to be criminals for life and that we should shun former criminals out to do good?
I agree they should be allowed back to the UK, as they are Uk citizens to then stand trial
He never invoked a soft trial, that is your invented bullshit
So you think, we should not take to trial Uk citizens
Where did they hold the Nuremberg trials?
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:57 pm
They are no longer UK citizens...
And they should face trial by the authorities of the country where they committed their crimes...!!!
And they should face trial by the authorities of the country where they committed their crimes...!!!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:59 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:They are no longer UK citizens...
And they should face trial by the authorities of the country where they committed their crimes...!!!
Sine when did they become no longer UK citizens?
Do British Jews that fight for the IDF or British citizens join the Kurds fighting in Syria become no longer UK citizens?
Did my Irish Grandfather, no longer be an Irish citizen, when he fought for the British in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and Austria in WW2?
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:36 pm
I believe that they both had dual nationality/citizenship... but both have had their UK citizenship revoked...
But besides that... they are the responsibility of the authorities of the country where they committed their crimes...!!!
As is the normal way of things didge...!!!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:44 pm
He has not had his citizenship revoked, which is irrelevant on your argumentTommy Monk wrote:
I believe that they both had dual nationality/citizenship... but both have had their UK citizenship revoked...
But besides that... they are the responsibility of the authorities of the country where they committed their crimes...!!!
As is the normal way of things didge...!!!
So you are suggesting that Britain cannot bringto court anyone, that commits a crime outside the UK, if a British citizen?
Wow
So you think my granddad should have had his Irish citizenship revoked?
I agree, he was responsible for helping win WW2
Shoule he have been tried in Ireland as a traitor for this, being as Ireland was neutral in WW2 and actually aided Nazi Germany?
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:57 pm
They are the responsibility of the authorities of the country where they committed their crimes...!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:00 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:They are the responsibility of the authorities of the country where they committed their crimes...!
Really,. so to you the Nuremburg trials are void then?
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:26 pm
Waffle...!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:36 am
Is it waffle Tommy?
Are you saying Lord Haw Haw should have been tried by the Germans or British?
How about the members of the British Free Corps?
Are you saying Lord Haw Haw should have been tried by the Germans or British?
How about the members of the British Free Corps?
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:04 am
It's quite simple didge... if you go to another country and commit crimes there, then you are held by the authorities there and prosecuted there...!!!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:07 am
Tommy Monk wrote:It's quite simple didge... if you go to another country and commit crimes there, then you are held by the authorities there and prosecuted there...!!!
Wrong on every level Tommy, as again why were members of the British Free Corps tried by the British and not the Germans?
So your view does not come in line with British law.
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:13 am
It's quite simple didge... if you go to another country and commit crimes there, then you are held by the authorities there and prosecuted there...!!!
Why are you twisting...?
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:16 am
Tommy Monk wrote:
It's quite simple didge... if you go to another country and commit crimes there, then you are held by the authorities there and prosecuted there...!!!
Why are you twisting...?
As seen, its not quite that simple as you claim
Again why was the British Free Corp members tried by the British?
Take as long as you like, as to why they were.
So nobody is twisting anything, just you have a poor failing to grasp anything
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:06 pm
Stop conflating...
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:37 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:
Stop conflating...
Seriously, answer the points or fuck off you boring C unt
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:51 pm
As usual, you have no points... just same old twisty bullshit...
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Sun Jun 24, 2018 4:12 am
Tommy Monk wrote:As usual, you have no points... just same old twisty bullshit...
Is that why you constantly avoided answering my questions, dipshit?
Seriuously. Your hate of Muslims. is far worse than the Crusaders
This man is trying to help reform Islam and you then still hate him, because he is a Muslim, shows how far you are led by hateful emotions
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:30 pm
He is a convicted islamist terrorist... a liar... a leach on UK taxpayer funds... and he talks shite...!
What's not to like...!!!???
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Guest Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:33 pm
Tommy Monk wrote:
He is a convicted islamist terrorist... a liar... a leach on UK taxpayer funds... and he talks shite...!
What's not to like...!!!???
He is easily more likeable than you Tommy
Guest- Guest
Re: SPLC STATEMENT REGARDING MAAJID NAWAZ AND THE QUILLIAM FOUNDATION
by Tommy Monk Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:57 pm
To you maybe... cos you like islamist terrorism, lying, sponging off the UK taxpayer and talking shite too!!!
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Sponsored content
Similar topics» Maajid Nawaz
» Maajid Nawaz: Do You Want Muslims To Integrate Or Not?
» Comedy gold: the ‘stealth supremacism’ of Maajid Nawaz
» The SPLC Has Removed Its Controversial Page Listing “Anti-Muslim Extremists”
» Maajid Nawaz Interview | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
» Maajid Nawaz: Do You Want Muslims To Integrate Or Not?
» Comedy gold: the ‘stealth supremacism’ of Maajid Nawaz
» The SPLC Has Removed Its Controversial Page Listing “Anti-Muslim Extremists”
» Maajid Nawaz Interview | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
» Interesting COVID figures
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
» Quill
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
» PHEW.
» And here's some more enrichment...
» John F Kennedy Assassination
» Where is everyone lately...?
» London violence over the weekend...
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...