|
|
Quote: |
(CNN)His voice became hauntingly familiar as the masked man with a British accent who appeared repeatedly in brutal beheading videos from ISIS. But the identity of "Jihadi John" remained a mystery -- until Thursday, when two U.S. officials and two U.S. congressional sources confirmed it. The man, the officials said, is Mohammed Emwazi, a Kuwaiti-born Londoner. The officials, who've been briefed on the matter, spoke to CNN after a Washington Post report first revealed Emwazi's identity. Emwazi is believed to have traveled to Syria in 2012, according to the newspaper, and later to have joined ISIS there. Even with a name and face for the man behind the mask, uncertainty still swirled Thursday. London police and British officials declined to confirm his identity. Officials from a London-based human rights and Muslim advocacy organization who've interacted with Emwazi said they couldn't be 100% certain it was him. |
Quote: |
(CNN)This is how top national security reporters Souad Mekhennet and Adam Goldman of the Washington Post, who broke the story that Mohammed Emwazi has been identified as the notorious ISIS terrorist known as "Jihadi John," describe him: "a Briton from a well-to-do family who grew up in West London and graduated from college with a degree in computer programming." They go on to say that Emwazi "was raised in a middle-class neighborhood in London" and attended the University of Westminster, which is a university in London that was founded in the early 19th century. Emwazi poses something of a problem for the Obama administration's narrative about who becomes a terrorist and why. Last week, the administration hosted a three-day conference on "Countering Violent Extremism," which is a government euphemism for how best to deal with Islamist terrorism. We heard from Obama administration officials and even the President himself that terrorism has something to do with lack of opportunities and poverty. Obama said that "we have to address grievances terrorists exploit, including economic grievances." |
Nah, let's just bring them here & put them on govt. handouts.
Thus the war on terrorism is won.
But it isn't just one affluent Brit. It's almost all of the high profile terrorists, who have either carried out major attacks or have been arrested prior to attacks.
As duned stated, the poverty stricken do make up vast majority of the cannon fodders, but the affluent and well educated also make up the large number of more sophisticated terrorists and higher level insurgents.
To classify either one as the root cause is only looking at half the picture.
The question is how they are getting people with little opportunities (in their view) to think it is a great idea to head to the ME and kill people (often non-combatants) brutally? Is it as simple as they are recruiting violent nutjobs who need an outlet for their murderous desires?
Not at all. The problem is the Obama administration is painting it in a different light. As the article alludes to, the White House's narrative is that reaching disenchanted young people in search of dignity will sway the tide in our favor.
That appears to be disingenuous.
I think part of the thought is this- if the affluent and educated choose jihad, of their own thinking and beliefs, there's little to be done. It wasn't material circumstances that made this decision inevitable.
Of course, there's a fair share of disaffected youth born into the lap of luxury and bounty that is the USA, with our heavy metal and shopping malls.
Human enrichment and enlightenment is not nearly as tangible a concept as we'd like to imagine I'm afraid.
Quote:
for the Westerners partaking that's certainly not the norm (if anything the destitute are the exception among Western jihadis). But among the rank and file there is probably an economic and social component to it.
It would certainly seem so. So when some here spout on about "Just give them a job..." sarcastically, they are missing the point that there seems to be a big contingent of young people going to the ME (or trying to) not because of their religious extremist beliefs. As a matter of fact, the recruiting videos we've seen tend to not hit on that point much if at all.
The question is how they are getting people with little opportunities (in their view) to think it is a great idea to head to the ME and kill people (often non-combatants) brutally? Is it as simple as they are recruiting violent nutjobs who need an outlet for their murderous desires?
It might be a strong word, but I do think framing the disenchanted youths as the key to stopping the flood of western fighters is a bit much.
The list is long including all the 9/11 bombers.But you probably know that already.
Quote:
...
Dumb stuff comes from both sides.
Yes, yes it does.
Psaki was just promoted to become WH Communications Director effective 04/01/2015! April Fools Day is an appropriate start date for her.
Go post your idiocy elsewhere and let the adults have an actual discussion.
Why did Mohammed Emwazi become Jihadi John? - ( New Window )
The Onion: Privileged Children Of Millionaires Square Off On World Stage - ( New Window )
Doesn't speak to motivations per se, but may be useful for understanding context.
Infographic link - ( New Window )
He picks people based on loyalty to him and the cause. Carney was snarky, but Earnest? It is painful to listen to him. It would be high comedy if it wasn't so fucking serious.
Why did Mohammed Emwazi become Jihadi John? - ( New Window )
Interesting take tying the cultural difficulties felt by some individuals originating from Yemen and its tribal ways. I am not sure that it is as simple as this (who will really know at this point), but it sure is better than the poverty explanation.
Quote:
but I think that Jen Psaki is a thousand times worse. Ill-informed, mendacious, and vapid while at the same time being incredibly condescending. A curious blend. And when you consider the ultimate spin-meisters or outright prevaricators that are Josh Earnest and Jay Carney, IMO this President has either been poor served or is a poor judge of communications people.
He picks people based on loyalty to him and the cause. Carney was snarky, but Earnest? It is painful to listen to him. It would be high comedy if it wasn't so fucking serious.
Again, I point to Sharyl Atkisson's book as being an interesting look at things. She talks about Earnest and he was just a guy at that time with Carney being the spokesman as putting extreme amounts of pressure on news producers and editors to kill or re-shape their stories to the administration's liking. He sounds like a more powerful pusher behind the scenes as opposed to his mouthpiece job now.
No, Bake...you offended the collective intellect of those in actual discussion here. If you want to be taken seriously for your own interest on the topic along with your critical thinking skills, don't act like a jackass with little more than some partisan information as your sole contribution. As a grown adult, you act like a petulant teenager whenever you come into these discussions. Best advice anyone can give you is...if you don't have anying of substance to contribute, keep your mouth shut and learn. Grow up.
I'm sure the appeal of oppressing others to elevate your own lot in life is attractive to many dregs of society. And you even get to kill people with impunity...so what's not to like for these guys?
Better yet, one step further in being able to celebrate with your fellow Islamic Caliphates on the job well done on your part...I don't think you can undersell this draw for these dregs. Being around those of similar passion (or psychopathy) is pretty enticing.
I simply borrowed this from people who take this subject more seriously than you to demonstrate how absurd our State Dept spokespeople are on this topic. You know highlighting absurdity with absurdity.
But you have no sense of humor. I am so sorry for that.
I simply borrowed this from people who take this subject more seriously than you to demonstrate how absurd our State Dept spokespeople are on this topic. You know highlighting absurdity with absurdity.
But you have no sense of humor. I am so sorry for that.
No...I have sense of humor from those, who have proven to actually have anything of substance to add to this topic such as Nitro, Greg, Duned, etc. I have seen your contribution, which amounts to that of someone getting all of his information from FoxNews or MSNBC. So spare me your "I was just using humor" BS since that is about as deep as you get with these topics. As I've said, move along and let the adults have a decent discussion. Go post about how the Kardashians and their fortune make you so unhappy since that's the level of your discourse.
You just know it's going to ruin my entire weekend, young man.
Once smokers were flogged in Syrian territory ruled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, now they are fined about $65. Local rulers dismantle old state facilities to sell for parts. And shopkeepers complain Isis fighters no longer spend so freely.
The world's richest jihadi group is not as flush as it once was, say Syrians who live under its rule. It has cut spending on fuel and bread subsidies, while increasingly shaking down locals for cash. Fighters themselves may be feeling the squeeze, too.
"Isis took some kind of financial hit . . . Some fighters' salaries were cut, including my nephew," said a man in the eastern city of Mayadeen, who says an apparent drop in the group's revenues is making it difficult to cover the cost of its expansion in territory and membership since its lightning offensive last year.
Claims of belt-tightening are hard to confirm. Structurally, Isis is a secretive organisation, particularly with its finances. According to the US state department, it has $500m in liquid cash assets. But the group does seem to be restricting spending, potentially making it difficult to function like the caliphate it claims to be building.
So far this is unlikely to affect its capabilities as a militant organisation. According to the Financial Action Task Force, an intergovernmental body, it costs up to $10m a month to fund its fighters.
"It's harder for them to maintain the fiction of running a state in the eyes of local [people]," said a senior western diplomat who attended recent meetings of the anti-Isis coalition. "But if you are a member of the organisation itself, or a fighting group affiliated with it, then the money is still available."
Yet some of Isis's most profitable and straightforward sources of income are drying up.
Link - ( New Window )
I'd expect more ransom attacks in the near future. They may also have a very large bombing where it sets an example so that they may blackmail governments into paying them off to not blow shit up.
The US has to have some cash offers get out there to the terrorists at higher levels to entice them to turn coat. Paying them and their families, granting asylum, etc. may be how to crack into their organization. Cash talks. Always has.
Who gives a rats ass about these ignorant pieces of shit.
Until Islam starts identifying radical Mosques and radical Imams and starts protesting them and demanding their ouster and closure - Until then, in my book, they are all as guilty as Germans were during the rise and rule of Hitler.
It really requires an independent source of revenue such as oil and theft (if they're smart, they would sell the ancient artifacts instead of destroying them as some reports are stating) since I doubt that ransoms from kidnappings are all that lucrative (relatively speaking).
At certain point, ISIS will have to change its operational procedure or purge its cannon fodders that it may not be able to pay if they are indeed losing funding. How will this impact their way forward?
Who gives a rats ass about these ignorant pieces of shit.
Until Islam starts identifying radical Mosques and radical Imams and starts protesting them and demanding their ouster and closure - Until then, in my book, they are all as guilty as Germans were during the rise and rule of Hitler.
Ah...nothing like the condemnation of over a billion people and their faith. Definitely simplifying this one to the extreme.
Quote:
"Jane, you ignorant (Jihadi) slut."
Who gives a rats ass about these ignorant pieces of shit.
Until Islam starts identifying radical Mosques and radical Imams and starts protesting them and demanding their ouster and closure - Until then, in my book, they are all as guilty as Germans were during the rise and rule of Hitler.
Ah...nothing like the condemnation of over a billion people and their faith. Definitely simplifying this one to the extreme.
Yup. Condemn Hitler and the Germans who enabled him too. Don't see much difference.
But isn't that still a bit too much of an oversimplification? And by condemning Islam, are you going to condemn all who practice the faith? Not really sure what your definition of "enable" is since not all German's actively enabled Hitler. Many lived in fear for themselves as well.
Quote:
Yup. Condemn Hitler and the Germans who enabled him too. Don't see much difference.
But isn't that still a bit too much of an oversimplification? And by condemning Islam, are you going to condemn all who practice the faith? Not really sure what your definition of "enable" is since not all German's actively enabled Hitler. Many lived in fear for themselves as well.
Of course some did. But the majority did not. Hitler could only accomplish what he did because Germans enabled him. Likewise with Islamic extremism. Look, put me in a one-on-one conversation with a Muslim and I'm sure I am going to like him or her. See a Muslim in trouble, and I'm going to do what I can to help or save him/her. But ask me if I think, as a group, they are responsible for the violence being committed in the name of their faith? Damn fucking straight I am. No different than the Germans without whose support (or failure to protest) allowed Hitler to do what he did. There is literally no difference.
I sort of agree. By not denouncing this as an act against their faith, they are putting up with it at minimum. We need to hear from Muslim leaders condemning these acts of evil all across the Muslim world.
The terrorists are not going to give a damn when non-Muslims denounce them.
If I were the POTUS, I'd speak to many leaders of large US based mosques and ask them what they plan to do about this perversion of Islam.
Well it should be covered in the media so people are aware of it.
Quote:
We've been over this already. It's a weak argument and reason to condemn in a wholesale method.
Well it should be covered in the media so people are aware of it.
So they can satisfy you and others wanting to see such a thing? As duned already stated, it happens already. Maybe the media should be condemn instead of the faith or the people who practice the faith.
So they can satisfy you and others wanting to see such a thing? As duned already stated, it happens already. Maybe the media should be condemn instead of the faith or the people who practice the faith.
Maybe. I don't feel comfy at all painting a faith with a broad brush and don't like hearing it from other people either. They have to get their message out there. Eventually we could see a rise in hate crime toward Muslims. That would suck.
Carry on.
Quote:
Are factors in the radicalization of Muslims?
The list is long including all the 9/11 bombers.But you probably know that already.
There are lots of reaons people get radicalized. The most common one is to fight a poltical cause. In this case it is a reaction to 6 decades of the US supporting horrible monsters in the region that brutalize people, impoverish them and eventually lead those to radicalize.
Quote:
In comment 12155207 Ben in Tampa said:
Quote:
Are factors in the radicalization of Muslims?
The list is long including all the 9/11 bombers.But you probably know that already.
There are lots of reaons people get radicalized. The most common one is to fight a poltical cause. In this case it is a reaction to 6 decades of the US supporting horrible monsters in the region that brutalize people, impoverish them and eventually lead those to radicalize.
Ah the moral certainty of blaming your own country for all the sins of the world. Sophomore sociology major?
Carry on.
I originally typed John Belushi but knew that was wrong and thought I saw Bill Murray in my minds' eye sitting in the newsroom anchor seat saying that to Jane Curtin. But, you're right - it was Ackroyd. Damn.
They chanted, "No to anti-Semitism! No to Islamophobia!" Zeeshan Abdullah, who helped organize the event, told the Muslims and Jews gathered together outside the synagogue:
Humanity is one and we are here to demonstrate that. There are many more peace mongers than warmongers. There's still hope for humanity, for peace and love, across religious differences and backgrounds.
A highlght video is in the link below:
Ali Chishti once blamed Jews for 9/11. He spent Saturday guarding an Oslo synagogue.
Stuff like this happens. Doesn't get front page, or top of the headlines. Humanity is pretty good at painting a group with one brush, but it's almost never true.