|
|
|
| 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?