- Aug 2, 2001
- Reaction score
Well rynner is there!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31637090IS militant 'Jihadi John' named as Mohammed Emwazi from London
The masked Islamic State militant known as "Jihadi John", who has been pictured in the videos of the beheadings of Western hostages, has been named.
The BBC understands he is Mohammed Emwazi, a Kuwaiti-born British man in his mid-20s from West London, who was known to UK security services.
I saw this too........ made me very very annoyed.Unbelievably, the apologism has started already: spokesman from CAGE (Moazzam Begg's "support for jihadi prisoners" outfit, shamefully supported by Amnesty at one stage) on Sky News saying what a lovely young man this monster is and how it's al the fault of liberal British society for making him feel like an outsider.
What an absolute disgrace.
Nah, I think they were always a bunch of salafist apologists for Islamic terror. On the one hand I'm shocked they were even on the news - on the other, I think it's good that their BS is demonstrated to a wider audience.I think CAGE has degenerated.
Two years ago I would have disagreed with you, it appeared they were doing genuine human rights work on behalf of wrongly imprisoned people.Nah, I think they were always a bunch of salafist apologists for Islamic terror. On the one hand I'm shocked they were even on the news - on the other, I think it's good that their BS is demonstrated to a wider audience.
Shame on Amnesty for ever getting involved with these guys.
Arguing that jihadis are entitled to due process and should not be subject to torture etc is one thing. Joint events and combined campaigning with a group which is opposed to Western concepts of human rights is quite another.Amnesty will often have to take up unpopular causes.
No matter what I think of ISIS I do not want to see them or anyone else tortured if they are captured.
Arguing that jihadis are entitled to due process and should not be subject to torture etc is one thing. Joint events and combined campaigning with a group which is opposed to Western concepts of human rights is quite another.
Remember that Amnesty refused to adopt Nelson Mandela as a prisoner of conscience back in the 80s due to his refusal to abandon the notion of armed struggle completely. It defies belief that such a principled organisation could then make common cause with the CAGE fascists.
Google the Gita Sehgal controversy - it's instructive. A brave whistleblower forced out of a "human rights" organisation for standing up to theocratic fascism.
I can Bahhhhhhhhhhhhh. I can also Bleat. The simple question we have to ask is what is right and what is wrong?
And that has to be a decision taken at an individual level.
Should I take part in this extreme stand against art?
Should I denounce cartoons with execution?
Should I destroy ancient artworks and statues?
And, above all, should I do all the above as an escalation of my principles having already sawn a man's head off.
And crucified and burned another few alive?
No right thinking person is terrified by this terrorism. We're just massively confused how a peaceful religion can go so wrong.
Indeed - it's testament to how successful the "Religion of Peace" propaganda has been that people still express surprise when Islam turns violent. The religion was as Ramon says founded in a bloodbath and continued its violent expansionism for centuries. Mohammed himself was a slaver who beheaded prisoners of war, raped captive women and married a six year old. Yet he is painted as the perfect human being.The religion was never peaceful: it was spread by the sword. The "prophet" was an Imperialist who conquered other lands and people. Jews and Christians were allowed to pay a tax rather than convert to Islam but for others it was convert or be put to the sword.
The vast majority of Muslims oppose Al Qaeda and ISIS but Islam was founded in a bloodbath.
I know these areas very well.Okay, it's the Daily Fail ..... but still?
It's very peculiar, there seem to be many cases of piss takers getting in, while cases that appear robust get deported. And quite a few who lose their asylum case but can't be deported as their country is regarded as unsafe, so they get turfed onto the streets, whith no right to work or to claim benefits.It's unsurprising the asylum system has fallen into such poor standing amongst the general public.
A very right on friend of mine did volunteer work with asylum seekers about 15 years or so ago. She was and remains impeccably PC but even she would admit privately that the majority of her "clients" did not have a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution. Most were young men who wanted to move to the West for economic reasons. People traffickers had often sold them an unrealistic dream of unimaginable wealth and opportunities that would be available to them here - as well as false hopes of the sexual availability of Western women.It's very peculiar, there seem to be many cases of piss takers getting in, while cases that appear robust get deported. And quite a few who lose their asylum case but can't be deported as their country is regarded as unsafe, so they get turfed onto the streets, whith no right to work or to claim benefits.
I'm not sure how all different bits of this picture fit together, whether the service varies a lot from area to area or whether it is simply broken.
Indeed - although at the risk of sounding heartless I wonder why a refugee from DRC was in the UK in the first place. The UK is not going to be the first safe country ie the place where asylum should be claimed.That's only one side of the failure though, the other side is the genuine cases that don't make it in, or that end up destitute.
A few years back we had a volunteer where I worked who was a refugee from DR Congo, who stayed almost perpetually blotto for months on end because he said when he stopped drinking he started to remember. He may or may not have been in the country legally, they found him dead at his hostel over the Christmas break, never found out what of but we always presumed alcohol related. I'm reasonably convinced he was a genuine case.
It can seem at times like the people that system is designed to save slip through the net while the clowns get a free ride.
We're getting into an area I have limited understanding of, from what little I know the kind of people traffickers you describe can have some role in genuine asylum cases too, which does muddy the waters even further.Indeed - although at the risk of sounding heartless I wonder why a refugee from DRC was in the UK in the first place.
Interesting article but I'm not sure the parallels are as strong as the author would like. Extreme right wing views of the sort once held Orell remain, thankfully, the preserve of a tiny minority that has little to no support in the wider community. Contrast with Islamism where a quarter to a third of European Muslims are, when polled, prepared to admit some sympathy for terrorism and even more would like to see aspects of shariah law installed here.Born and raised in leafy West London, Ibrahim Ahmed always supported the local soccer club and listened to what he called “white music.” But in school he was a “Muslim,” and he became increasingly disaffected from British society. When recruiters approached him in a mosque 18 years ago and told him that he could fight a holy war right here at home, he readily agreed.
In Sweden, Robert Orell was reading “Mein Kampf” and preparing for his own war. The immigrants who had bullied him at his school were now, in his view, bullying his culture as liberal politicians stood by. He fantasized about bursting into Parliament with one of the guns that his neo-Nazi friends had hidden in the woods.
The ideologies that once motivated Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Orell could hardly be more different. Yet strip away ideology and what emerges are two strikingly similar tales of radicalization, militancy and, in the case of these two men, deradicalization. ...