Posts Tagged ‘Mohamed Emwazee’

The Young Turks on French Journalist’s Statement on ISIS and Bombing of Syria

December 5, 2015

Okay, this is yet another video from the left-wing American news show, The Young Turks. Here the Turks’ main anchor, Cenk Uygur, talks about Nicholas Henin, the French journalist, who was held captive by the mad butchers for over a year. He saw Mohamed ‘Jihadi John’ Emwazi murder six of his friends for their wretched propaganda videos, and still wonders about how many Syrians were butchered by him and who cares for them?

I blogged about this video yesterday, when it was included by Tom Pride of Pride’s Purge in an excellent piece he had written about not bombing Syria. Henin states that bombing won’t work, as it will only lead to further radicalisation. ISIS want to alienate Muslims and create division between them and the West, so that they can win them over by posing as the religion’s true defenders. In stark opposition to their dreams of creating hatred for the West amongst Muslims is the mass exodus of Syrian refugees to the West. It’s a slap in their face to their claim that they have created an Islamic ‘dreamland’, and they are mightily dismayed when the refugees are welcomed, rather than received with hatred.

Henin also states that they see the world through an ancient prophecy that states that Muslims will fight a battle against an army of 80 nations. I commented yesterday that this appears to be an Islamic belief about the end of the world. It’s similar to the Christian belief about the Battle of Armageddon, in which Christians will fight a battle against the forces of the Anti-Christ. Henin believes that this is the reason why ISIS is attacking so many countries, such as America, France and so on. They are hoping to create this army of 80 infidel nations, in order to fulfil the prophecy, or their interpretation of it.

Here’s the video.

Uygur adds a few more pieces of information about ISIS’ millennialist beliefs. He states that Sunnis believe in one version of the prophecy, Shi’ah another, and that many Muslims don’t believe in it at all. He points out that what’s important is that ISIS do believe in a poisonous version of it, and are acting to fulfil this interpretation. And so, he warns, we should be careful to avoid falling into their trap and doing exactly what they want us to do.

Like bomb Syria.

My guess is that ISIS are deliberately fighting for control over Syria as part of their end of the world beliefs, and not just because they see it as an important part of their projected caliphate. One of the Muslim prophecies about the end of the world concerns the rise of an anti-Christ, al-Dajjal, who will lead the Muslim community away from true belief and attack the remaining true believers. Muslims believe he will be killed by Christ Himself. Before Christ does, the Muslims will seek refuge at Jabal al-Dukhan in Syria, where they will be besieged by al-Dajjal and his forces of evil. (See IBN Kathir, The Signs Before the Day of Judgement (London: Dar Al Taqwa 1991), p. 52). I think the West and its allies would be extremely wise to consider how any military action they might pursue in Syria may be perceived and twisted to seem as a fulfilment of the ancient prophecies.

Hope Not Hate, the anti-racist, anti-religious extremism organisation, reported a new initiative by moderate Islamic scholars to combat the teachings of extremists like ISIS, al-Qaeda and the other Islamist groups. This is Imams On Line. If any Muslim has encountered Islamist propaganda, and is worried about it, they can go there to see it authoritatively refuted by mainstream Islamic scholarship.

Drone Operators Called Children ‘Fun-Sized Terrorists’

November 23, 2015

This is disgusting on so many levels.

Earlier this evening I blogged about the Tory bloodlust applauding the killing of Mohamed ‘Jihadi John’ Emwazee, the brutal Islamist thug responsible for ‘executing’ al-Qaeda’s prisoners for the sick little propaganda videos by drone. I pointed out that, while Emwazee was a murderer and war criminal, who got pretty much exactly what he deserved, this does not mean that drone strikes are an effective weapon against terrorism. I pointed out in that article that critics of the drone programme have stated that their use tends to increase support for terrorists, like the Taliban in Pakistan. Also, drones themselves are not always accurate. The machines home in on cell phone signals, for example, so that most of their victims aren’t terrorists themselves, but may simply be their relatives or those, who happen to be there at the time. Moreover, The Young Turks reported that the programme had been criticised as an instrument of extra-judicial execution of American citizens, like the al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, by the American state. Awlaki was killed by a drone strike in the Yemen. He was an American citizen, but was effectively executed without trial.

The video below is from an American show, Democracy Now. It’s of an interview with a whistleblower, Michael Haas, who revealed the callous indifference to human life amongst the drone operators. Haas states that the operators called the children killed in drone strikes, ‘fun-sized terrorists’. They rationalised the murders by comparing them to grass. ‘You have to cut the grass before it gets too tall’ was the way the saw it. And everything was done to deny their humanity in order to make the killing of children easier.

There’s also a report on this by the atheist website, Secular Talk. They report that the drone operators also used to refer to children as TITs – Terrorists In Training. Haas himself was concerned about the way the drone operators seemed determined to kill indiscriminately, regarding everyone as a target. He was an instructor in the programme, and at one point pulled one of the men he was training off the console because he was upset at the man’s bloodlust. He told him that it wasn’t a video game, and that the people killed stayed dead.

If this is account is true, it was the action of a proper, good soldier. If you watched the programme on Sandhurst, the British military academy a year or so ago, you’ll have seen how the British army is concerned about the morality of warfare and killing. It’s part of their studies, and I’ve been told that the programme accurately reflected the course’s concern for the proper conduct of what is the brutal and horrific business of killing other human beings.

Haas was, unfortunately, not praised or commended for his moral concerns. He was instead punished. After he left the army, he states that he was hooked on ‘bath salts’ and cocaine. He also stated that for every four terrorists they killed, they created ten more.

From his evidence it appears that the use of drones is both deeply immoral, and having precisely the opposite effect of what is intended.

Now the insurgents in Iraq have used children as soldiers in combat with the occupying allied troops. There’s a horrifying description of a firefight in Iraq between the Americans and a group of insurgents in the first chapter of the book, Falling Off The Edge. During the battle, couple of insurgents took refuge in a nearby house, and threw outside a seven year old boy. Lying on the ground was an unexploded RPG round, which had been fired by one of the American troopers. The boy looked like he was planning to move towards and throw the grenade. The American soldiers told him to move away, and not pick up the round. The boy reached towards the grenade, and so was shot by the troopers.

A seven year old kid, killed because he was sent to do their job by ruthless, exploitative cowards. From the description, it doesn’t seem that the American troopers in this instance had a choice. If they had not shot the lad, he would have thrown the grenade, killing them.

The drone operators are in a different position. They aren’t personally threatened by the people they kill. They aren’t physically present, and they certainly don’t have to kill children or innocents. But about 990 per cent of the people killed in drone strikes aren’t terrorists.

Secular Talk concluded their piece by demanding that the drone programme be discontinued until the American forces clean it up. I don’t share their anti-religious views, but they’re right about that. It should come to an end now, before even more innocents are killed, and more people radicalised from it.

Tory Bloodlust, Corbyn, and the Drone Strike against ‘Jihadi John’

November 23, 2015

Okay, this is going to be another article commenting on the current situation in the Middle East. I’m sorry about this, if you’re bored with the subject, guys. Please stay with me. This stuff’s important. But I guess you already know that very well already.

Last week it was reported that the Americans had killed Mohamed Emwazee, aka ‘Jihadi John’, in a drone strike. Emwazee was the British ‘executioner’ with a London accent, shown murdering prisoners in ISIS’ propaganda videos. This was a subject of celebration, with David Cameron appearing on TV to praise the Americans for having done a good job well done, and make various comments about British-American co-operation, intelligence-sharing and so forth.

And then the right-wing press over here decided that they were going to attack Corbyn for not being sufficiently militaristic. The good blogger over at Zelo Street has written a very good piece about this at http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/jihadi-john-bloodlust-exposed.html. Among the pack baying for Corbyn’s blood was the editor of the Sun, Tom Newton Dunn, Dan Hodges and Toby Young at the Torygraph, Paul Staines of Guido Fawkes and Andrew Neil, known to readers of Private Eye as ‘Brillo Pad’. They attacked Corbyn for saying that it would have been better if Emwazee had been tried in a court of law. This wasn’t enough for the above rightists, despite the fact that Corbyn had prefixed it with a statement that ‘Jihadi John’ had been held to account for his brutal and callous crimes’. Not quite the soft statement the Tories were making it out to be, but still not bloodthirsty enough for them.

The article in Zelo Street makes it clear that capturing ‘Jihadi John’ would have been exactly the right course, given the precedents for it. The Israelis captured and tried Adolf Eichmann, one of the Nazis responsible for the Holocaust. There’s a quote by Eichmann in which he states that he had absolutely no regrets about what he did. I can’t remember the exact wording, but it’s something on the lines that only weaklings regret what they have done. It’s one of those noxious statements that make you think that however the Israelis killed him, whether by firing squad or hanging or whatever, it was too good for the b*stard. The Israelis would have been justified shooting him out of hand. But they didn’t. They put him on trial and had him convicted according to the rule of law. Just as the Europeans and Americans did with Radovan Kardzic, one of the Serb generals responsible for horrendous war crimes in Bosnia. He was captured, and tried at the Hague for his crimes against humanity.

And in fact, there are a number of other, very good reasons why it is better to capture and try individuals like Emwazee, rather than killing them in drone strikes.

Firstly, as a way of gaining hearts and minds, drone strikes are counterproductive. Where they’re being used against Taliban enclaves in Pakistan, they’ve actually managed to increase support for the Islamists. Part of this, supposedly, is that the local people feel it’s a cowardly method of fighting. The drones are remotely operated by someone hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the battle field.

Secondly, as a matter of simple military precision, they aren’t very good. I’ve put up a report about them from The Young Turks, which showed that rather than precisely targeting their victims, they simply home in on their mobile phone signals. The result has been that the wrong people have often been killed, simply because they were holding the intended victim’s phone at the time of the attack. This has included the mother of the Jihadis. Those killed in the strikes have also been bystanders, who may not have had anything to do with the victims except having been standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The third argument against them is perhaps the most serious. Many liberal Americans have opposed drone strikes, such as that which killed Anwar Awlaki, on the grounds that are a form of extra-judicial execution. Or assassination, if you prefer. Anwar Awlaki was the Islamist preacher killed in a drone strike in Yemen. He was a deeply unpleasant piece of work, having preached murderous jihad and planned numerous terrorism offences. He was also an American citizens, and many Americans were upset about the way the president – in this case, Obama, had ordered his death without having him caught and tried.

All of this also applies to the drone strike against ‘Jihadi John’ Emwazee. And you don’t have to have any illusions about how brutal and thuggish Emwazee was to be concerned about the manner of his death, and the implications it has for global justice. Zelo Street states that he was scum. He was. Utterly. The man butchered innocents and boasted about it, with no remorse whatsoever. He pretty much got what he deserved, at least if his own low standards were applied to himself. But justice demanded that he be captured and tried.

As for Dunn, Brillo Pad, Young, Staines and the rest of them, don’t expect them to make reasoned, nuanced criticism of Corbyn. They aren’t. They’re frightened, and they’ve decided that the best way to destroy him is to make him out to be a dangerous subversive, who supports the IRA, ISIS and other terrorist organisations. Even if he doesn’t quite say what they want you to believe he said. That the ‘narrative’ they’re using, and they’re going to stick to it, according to Goebbels’ maxim that if you use a lie big enough for long enough, then it becomes the truth.