To think that the BBC don't need to put up apologists for terrorists

[AgaPanthers]

'Jihadi John', face of the violent murder of various aid worker, has been named as Mohammed Emwazi.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31637090

The BBC unquestioningly quote an 'Asim Qureshi' saying that he's a lovely guy, and before he was "harassed" by MI5, starting around 2009, when he finished university and attempted to fly to Tanzania (to go and pursue jihad in Somalia - MI5, or to go safari - he claims), he was a "beautiful young man".

In fact, it seems fairly clearly that he had extensive links with terrorist sympathisers in London.

And moreover, Asim Qureshi, as 30 seconds on Google would show, is a jihadist himself, here in 2009:

Not exactly your regular 'human rights activisit'.

I just see so many lovely people of all faiths where I live and it sickens me that their religious faiths are associated with evil like this.

I do understand balance, yet when they wheel out someone from CAGE and the counter argument is blaming harassment and foreign policy whilst ignoring the fact he was already known as a target after being kicked out of Tanzania I can call it out.

I can also call the other side of the argument out by not questioning the foreign policy argument by pointing out that we aren't involved with any conflict with Bangladesh or Pakistan which are heavily involved with Isis.

Damnit didn't refresh thread has moved on, sorry

LoveMyCats

Jesus may have taught "peace and love" but that doesn't seem to be the defining characteristic of all the people who have identified as Christians across the centuries, or the various Christian organisations.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/27/emwazi-and-the-london-schoolmates-who-became-militant-jihadis

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/cage-campaigners-put-under-spotlight-mohammed-emwazi-jihadi-john

oops mines not a link don't know why

Reading that link Justanother, the safari sounds less and less likely.

And he was radicalised before the security services had a chance to do it.

As long as CAGE are challenged on their version of events it is ok to let them put their "views". Which I think now are obviously attempts at deflection on their part rather than the delusional love of a friend.

if you can copy and paste read the link I put too, another interesting take on it. Sorry I can't link properly

So if MI5 had not harassed this poor guy, he would have just continued on with his supposed interested in the wildlife of Africa and settled down to a happy and peaceful life. I doubt that very much.

Someone posted this on FB:

Security services harass, blackmail, and torture Muslims and some of these end up becoming killers- however no one is allowed to suggest that perhaps these individuals became mentally unstable and disturbed as a result of what they went through.

However, on the other hand, if it's a White non-Muslim killer, then something as minor as parking space dispute (?#?ChapelHillShooting?) is enough of a reason to suggest that the individual was mentally unstable and disturbed.

Weird logic and spurious analogies but that's FaceAche "facts" for you!

I found it revealing that these deranged spokesmen blame British society and security forces for absolutely everything, painting themselves simply as blameless victims; the same mindset is shown in their predictable cries of "islamophobia / xenophobia / racism" when a presenter dares to question them, no matter how reasonable the points raised. As so often they expect Britain to turn itself inside out wondering where we've gone wrong, but utterly refuse even to consider looking inwards for solutions

I'm afraid I don't see how this approach is ever going to help anyone ...

HungryDam, what is your point? That the Muslim students who were shot harassed the poor guy over his parking space so much that he became mentally unstable and ended up shooting them? That's a much worse argument.

Chaya, the point is that when a killer is non-Muslim than the possibility of that person being mentally unstable is explored. However, if the killer is a Muslim, everyone always jumps to the conclusion that the person is stable and killed for the sake of their understanding of the Muslim faith, whereas the mental stability of this person should be explored too.

No, that is not true. I was calling him a mentally unstable psycho earlier and then people started chipping in and blaming MI5 and saying my statements were too glib and we needed to take into account the complex socio-political factors that contributed to his radicalisation.

Hardly anyone on this thread is blaming the Muslim faith writ large. Perhaps you mistook this thread for another?

I would have been appalled if people had engaged in apologist arguments about the causes for that murder in Chapel Hill.

He's just another nasty murdering cowardly bastard. They come in all shapes, nationalities sexes and have a myriad of excuses to justify their wickedness.

There is none and no excuse.

So let's stop looking for one because no one wants to actually belive that people can just be evil.

CAGE are another tiny organisation given too much press. They are isis apologists and shame on all those that fund them, including the Anita Roddick foundation.

I think its been good that they've been given this platform. Its brought to the fore the pernicious message of never ending muslim victimhood that all Islamists peddle.

This message has insidiously been allowed to take root and has become an accepted valid mainstream excuse for terrorism. We see it all the time on threads about Islamic terrorism from muslim and non-muslim apologists. Its always something / someone else's fault: colonionism, islamophobia, oppression, marginalisation, no prospects, economically disadvantaged, discrimination, foreign policy etc etc etc

Finally it's being rebutted and given the derision it deserves.

"So let's stop looking for one because no one wants to actually belive that people can just be evil."

I don't believe in the concept of evil as a neuro/psychological personality trait full stop.

I read quite an interesting article in the news today about ME suffering a brain injury severe enough to warrant six weeks off of school. I have worked with children and adults with frontal lobe damage, and it can definitely cause negative behavioural changes.

Well said, MistressMia

Interesting to see the comments about Emwazi supposedly hitting his head all over the net; they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now, but I guess it makes quite a refreshing change from the usual drivel

As astute as ever Mistress Mia.

yes, it can cause negative behaviour and lead to depression not generally a cause for hacking people's heads off though.

That's not actually true MrsRuffello

There are very well understood and documented links between frontal lobe damage and aggressive behaviour. A large proportion of serial killers- the majority according to the article I've just been reading- sustained frontal lobe damage in childhood.

It's neuroscience, not some weird touchy-feely woo nonsense.