European views on ISIL

the build up was important. and that guy seemed to be distancing himself from what had just been said in the studio, although he was sitting next to the oily apologist.

Yeah but he could have been sitting there thinking "youre an oily apologist, you are making us all look bad, just say you condemn it it was horrific, how hard can that be?" then when he got the chance himself he said it all himself so people didnt think he was the same as the other guy.

I am not sure that helps, he calls him a beautiful person but he is referring to when he met him before he 'went on this trajectory'- in the longer interview he explains he was kind and generous, that tallies a lot with what those who knew him and his teachers have also said about him.
He condemns those kind of killings and calls them war crimes, and he is right that if we really do want to know how he got from the person those who knew him describe to brutally decapitating innocent people in a far land then we have to look at everything- and that includes the security services role in it.

the security services didn't turn him into a killer. He met him during the trajectory which means he was already on that road when he turned to CAGE, as was the other thing who killed Lee Rigby. These people are given airtime, they are given a voice, the voice they are saying they are denied in our society.

'the security services didn't turn him into a killer'

No one is saying they did. But we do know that the security services sometimes encourage radicalisation in people under scrutiny in order to try to get to bigger fish. If that was the case here then we should be looking at these practices and seeing what actually happened in this case and if there are lessons to learn for future cases.
There is so much we will simply never understand about how someone goes from a seemingly normal nice person to this- but the bits we can examine for clues, we should.

its a bit of a hot potato the whole lot of it

On the News the other day, they were discussing 'Jiihadi John' (the nutter behind the executions), pointing out that the Tabloids seem to try and make light of the situation, giving him a nickname both humanizes him, and trivializes the horrible crimes he has committed imo.

I sorta agree with Figgs, we need to address things in the open, but giving people airtime is a bit risky...

I agree with Petty - the people from CAGE were actually putting forward very reasonable points and were right to feel that the media were just trying to corner them because they were Muslim. They did condemn the actions of Jihadi John, but think they were allowed to first express frustration that they were even being asked such a question.

I didn't see any of those interviews as being apologies for Jihadi John, just pointing out that you are not going to solve the problem of radicalization by insisting the whole focus has to be on the Muslim community. The feelings of ostracization while in the west will count strongly and needs to be addressed.

Sorry, but this is not a one sided issue. I may be all for taking a muscular approach to ISIS, but there has to be sensitivity for the situations we helped create.

Human rights organisation Amnesty International is likely to cut ties with controversial advocacy group Cage because of “Jihadi John”, its deputy director said today.

London Evening Standard

Cage has come under fire after suggesting that MI5 “harassment” was responsible for turning Londoner Mohammed Emwazi into a bloodthirsty terrorist seen beheading civilians in horrific Islamic State propaganda videos.

Last week Cage revealed it had extensive contact with the 26-year-old between 2009 and 2012 because his allegations against the security services. In an extraordinary press conference, its research director Asim Qureshi described the now-radical Islamist as a “kind, gentle, beautiful young man”.

Cage describes itself as “an independent organisation working to empower communities impacted by the War on Terror” and has spoken out against the UK’s anti-terrorism laws.

But critics have accused it of being “apologists for terror” and today Amnesty International’s deputy director suggested it may no longer campaign with Cage.

Steve Crawshaw said his personal view was that he could not foresee Amnesty collaborating with Cage again by signing joint campaign letters as it has done in the past.

He told Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think it highly unlikely in the current circumstances of seeing the kind of public statements that are being made.”

However he denied Amnesty was complicit in helping to propagate a “narrative of innocence” around terror suspects - a charge levelled at Cage - adding: “I don’t think we played to anybody’s myth. I can’t condemn strongly enough anybody in any context who seeks to find some justification somehow for why they can kill civilians.”

Gita Sahgal led Amnesty’s women’s gender unit before she was forced out in 2010 after criticising the charity’s links to Cage.

so Amnesty International is backing off. Maybe they understand that anyone buying into this narrative of victimhood and the apologising for acts of brutal murder isn't going to look good on their cv. Anyone who gives these people airtime is just giving them ammunition against their host country. The UK is hosting a parasite which will one day turn on us. Anyone who listens to these people play into their myth. Anyone who sides with them plays into their myth.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/03/boris-johnson-cage-isis-london-mayor-asim-qureshi-mohammed-emwazi

Boris Johnson has told the research director of the advocacy group Cage that he should stop “scattering blame around” over the actions of Mohammed Emwazi and stick up for the human rights of those who have been beheaded by Islamic State.

In an impassioned encounter with Asim Qureshi on his LBC phone-in, the London mayor said he should “stop crying Islamophobia” and focus on condemning the “sick atrocities” perpetrated by Emwazi.

Johnson told Qureshi, who had phoned his LBC programme: “I really, really think the focus of your indignation and your outrage should be on people who go out to join groups that throw gays off cliffs, that behead people who don’t subscribe to their version of Islam, that glorify in the execution of innocent journalists and aid workers. They should be the object of your wrath not the security services who are trying to keep us safe, Asim.”

Hear Hear Boris! finally someone with sense.

I dont know who the quote is from in the first pice there Figg, but that is not what I heard him say, according to that report-

'Cage has come under fire after suggesting that MI5 “harassment” was responsible'

He never says this in the interviews I watched- he says they played in a part in the guys radicalistion and it was the belief that M15 were hounding him which first made Jihadijohn turn to CAGE for advice and help.

'Asim Qureshi described the now-radical Islamist as a “kind, gentle, beautiful young man”.'

Yeah in the past when he knew him, his friends, family and his teachers all say the same thing. But the way its given here implies he is saying that about him now, which he was not, he condemned his actions now and said only he was responsible for them.

As to Boris his usual bluster and populism devoid of facts. There is little point focusing on the sick atrocities- what is there to say other than they are horrendous?- which CAGE has already said.
There is a perfectly good argument however for trying to understand how his radicalisation took place, and as we know M15 were involved with him, its perfectly reasonable to ask what were they doing and what was their part in it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/04/us-mideast-crisis-jihadijohn-cage-idUSKBN0M00I420150304

A British lawmaker told Reuters all of the charities that had funded Cage should dissociate from it after the group's comments at last week's news conference.

"It was both extraordinary and disgraceful, they were very clearly coming out as apologists for terrorism... Those that have provided them with support must very seriously question not only their support for Cage but how they got to make such a decision to support an organisation like this," said John Spellar, a spokesman on foreign affairs for the opposition Labour Party.

"I think there needs to be some very serious rethinking done by a number of these charities and NGOs about how they got into a position."

Sounds to me like the Authorities would rather no one mentioned MI5's role in this and that they dont want it investigated. Oldest trick in the book, throw mud and blacken the name of the person making the accusation to deflect attention from the the important bit.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I dont know who the quote is from in the first pice there Figg, but that is not what I heard him say, according to that report-

'Cage has come under fire after suggesting that MI5 “harassment” was responsible'

He never says this in the interviews I watched- he says they played in a part in the guys radicalistion and it was the belief that M15 were hounding him which first made Jihadijohn turn to CAGE for advice and help.

'Asim Qureshi described the now-radical Islamist as a “kind, gentle, beautiful young man”.'

Yeah in the past when he knew him, his friends, family and his teachers all say the same thing. But the way its given here implies he is saying that about him now, which he was not, he condemned his actions now and said only he was responsible for them.

As to Boris his usual bluster and populism devoid of facts. There is little point focusing on the sick atrocities- what is there to say other than they are horrendous?- which CAGE has already said.
There is a perfectly good argument however for trying to understand how his radicalisation took place, and as we know M15 were involved with him, its perfectly reasonable to ask what were they doing and what was their part in it.

you seem to be missing the point that it wasn't 'in the past' they had dealings with him relatively recently after he had got in trouble over the 'safari'. Saying he was a beautiful man is bollocks, anyone could say that, and beautiful people don't murder in cold blood. They also helped the murderer of Lee Rigby and the one eyed mullah of hate, and the Al Q girlfriend of one of the killers of 9/11. are these all beautiful people too?

The point is that the problem of radicalization is not going to be solved just by condemning the actions of radicals.  You have to delve into the psychology, which means trying to understand how a person who people described as 'nice' before he left for Syria could walk down the path he did.

Watching from the outside, I definitely see the British Press taking the accusatory stance right off the bat.  This will solve exactly nothing.  The source of the accusatory tone is the complaint that the Muslims are not taking an accusatory tone: this is a fair and valid point.  Clear Muslim condemnation will help solve the problem of radicalization, but understanding why Muslims feel a need to fight is also an important component in the solution.  This is the point CAGE was trying to address, but the way they are being attacked means the West will never achieve a complete solution.  Serial killers are studied to find out why they do what they do, why is it out of bounds to do the same for Jihadists?  If anything I think it would be even more fruitful.

Giving condemnation without an attempt to look at what happened through the eyes of the radicalized youth will never make this problem go away, it will only produce more bitterness and hence more radicals.

I agree Halfy. But CAGE in my opinion is not there to do what you suggested, they are there to protect and help people who have been accused of acts of terror, either before, during or after the fact. I wonder how they can help people accused of murder, they seem to be one sided as an organisation, they seem to be an all Muslim outfit with ties to extremists, their attitude is worrying and they don't seem to openly condemn violence or do so only so that charities dont withdraw funding. We don't know what they are up to really. I don't believe they are transparent or on the side of British values. I think they were set up on a tide of political correct do-gooders who now are quietly backing off as the true nature of these people is laid bare. this is my opinion. just look at the list of those people they 'champion'. I think they are a Trojan Horse.

Hmm...interesting. Even if their intent is somehow nefarious I think their basic argument rings true. But I don't think their intent is nefarious any more than a defence attorney is nefarious for defending criminals.

Sure, they may not be staunchly defending British values, but that's somewhat the point. They are trying to point out that current British society interacts with Muslims in such a way to lead to radicalization - they feel alienated. I don't see how they can criticize British society for treatment of Muslims and not appear somehow anti-British, or appearing to somewhat support the terrorists. But it has to be done if we are to solve the whole problem, and not just part of it.

CAGE makes no secret of their attitudes and sympathies, so I don't think they're trying to trick anyone.  Their founder is a former Guantanamo Bay detainee who admitted to being involved with Islamist militants in Afghanistan (but denies that they were al-Qaeda).  To be fair, he has distanced himself from that somewhat since his release by the US, but he still seems to believe in the idea of Islamic governance and has not disavowed the idea of militancy (though very few people would entirely disavow militancy in all cases, even if they might claim they would when asked about it generically).

However, the group's sympathies are not really relevant to their main point that racial profiling, harassment, and torture are wrong.  Many of the people who have been imprisoned and tortured during the War on Terror were completely innocent.  However, many were indeed involved with jihadist groups, sometimes peripherally, sometimes quite actively.  Anyone who sincerely believes that the rule of law should be respected and that torture is wrong cannot make a distinction between the two groups.  If torture is wrong, then it doesn't matter if the person being tortured is guilty of anything.  If the rule of law must be respected, than you need to charge and try people with crimes before you can imprison them, bar them from a country where they have citizenship, or whatever.  It doesn't matter if you're really sure that they're involved with terrorism; you either respect the legal system and go through it, or you go around it actively undermine the foundations of constitutional democracy.

National security is no excuse here because there are enough built-in loopholes to allow the military and intelligence agencies to do their jobs.  I don't think all of these loopholes are moral or should exist, but that really just highlights how inexcusable it is to not be able to stick to even the bare-bones rules that are actually enshrined in law.  I have little respect for CAGE's leader's political viewpoints, but I do respect them for insisting that Western governments live up to their own high-handed messages about liberty and justice when dealing with (let's be honest) unpopular minorities.

I can only speak from a British point of view, and from what I see Muslims have as much a voice as anyone else in the society at large. But you have to wonder what is this famous voice exactly?, what exactly does that mean? All people in Britain under the law are equal, there is positive discrimination in most places, there is help coming out of their eyeballs, so much has Britain taken on board multiculturism. They have access to education, benefits, and everything else. so where are they not being heard, and what are they trying so hard to say? is it anti racist laws, because they have those already, they make demands but what are they prepared to contribute, do they intend to integrate, learn the language etc. do they want Sharia law? this voice what is it saying and why do they feel ignored, and I believe they are heard, they do have free speech, and any number of platforms to speak from including the media and groups like CAGE.and its all part of the rhetoric of victimhood, it serves a more nefarious purpose. was jihadi john disenfranchised? no he went to university, he had all the benefits Britain could give him, so did the Manchester teacher who wanted to go off to fight for isis and is now serving 6 years in jail. these people are not poor and ignored, they are normal middle class men who for whatever reason turn their back on us, some of the excuses are about the West ignoring the plight of Palestinians, but they cant have it both ways, what? they want the West to intervene militarily in Palestine but not in any other Arab country? this is hypocracy, or am I mistaken. The bottom line is Britain is a largely secular country, this may make them angry or feel threatened, but that's something they just have to accept if they live in the UK. The security services are there to protect its citizens, if you intend harming the UK of course they are going to keep tabs on you, we would be mad not to. what on earth is the problem for normal law abiding citizens. jihadi john was followed because he was up to no good, end of story. he was not a beautiful young man, he was a murderous killer who was angry he had been rumbled.

My admittedly limited understanding based on reading CAGE's website and some of their interviews is that their primary concern is not social justice or economic issues, but civil liberties issues regarding (perceived) harassment by intelligence agencies, arbitrary detention, torture, etc.  That's not to say that people who are involved with CAGE don't care about other issues too but the organization's mission is to advocate for people who have been affected by potential civil liberties violations.  It's not necessarily surprising then that they allege such violations are responsible for Emwazi's radicalization since this is their forte.

You raise a good point about most of the British jihadis being middle class rather than especially poor or disadvantaged.  This is a common finding in studies of terrorism.  I think it's worth trying to figure out what the causes of radicalization in general are in order to attempt to combat it, but such efforts so far haven't met with much success.

Listening to the media debate on Islam/fundamentalism/nationalism recently, I've been struck by the parallels to antisemitism and Zionism in the early 20th century media. I hope we've learned something since then....

....I doubt it.

Nimrud and Hatra both gone.

Kudos to the brave people of Mosul who saved the Crooked Minaret.