'Jihadi John' won't have the same impact unmasked

Just a murderer whom enjoy his 'hobby' in perfect impunity.

I just hope he will be taken out with friends soon.

Won't have the same impact without a head, either.

Look forward to his obituary.

Frankly he was always going to be a bit of a nerdy, goofy type. Hence the mask and menace . The pic of him in his baseball cap was sweet though.

Now that you've mentioned I always thought of him not as some kind of Dracula but as a sickened mind and spirit worthless of living. Never lost the track of his weakness as a human but never understood why he hates so much. I am Christian and I know God has put him here with us to grow but he's chosen to embrace evil. Above all now that he is demystified he is also a coward that carries over him the despise of everyone in this planet even his own mother's.

Also, now that authorities know who he is, there is little doubt he will become the target of a drone attack if the U.S. or Britain can learn his precise whereabouts.

So they're going to assassinate a British citizen on the basis of.... Oh, I see no actual evidence is presented in the article on how they identified him, or how sure they are of the identification, or how sure they are that it is him in the videos, or what judge or jury heard this evidence and decided that it was sufficient to pass a death sentence (which would be illegal in the U.K. anyway).

So what we're looking at in this article is a public statement that the U.S. government plan to execute someone without legal authority. Hypocrisy.

If the real Mohammed Emwazi isn't Jihadi John, feel free for him to go to an European court and dispute those charges.

BTW, here's one identification - his mum:

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-03-02/emwazis-mother-recognised-sons-voice-on-first-video/

The mother of the Islamic State terrorist Mohammed Emwazi, known as 'Jihadi John', has reportedly said that she recognised his voice from the first beheading video he appeared in last year.

She apparently told authorities in Kuwait, where she lives, that she knew her son's voice immediately.

The one who gave birth and raised him knew right away. If anybody knows ya, it's your mum.

lostrune2Mar. 03, 2015 - 01:48PM JST If the real Mohammed Emwazi isn't Jihadi John, feel free for him to go to an European court and dispute those charges.

And that would protect him from being killed by U.S. drones precisely how? ... oh, right, not at all.

The one who gave birth and raised him knew right away. If anybody knows ya, it's your mum.

She recognised a voice that sounded like his on a recording. The current best computer systems voice biometrics error rate is a little under 1 in 1000, and human voice ears are a bit more reliable, but not much. That's not going to stand up in any court anywhere.

I repeat, if they have conclusive evidence then let it be presented in court, let him be notified and if he doesn't arrive then tried in absentia.

However one cannot simply execute someone on the basis of one witness using an unreliable form of identification that wouldn't stand up in court.

Animals deserve an animal's death. Not a trial.

Animals deserve an animal's death. Not a trial.

Everyone deserves a trial. It's what sets us apart from the animals.

lostrune2Mar. 03, 2015 - 01:48PM JST If the real Mohammed Emwazi isn't Jihadi John, feel free for him to go to an European court and dispute those charges.

And that would protect him from being killed by U.S. drones precisely how? ... oh, right, not at all.

If the real Mohammed Emwazi is in the European court, while the fake Mohammed Emwazi / Jihadi John is in Syria, then yes. The fake Mohammed Emwazi in Syria will die by drone, but the real Mohammed Emwazi in European court will live on.

She recognised a voice that sounded like his on a recording. The current best computer systems voice biometrics error rate is a little under 1 in 1000, and human voice ears are a bit more reliable, but not much. That's not going to stand up in any court anywhere.

It's one identification. But it's significant because normally no mum would admit that a heinous terrorist is her son, and her heart would be in deep denial. Rather, she would go the opposite way trying to prove to high heavens that it's not him. But instead here, the mum went the other way and went to the authorities to identify her son. No mum would do that unless she's really really sure since it's gonna break her heart.

I repeat, if they have conclusive evidence then let it be presented in court, let him be notified and if he doesn't arrive then tried in absentia.

They probably will, but that takes time. Yet in the meantime, whoever this Jihadi John in Syria is will likely still be targeted, no matter who he is, to stop him from beheading more innocent hostages, since that can't wait and qualifies as imminent threat.

I say they go after his parents and hold them in jail until he is captured or killed. If he knows the world knows who he is now, let's see if he is really a "true believer" and show his face for the next one. I doubt he will. Take a page out of the Israeli playbook, when terrorist do bad things, they level their families homes to make sure that they understand actions have consequences.

Take a page out of the Israeli playbook, when terrorist do bad things, they level their families homes to make sure that they understand actions have consequences.

By all means reduce this piece of scum to a smear in the desert... but to punish his parents?

This guy is getting way too much press time.

lostrune2Mar. 03, 2015 - 03:59PM JST It's one identification.

No, it isn't. Its a suspicion from someone based on an entirely unreliable measure. You might as well say, "Hey, his butt looks like my son's butt, so he must be my missing boy!". It is moronic.

They probably will, but that takes time. Yet in the meantime, whoever this Jihadi John in Syria is will likely still be targeted, no matter who he is, to stop him from beheading more innocent hostages, since that can't wait and qualifies as imminent threat.

Oh, I'm sooooo sorry that human rights are inconvenient for you. Let's just execute him and then if he's found innocent we can just ask God nicely to send him back? But we need to do a test to check this method works, so since you're so keen on it why don't you volunteer?

If you look at the eyes in the mask photos and then at the eyes with the baseball cap - they look the same to me. Same droopy expression.

lostrune2Mar. 03, 2015 - 03:59PM JST It's one identification.

No, it isn't. Its a suspicion from someone based on an entirely unreliable measure. You might as well say, "Hey, his butt looks like my son's butt, so he must be my missing boy!". It is moronic.

Rest assured, when they try him in absentia, his mum would be on the stand identifying him.

They probably will, but that takes time. Yet in the meantime, whoever this Jihadi John in Syria is will likely still be targeted, no matter who he is, to stop him from beheading more innocent hostages, since that can't wait and qualifies as imminent threat.

Oh, I'm sooooo sorry that human rights are inconvenient for you. Let's just execute him and then if he's found innocent we can just ask God nicely to send him back? But we need to do a test to check this method works, so since you're so keen on it why don't you volunteer?

When it's imminent threat, the higher priority is to protect the human rights and lives of the hostages.

lostrune2Mar. 03, 2015 - 08:22PM JST Rest assured, when they try him in absentia, his mum would be on the stand identifying him.

Except he's not getting a trial. Like countless others he's been put on a kill list without any legal representation or due process.

When it's imminent threat, the higher priority is to protect the human rights and lives of the hostages.

You clearly do not understand the term "imminent threat". If a drone fires on someone holding a gun to a hostage's head I have no problem with that. If a drone fires on someone walking down the street, killing a dozen bystanders including women and children the only "imminent threat" there is the drone and drone pilot.

lostrune2Mar. 03, 2015 - 08:22PM JST Rest assured, when they try him in absentia, his mum would be on the stand identifying him.

Except he's not getting a trial. Like countless others he's been put on a kill list without any legal representation or due process.

But we're supposing what you put forth - that he should get a trial even in absentia, so we're just going with that.

When it's imminent threat, the higher priority is to protect the human rights and lives of the hostages.

You clearly do not understand the term "imminent threat". If a drone fires on someone holding a gun to a hostage's head I have no problem with that. If a drone fires on someone walking down the street, killing a dozen bystanders including women and children the only "imminent threat" there is the drone and drone pilot.

When ISIS gives Japan the 24 hours deadline, that's imminent.

If he kills again on camera

Has anyone actually seen him behead anyone? Serious question, because all I've seen are the before and after pics which can be easily faked. Is this guy the new Osama Bin Laden for the masses?

lostrune2Mar. 03, 2015 - 09:45PM JST But we're supposing what you put forth - that he should get a trial even in absentia, so we're just going with that.

I know this may seem a little logical for you, but normally the procedure is to hold the trial first, and then only execute people AFTER they're found guilty. But maybe that's just a little too difficult to understand.

When ISIS gives Japan the 24 hours deadline, that's imminent.

Thank you for confirming that you have no idea what an imminent threat is. I think I'm done with you now that you have so elegantly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.

The nice thing about drone strikes is the anti-Americans are too cowardly to go in and investigate what happened. Obama sure was smart for realizing this.

If a drone fires on someone walking down the street, killing a dozen bystanders including women and children the only "imminent threat" there is the drone and drone pilot.

I think the someone killing women and children is the imminent threat, but I understand your point :P

So they're going to assassinate a British citizen on the basis of.... Oh, I see no actual evidence is presented in the article on how they identified him, or how sure they are of the identification, or how sure they are that it is him in the videos, or what judge or jury heard this evidence and decided that it was sufficient to pass a death sentence (which would be illegal in the U.K. anyway).

If he is ISIS he is already a valid target, regardless of his nationality. He is a legitimate target today just as much as he was a couple of weeks ago when he was still an anonymous fighter. Yes, now there would be particular emphasis on getting him, just as much as there has been on getting previous high profile targets who were killed in drone attacks, not following trials.

In terms of evidence (not that any is required), there does not appear to be any doubt about his identity and there is good video evidence of the crimes being committed.

By all means reduce this piece of scum to a smear in the desert... but to punish his parents?

The reason why is you need to bring this war to them on their terms. To them, they see it as a religious war, while the west is trying to do as much as it can to say that it is not. If they want to live by a Sharia law, then when you fight with them, you need to fight with them the way they understand. For him and his beliefs, the worse thing that you can do to him is to say that he can't take care of his family. Strike back at his family, and he will see that he is not able to deter the will of his enemy. Right now, they are winning the "war of the wills" because the west will bend over backwards to appease them.

Why do you think the US went through such measures to make sure that the body of bin Laden was buried according to "Muslim traditions" in order to make sure that the people would not have a rallying poing (among others) against the west. Look at what happend when the so called "torture" reports that the US supposedly used in Iraq incluede telling militants that they would be shot with bullets soaked in pig grease or their bodies would be buried in materials soaked in pig grease. They didn't like the thought of that and of course we get blamed for cruel punishment.

Fight them the way they fight, and pretty soon they will see that the rest of the world is pretty fed up with them and maybe they can come to the table to talk for a solution.

The reason why is you need to bring this war to them on their terms.

And in doing so, you become no better than them.

If he kills again on camera, the element of surprise will be gone and the reaction may well be, “Oh, him again.”

I think a lot of us have already felt this reaction long ago. What a coward, killing people who've got their hands tied behind their back. Nothing menacing at all once you've seen it a couple times. He really does think he's tough, too, the way he looks into the camera. Total moron.

In the past it was said that hiding behind a mask made you "brave before god, and a coward before men". We see this phrase proven true over and over again. A mask implies shame and fear, and only the shameful and cowardly would be part of a cause which required them to wear masks.

We shouldn't stop any of our "citizens" who wish to fight and die for ISIS, better they do it in barren and worthless places like Syria and Iraq than in our own countries. We should even provide them the tickets to go. But when they go, they can leave their passports here, so they can't come back.

Captured and tried would predictably be a government's preferred outcome - but where? The ICJ in The Hague, or in Britain? Or, say, under Sharia law?

Emwazi a casualty from a drone strike - I do not think that it would be so satisfying nor 'fair'.

Ah_soMar. 04, 2015 - 07:17AM JST If he is ISIS he is already a valid target, regardless of his nationality.

What do you mean by "is ISIS"? Do you mean he lives in the region? Well that's clearly not right. Do you mean he carries a gun? Well most people in the middle-east do, as do most people in the USA, so that can't be right. Do you mean he carries a "terrorist" membership card? No, of course not.

I don't have any idea what you mean by "is ISIS", and I think that you don't either.

I don't have any idea what you mean by "is ISIS"

Really, you don't what "ISIS" means, huh?

Gee, Frungy. Your posts above are decidedly ironic considering what you posted in January.

Bull. You're trying to disassociate the actions of ISIS Muslims from all other Muslims, which is completely ridiculous.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/picture-of-the-day/view/in-support-of-goto

Talk about throwing stones in a glasshouse.

On what principle do we punish his parents? do we really think they condone or even support his actions? what are they supposed to do? Tell him off? Think he is a bit beyond that.

On what principle do we punish his parents?

I can't see one. From everything we are hearing and reading, there is nothing to indicate that his parents support his actions or his cause. In fact, it seems to be just the opposite.

So, while at least one poster may want to lump 'all Muslims' under the banner of ISIS, the truth is that while ISIS may consider themselves Muslim, that does not mean all Muslims are ISIS.

He isn't really 'terrifying.' He's just another in a long line of cowards who hide behind a mask and who seems tough until the long arm of justice inevitably catches up with him. Then, he won't be any different than Saddam and his sons or Bin Laden, just to name a few. There's a bullet (more than one, likely) with his name on it arriving soon. His ten minutes will be up soon enough.

And in doing so, you become no better than them.

You come to their terms when you lob off the heads of people who don't believe in your religon or sell off women and girls into slavery. By fighting like they do, and letting them know you get no special treatment for the inhumane things you are doing sends a message.

If they want to be recognized as a legitimate government, and have an army as a legitimate force that follows the rules of the Geneva convention, then of course my recommendations should not be valid since they are following the "rules of war." But if they chose not to follow, then all bets are off.

As a "terrorist" they want to instill fear into the populace in order to compensate for their smaller numbers since they don't have the men and arms to fight in a conventional way. I say just stop treating them with any humane compasssion and treat them the way they treat their victims. That's how they are fighting and understand things.

You come to their terms when you lob off the heads of people who don't believe in your religon or sell off women and girls into slavery. By fighting like they do, and letting them know you get no special treatment for the inhumane things you are doing sends a message.

Yes, it sends the message that you are no better than them.

As a "terrorist" they want to instill fear into the populace in order to compensate for their smaller numbers since they don't have the men and arms to fight in a conventional way.

Kidnapping Emwazi's parents to threaten him makes whichever government that kidnaps them into terrorists. Just another ISIS.

" in this case a well-educated, middle-class jihadi "

...not just in this case, but in most cases. Contrary to politically correct fiction, islamic jihadism is not a product of poverty, discrimination, or (most absurdly) Western free speech.

It is typically a product of luxury, including the luxury to spend a lot of time in radical mosques. Genuinely poor people of more important things to do, such as make a living.

The reason why is you need to bring this war to them on their terms. To them, they see it as a religious war, while the west is trying to do as much as it can to say that it is not. If they want to live by a Sharia law, then when you fight with them, you need to fight with them the way they understand. For him and his beliefs, the worse thing that you can do to him is to say that he can't take care of his family. Strike back at his family, and he will see that he is not able to deter the will of his enemy.

Are you serious? You're as bad as they are. His parents are in Kuwait... so you are suggesting that the USAF or RAF or whoever launches an air strike at a residential district in a country that's an ally of the west just to pee off a terrorist?? I'm sure that goes against the Geneva convention - and don't give me any guff about IS not adhering to the convention, we all know they are a bunch of barbarians. We are better than them, and the moment we sink to their level we've lost.

When ISIS gives Japan the 24 hours deadline, that's imminent.

Thank you for confirming that you have no idea what an imminent threat is. I think I'm done with you now that you have so elegantly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.

That's fine. I'm sure the hostages' families understand.

lostrune2Mar. 04, 2015 - 06:10PM JST That's fine. I'm sure the hostages' families understand.

"Imminent danger" was the topic lostrune, specifically as it applied to when there was a clear and present danger to someone and it was okay to shoot first and ask questions later.

An organisation like ISIS issuing a deadline doesn't entitle you to wade into an area and start shooting everyone in sight, and was what the poster was trying to argue, that someone somewhere else in an organisation issuing a deadline entitles you to shoot anyone you think might, maybe, possibly, perhaps be in some way affiliated to that organisation.

An organisation like ISIS issuing a deadline doesn't entitle you to wade into an area and start shooting everyone in sight

How did you jumpt to 'shooting everyone in sight'? Could you show me where lostrune2 made such a suggestion? Anyway, viewing your repeatedly stated position claiming that it is ridiculous to disassociate the actions of ISIS Muslims from all other Muslims, makes it rather hard to take your supposed righteous indignation seriously.

lostrune2Mar. 04, 2015 - 06:10PM JST That's fine. I'm sure the hostages' families understand.

"Imminent danger" was the topic lostrune, specifically as it applied to when there was a clear and present danger to someone and it was okay to shoot first and ask questions later.

What, ya gonna wait till someone pulls a sword to the hostages' heads before sending in the SEALs? They're 1000 km away! By that time, the hostages would be dead, leaving no point to the exercise. How imminent is your imminent that the hostages could still be saved? The rescuers are not around the corner.

lostrune2Mar. 05, 2015 - 07:19PM JST What, ya gonna wait till someone pulls a sword to the hostages' heads before sending in the SEALs? They're 1000 km away! By that time, the hostages would be dead, leaving no point to the exercise. How imminent is your imminent that the hostages could still be saved? The rescuers are not around the corner.

This is completely off topic. The discussion isn't about sending in SEALs to rescue hostages.

The discussion is about whether you can kill someone because his mom says it sounds kindof like him, and without an trial, and without any idea that he's currently doing anything wrong or has done anything wrong in the past.

The simple answer is, "no".

If you send in the SEALs and they find him at a cafe having a doughnut they do not get to shoot him for no reason. If they find him standing over someone with a sword that's "imminent danger" and they're free to fire away.

However, ISIS issuing a hostage threat doesn't mean it is okay to kill some British citizen who is linked to the group by the testimony of his mom that the he sounds kindof like a terrorist. I mean seriously, I am astounded that anyone can even think like this. For all we know his mom could be a raving loon.

However, ISIS issuing a hostage threat doesn't mean it is okay to kill some British citizen who is linked to the group by the testimony of his mom that the he sounds kindof like a terrorist. I mean seriously, I am astounded that anyone can even think like this.

What I find astounding is that you above linked all Muslims directly to ISIS. You said that:

Bull. You're trying to disassociate the actions of ISIS Muslims from all other Muslims, which is completely ridiculous.

So, to you, Mohammed Emwazi is clearly associated with ISIS because he is one of all the Muslims in the world. So, it is hypocritical of you to now attempt to say otherwise now merely because it suits your mood. Your above comment, which you repeated very strongly and clearly in that conversation completely trumps any comments you now have.

Why not admit you were utterly and completely wrong before?