tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/mohammed-emwazi-15219/articlesMohammed Emwazi – The Conversation2015-11-13T16:45:29Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/506762015-11-13T16:45:29Z2015-11-13T16:45:29ZThe life of ‘Jihadi John’: how one man became the symbol of Islamic State<p>Dubbed “Jihadi John” by the British media after video footage of his murderous exploits was seen around the world, Mohammed Emwazi became a symbol of a complex conflict – a shorthand for the evil threatening the West as well as those in Syria and Iraq.</p>
<p>On Friday the Pentagon announced that US warplanes carried out an operation in northern Syria targeting the British Islamic State fighter. In London, the UK government said there was a “high degree of certainty” that Emwazi was killed. If confirmed, Emwazi’s death marks the end to a 15-month story of a man who became the face of the barbaric cruelty of IS after his part in the beheading of eight hostages. </p>
<p>Emwazi first became headline news in August 2014, when IS released its first video of a foreign hostage being beheaded – the American journalist <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/james-foley-police-warn-watching-beheading-video-terrorist-offence-1461974">James Foley</a>. Beside the kneeling victim stood his executioner, a man shrouded in black, holding a large sword. He addressed US officials in a British accent, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/20/us-syria-crisis-beheading-idUSKBN0GJ26S20140820">stating</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As a government, you have been at the forefront of the aggression towards the Islamic State. You have plotted against us and have gone far out of your way to find reasons to interfere in our affairs. Today, your military air force is attacking us daily in Iraq, your strikes have caused casualties among Muslims.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sequels quickly followed. American-Israeli journalist <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11071159/Steven-Sotloff-beheaded-by-Islamic-State-live.html">Steven Sotloff</a> and British aid workers <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/murdered-isis-hostage-david-haines-brother-is-haunted-by-face-10014604.html">David Haines</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29485405">Alan Henning</a> were killed in a similar fashion.</p>
<p>The format changed slightly when <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/mystery-abdul-rahman-peter-kassig">Abdul-Rahman Kassig</a>, a former US marine who worked with hospitals in Syria, refused to confess on camera. But Jihadi John was back on script in January with the executions of Japanese hostages <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/haruna-yukawa-execution-by-isis-confirmed">Haruna Yukawa</a> and <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/isis-murdered-kenji-goto">Kenji Goto</a>.</p>
<p>There is also speculation that he took a leading part in the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865745/Has-EXACT-location-infamous-ISIS-beheading-video-pinpointed-Forensic-analysis-filmed-Syrian-soldier-murders-breaks-filmed-long-took-cost-make.html">mass execution of Syrian prisoners of war</a> – also by beheading – in November 2014.</p>
<p>It was in late February 2015 that Washington Post reporters <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jihadi-john-the-islamic-state-killer-behind-the-mask-is-a-young-londoner/2015/02/25/d6dbab16-bc43-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html">identified “Jihadi John” as Emwazi</a>. Born in Kuwait but raised in West London, he graduated from the University of Westminster with a degree in computer programming. In 2013, he travelled to Syria and later joined the Islamic State.</p>
<p>There followed endless speculation about what had led Emwazi not only to join IS, but to carry out gruesome acts apparently without remorse. Some speculated that his radicalisation began in 2009 when a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31799541">post-graduation safari trip to Tanzania</a> went awry, amid monitoring by British security services of a group of West London youth for possible ties with jihadists.</p>
<p>The British campaign group <a href="http://www.cageuk.org/about">CAGE</a>, to whom Emwazi <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jihadi-john-mohammed-emwazi-was-an-extremely-kind-gentle-beautiful-young-man-says-cage-director-10073338.html">had spoken</a>, provided details. Emwazi and two friends were detained by Tanzanian police upon arrival in the country and deported. On their way back to the UK, he and one of the friends were interrogated in Amsterdam by an officer from the British intelligence service MI5. The officer accused them of trying to reach Somalia to join the militant group al-Shabab.</p>
<p>Then Emwazi <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31647271">testified</a> that the officer said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Listen Mohammed, you’ve got the whole world in front of you; you’re 21 years old; you just finished uni – why don’t you work for us?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When he refused the approach, the officer apparently warned him:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You’re going to have a lot of trouble … You’re going to be known … You’re going to be followed … Life will be harder for you.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Back in the UK, he and his family were further questioned by security officials. In September 2009, he decided to go to Kuwait, where he worked for a computer programming company. However, in July 2010, British security services prevented him from returning to the Gulf country after a visit to his family in London.</p>
<p>For more than two years, Emwazi was repeatedly blocked in his attempts to travel to Kuwait. In August 2013, soon after a final attempt, Emwazi disappeared from his home. His family believed he had gone to Turkey, but were told by security services in December that he was in Syria.</p>
<p>When Emwazi disappeared from Britain in 2013, so – in the popular imagination – did his existence up to that point. His new identity, from the first beheading video in August 2014, would be tied to the image of the Islamic State and Western fear of the citizens who had joined the organisation. Now he was “Jihadi John”, one of the four British members of IS known as “<a href="http://www.news.com.au/world/us-in-new-strikes-on-iraq-as-fellow-captive-says-james-foley-was-islamists-whipping-boy-because-of-brother-in-us-air-force/story-fndir2ev-1227032640807">The Beatles</a>”.</p>
<h2>The end of the line?</h2>
<p>David Cameron declared the drone strike that is thought to have killed Emwazi an “act of self defence” against an “evil terrorist death cult”, stating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Emwazi is a barbaric murderer….He was Isil’s lead executioner. He posed an ongoing and serious threat to innocent civilians, not only in Syria but around the world and in the UK too.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So Jihadi John took his place as one of the Most Wanted, his capture or death a goal that would represent “victory” against IS – even if his fate would make little difference to the organisation.</p>
<p>While Cameron tried to hold up that victory, another important voice noted the cost of illusion. Dianne Foley, the mother of Jihadi John’s first victim, told US media:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This huge effort to go after this deranged man filled with hate when they can’t make half that effort to save the hostages while these young Americans were still alive.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50676/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Lucas does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>US and UK claim the man who bragged about decapitating western hostages has probably been killed in an airstrike.Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/382492015-03-02T19:45:29Z2015-03-02T19:45:29ZMohammed Emwazi is another reminder of Abu Hamza’s legacy of hate in London<p>In my long career as a BBC journalist there were many high points. Unfortunately some of the journalistic highs were tempered by some profound lows of personal enlightenment. Two years spent filming undercover at Finsbury Park mosque in the run-up to 9/11 vies for top spot on this count. </p>
<p>Back in 2000 I watched secretly filmed footage, utterly transfixed and sick to the stomach when it became clear teenage boys were being fed a diet of propaganda and jihadi videos in which beheadings were <em>de rigueur</em>. I simply could not imagine that happening in any other public institution in the UK and it was profoundly shocking. </p>
<p>This was a story that needed telling. But without objective, provable facts it was going to be difficult to move beyond the footage to a credible broadcast that didn’t simply paint an alarmist picture of what was going on at the mosque. I’m happy to admit that at first I didn’t exactly have a clear picture of what was going on. </p>
<p>I soon found there were many people frightened of being labelled racist for raising questions about “culturally sensitive practices” inside places of worship. This cultural relativism baffled me given the scale of the threat people like Finsbury Park preacher <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11701269">Abu Hamza</a> obviously posed to the welfare of these young people. It was very clear he was a man of considerable influence who was putting young people on a pathway to murder. </p>
<p>And 15 years on, we seem barely closer to understanding what motivates young men to listen to people like Hamza. If we were, we would have been able to prevent Mohammed Emwazi, the man until recently known as “Jihadi John”, from travelling to the Middle East to become a public executioner for Islamic State.</p>
<h2>Vulnerable generation</h2>
<p>It is a well-worn sociological argument that people from minority ethnic backgrounds in search of a credible identity can often be fraught with inner conflict. Often the pursuit of hopes and dreams are compromised and the need for action to change frustrated lives can lead to a sense of disengagement from society.</p>
<p>Emotional conflicts always emerge for young people in the search for meaning and fulfilment. Many young Muslims wanted to find someone who could help resolve theirs. Their parents often believed they had been raised in a hostile environment. Racism, unemployment and cynicism about ever getting involved in a productive lifestyle in the UK meant they too were conflicted and sometimes unwilling to criticise signs of radicalisation in their youngsters. </p>
<p>The record shows that only a vocal minority gravitated towards extremism and violence. And they were those living marginalised lives in deprived circumstances – not that you would believe it given the scale and scope of the news coverage on Islam over the past 15 years. </p>
<p>Preachers of hate and intolerance like Hamza seek to exploit this ideas vacuum and fill it with a new jihadi mantra. What I heard and saw at Finsbury Park mosque was a romanticised view of solutions to complex problems. Simplicity is easier to sell than complexity. Theology can always trump rationalism if you are a true believer because then there is only one pathway to the truth.</p>
<h2>Gone but not forgotten</h2>
<p>The young men in Finsbury Park mosque were putty in the hands of a charismatic demagogue who preyed on vulnerability. Hamza set about offering the romanticism of jihad as a solution not only to their own personal problems but also to regional and global conflicts. He was able to play on the conflicting allegiances of mosque goers – particularly on issues such as the Israeli-Palestine conflict – to undermine those who chose to challenge him publicly. </p>
<p>It’s now clear that British security services failed to deal with the likes of Hamza, even though he was clearly in their sights from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10814816/Abu-Hamza-secretly-worked-for-MI5-to-keep-streets-of-London-safe.html">1997</a>. Their hands-off approach only gave him more time and space to foster enduring networks.</p>
<p>None of this can be offered as a definitive explanation as to why young men are leaving the UK to join Islamic State, but it’s a place to start. </p>
<p>As we digest the often conflicting reports coming in about Emwazi’s background and path to radicalisation, we need to recognise that the UK has changed. It has a complex multicultural society and ultimately we will have to live with the threat of terror at home induced by “foreign” wars.</p>
<p>Last month Hamza was sentenced to <a href="https://theconversation.com/abu-hamza-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-after-years-of-abusing-the-limits-of-free-speech-36087">life imprisonment</a> by a New York court for his contribution to radicalising young men and jihadi terror. But evidence is now emerging that Emwazi had <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/28/mohammed-emwazi-isis-london-bomb-plot-links">links</a> with the men who had planned to bomb London on July 21 2005 – these were men found to have fallen under <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557109/Abu-Hamza-inspired-four-to-be-suicide-bombers.html">Hamza’s influence</a>. </p>
<p>It’s clear that Hamza’s hate preaching has had a lasting impact in London. He has been embroiled in legal battles for years and is now in prison, yet links continue to be found between him and the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11333776/Charlie-Hebdo-suspect-mentored-by-Abu-Hamza-disciple.html">young men</a> who have committed atrocities in the name of jihad even after his imprisonment. The networks he inspired will continue to be threats for the foreseeable future. The most important thing we can learn from all this is that civil society must be at the forefront of engagement because the security services cannot divert these young people with their methods alone.</p>
<p>The people who surrounded Hamza no longer occupy mosques, they operate in virtual worlds. That doesn’t make them less dangerous but it has demonstrated that community intervention can make a difference. </p>
<p>Finsbury Park mosque is now once again a thriving cultural and spiritual centre and uses its notoriety to show the world (it receives regular requests for media interviews) that extremism can be challenged.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38249/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Kurt Barling is the author of Abu Hamza: Guilty – The Fight Against Radical Islam.</span></em></p>Finsbury Park hate preacher was jailed last year but his teaching continues to do damage.Kurt Barling, Professor of Journalism, Middlesex UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/378672015-03-02T15:15:43Z2015-03-02T15:15:43ZBeware the security creep into British universities<p>The new Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/counterterrorismandsecurity.html">received Royal Assent</a> at a turbulent historical moment. The naming of University of Westminster graduate Mohammed Emwazi as the man seen in Islamic State videos involving the beheading of hostages has again <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/01/government-row-over-limiting-free-speech-on-university-campuses">focused political attention</a> on radicalisation and free speech in universities. </p>
<p>Following recent attacks <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30710883">in Paris</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/denmark-must-not-succumb-to-polarisation-in-the-wake-of-copenhagen-attacks-37083">Copenhagen</a>, concerns about the numbers of young British citizens <a href="https://theconversation.com/bethnal-green-girls-need-to-know-there-is-a-way-out-of-islamic-state-cult-38004">travelling to join the Islamic State</a> in the Middle East, and the trial of Brusthom Ziamani – a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31540281">British teenager found guilty</a> of preparing an act of terrorism – are all events likely to influence public reception of the new legislation. </p>
<p>The passing of the act into statute on February 12 makes it the sixth addition to a suite of counter-terrorism legislation established since the 2000 Terrorism Act. It permits the home secretary powers to block the movements of British citizens in and out of the UK if they are suspected of having engaged in terrorism-related activities, forbids insurance companies to pay ransom demands from terrorist organisations and extends the use of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures. </p>
<p>Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the act relates to the formalisation of elements of the British government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf">PREVENT strategy</a> into law. The new act puts the responsibility on “specified authorities” to “prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. While seemingly apt for some organisations such as the police, for others, such as health and social care institutions, schools and universities, it constitutes a fundamental change in role that affects the ethos and fabric of our civic institutions. </p>
<p>Many people working in the public organisations affected by the new proposals may be feeling justifiably uneasy given the deleterious effects on community relations that several PREVENT initiatives – such as the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10193557/Hundreds-of-children-identified-as-extremism-risk.html">Channel Project</a>, aimed at preventing people being drawn into extremism – have produced.</p>
<h2>Security creep</h2>
<p>The inclusion of higher education institutions within the act has been opposed on many fronts ranging from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/29/student-groups-condemn-counter-terror-bill">university students</a> and the <a href="http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=7393">University and College Union</a>, to the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31032926">former director general of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller</a>. Much of this opposition was directed towards the threat that these proposals <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-duty-to-prevent-terrorism-must-protect-universities-freedom-and-diversity-34936">pose to academic freedom</a>. </p>
<p>One of the objectives of universities is to <a href="https://theconversation.com/professor-big-brother-and-his-radical-students-who-should-we-fear-most-36850">foster the critical thinking necessary</a> to create positive social change. In many social science disciplines this involves debating thorny issues and, when necessary, contesting the impacts and effects of powers and laws. For example, several of the counter-terrorism powers dropped or reconstituted by the present coalition government – including Section 44 stop and search powers and control orders – had been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/09/scrapping-section-44-relief-stop-and-search">subject to longstanding critique</a> by not only human rights groups but also by sociologists, criminologists and legal scholars.</p>
<p>Although extremism is not explicitly defined in the act, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388934/45584_Prevent_duty_guidance-a_consultation_Web_Accessible.pdf">PREVENT duty guidance</a> – sent out for consultation in 2014 – defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to British values, including democracy, the rule of law, including liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. It is easy to see how necessary opposition to draconian counter-terrorism measures might – given the stretchiness of the definition above – be misconstrued as extremism.</p>
<p>No particular communities are identified as being at risk from being “drawn into terrorism”. Yet the emphasis placed within the PREVENT agenda on Muslim individuals and communities defined as being vulnerable to “radicalisation” is a cause of concern. Despite its frequent appearance in security policy, “radicalisation” remains <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/13/radicalisation-brainwashing-british-men-syria-julian-baggini">ill-defined and broadly misinterpreted</a></p>
<h2>Defending academic freedom</h2>
<p>The initial scope of the new act was curtailed at the bill stage by amendments from the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/150204-0001.htm#15020480000432">House of Lords</a> limiting its applicability to higher education. This instructed that authorities and the secretary of state “must have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech” and “particular regard to the importance of academic freedom”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72788/original/image-20150223-32226-ahtma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72788/original/image-20150223-32226-ahtma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72788/original/image-20150223-32226-ahtma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72788/original/image-20150223-32226-ahtma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72788/original/image-20150223-32226-ahtma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72788/original/image-20150223-32226-ahtma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72788/original/image-20150223-32226-ahtma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What impact on free speech?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Microphone at podium via Denniro/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite this, there are many reasons why we should remain concerned about the new powers that have been granted. These proposals ought to have been removed completely in the interests of fully protecting the academic freedom enshrined in law under the 1986 Education Act and maintaining trust between teachers and students, as the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201415/jtselect/jtrights/86/86.pdf">Joint Committee on Human Rights</a> recommended. It should be remembered too that teaching staff in further and higher education institutions already have guidance at their disposal from Universities UK to combat <a href="http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2005/PromotingGoodCampusRelations.pdf">“political or religious extremism”</a> and to assist in <a href="https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Community%20Cohesion%20PDF.pdf">“preventing extremism”</a>. </p>
<p>Notwithstanding the creep of security priorities into higher education, the elastic use of the term “freedom of speech” in current political and media debates is disquieting. Individuals that live in “suspect communities” may feel that their freedom of speech is already closely monitored and, in some instances, curtailed. For others, the right to free speech can be mobilised in defence of incendiary statements about race, religion and culture. With free speech comes social responsibility. In what we say, write and represent, we need to fully consider the potentially negative impacts on our fellow citizens.</p>
<p>There is a clear danger that the scope of the powers now enshrined in law to defend “security” threaten the very values of open democracy. Considering a future context in which dissenting voices may be categorised as extremist, we really need to challenge and rebut ill-conceived measures while we still can.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation is partnering with Index on Censorship for its special edition on academic freedom. Read more <a href="https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2015/06/magazine-summer-2015-is-academic-freedom-being-eroded/">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37867/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The new Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 may result in the UK countering terrorism with an extremist security policy.Ross McGarry, Lecturer in Criminology, Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of LiverpoolGabe Mythen, Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/381412015-02-26T21:46:25Z2015-02-26T21:46:25ZAs ‘Jihadi John’ is unmasked, counter-terrorism tactics must also be unpicked<p>The unmasking of Islamic State militant “Jihadi John” as Mohammed Emwazi, a 26-year-old man from London, has raised new questions about the UK’s approach to counter-terrorism. As the media searches through his past for clues to explain how a “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/uk-man-behind-isis-beheadings-named-as-mohammed-emwazi-jihadi-john">polite, mild-mannered young man</a>” ended up as the chilling figure in horrific execution videos, it was revealed that Emwazi was known to security services before he left the UK. </p>
<p>It has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/26/how-mohammed-emwazi-went-from-fresh-graduate-to-knife-wielding-killer">reported</a> that Emwazi claimed he was harassed by security services to the point of filing a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Commission over his treatment.</p>
<p>He had claimed that he was questioned by police in Tanzania when trying to travel there on holiday and was subsequently flown to the Netherlands, where he was interrogated by an MI5 agent. Upon returning to the UK, he said he was monitored by police and was prevented from leaving the country on several occasions.</p>
<p>He said that the surveillance and restrictions placed on him prevented him from finding work and damaged his relationships.</p>
<p>It should be noted that his claims may have been false or exaggerated. But they nevertheless serve to highlight the potential for counter-terrorist measures to have counterproductive effects – particularly if they target a specific minority group.</p>
<h2>Heavy hand</h2>
<p>The UK has past experience of counter-terrorist measures doing more harm than good. In Northern Ireland, at the height of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/troubles/the_troubles_article_01.shtml">the Troubles</a>, tactics like the erosion of procedural rights, the use of arrest powers for information gathering purposes, and the use of internment without trial were deployed almost exclusively against Catholics.</p>
<p>Rather than helping in the fight against the IRA, this further strained the relationship between the security services in Northern Ireland and the Catholic minority, making some people more sympathetic to the IRA’s cause. </p>
<p>Today, David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, is also aware of the damaging effects of counter-terrorist powers. When tentatively proposing the reintroduction of powers to relocate people placed under government control orders, he also stressed the need to assist those subject to a forced relocation to be helped to find work, training and housing.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act was subsequently passed in 2015, giving the government the power to relocate people, but without evidence of Anderson’s more holistic suggestions also being followed. People can therefore be moved away from their home and connections and be left to reconstruct their lives without assistance.</p>
<p>The UK is aware that terrorism cannot be defeated exclusively by locking up convicted or suspected terrorists or restricting their rights to liberty and privacy. This can be seen with the case of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/19/london-teenager-brusthom-ziamani-guilty-of-plotting-to-behead-soldier">Brusthom Ziamani</a>, a 19-year-old former Jehovah’s Witness and Muslim convert who was recently convicted of planning an attack similar to the murder of soldier <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/woolwich-murder">Lee Rigby</a>.</p>
<p>Prosecution and a prison sentence were the last resort for security services in this case. Prior to this, they had sought to enter Ziamini into the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/protecting-the-uk-against-terrorism/supporting-pages/prevent">PREVENT</a> “de-radicalisation programme”. A difficulty with PREVENT, though, is that it operates in a way that requires <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/wrong-radicalisation-150222111708997.html">trust between Muslim communities</a>, and local authorities and the police. If this trust is damaged it can instead be seen as a vehicle for surveillance. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/research/counter-terrorism_research_report_72.pdf">Good existing relationships</a> between communities and public bodies therefore are vital. If these relationships are damaged, this strategy can run into difficulties. Take <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00659.x/full">Project Champion in Birmingham</a>, for example. This saw more than 200 security cameras set up in predominantly Muslim areas between 2010 and 2011 – leaving locals feeling victimised and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11568439">threatening legal action</a>. Breaches of trust like this may live long in the memories of communities.</p>
<h2>No excuse</h2>
<p>Of course, even if Emwazi felt ostracised and victimised, none of this condones, justifies or excuses his horrific actions. However, taking a heavy-handed approach causes problems for the people being monitored. And as much as we might rail against that resentment being used as justification for violence, we must also face up to the fact that it may simply not be productive for people to have their lives stunted by counter-terrorism efforts. </p>
<p>After appalling attacks such as the Charlie Hebdo murders in France, we must remember not to vilify an entire group of people. Indeed many, if not most of those most hurt by IS are Muslims themselves. Since 9/11, there has been a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/fivefold-increase-terrorism-fatalities-global-index">fivefold increase in deaths from terrorism</a> and the Middle East is the area most affected.</p>
<p>We must be careful not to paint all individuals of a minority with the same brush when a terrorist attack happens or when one individual is named as a murderer. We must also realise that ostracising a minority group, while at the same time expecting them to “uphold British values”, is woefully contradictory.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38141/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Greene does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>True or not, Mohammed Emwazi’s harassment claims are a lesson in unintended consequences.Alan Greene, Lecturer in Law, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317102014-09-18T11:01:51Z2014-09-18T11:01:51ZThe fight against Islamic State is a battle for young minds<p>Governments around the world are trying to come to terms with the fact that their nationals – and young people in particular – are leaving to join extremist groups such as Islamic State.</p>
<p>In response, ministers are threatening to <a href="https://theconversation.com/removing-citizenship-will-only-encourage-uk-jihadists-30754">remove their citizenship</a>. Britain is planning to join <a href="https://theconversation.com/boots-already-on-the-ground-as-us-mission-in-iraq-accelerates-31653">military action</a> in the areas controlled by IS but the battle against radicalisation is not one that can be won by military force or heavy-handed sanctions. In fact, that might make things worse.</p>
<p>The battleground against radicalisation is waged in the mind. It is here that persuasive arguments and passionate discussion appeal to the hero inside us to rise up and do something, be someone or make history. </p>
<p>Radicalisation begins like a seed and grows. It thrives best in the dark, best in isolation and best in soil that has been well manured. Foreign policy often provides a fertile bed of manure in which the seeds of radicalisation can grow. That’s not because foreign policy is manure but because it is easy to make it look as if it is. Negatively slanted, twisted and inaccurate accounts of any policy are difficult to challenge without lengthy investigation.</p>
<p>What is the UK’s foreign policy on Syria, for example? Those seeking to radicalise others will be able to summarise it in a <a href="http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/al-muhajiroun/">single sentence</a>. That sentence is likely to be accepted because it is difficult to find a simple counter argument. The more negative the policy is perceived to be, the less human the government or even British people are perceived to be. </p>
<p>This is important because radicalisation thrives when we start to see our enemy as less human than ourselves.</p>
<h2>Us and them</h2>
<p>The process of radicalisation involves getting us to focus on the negative experiences we have had and the negative experiences of those we love or should love. It asks us to provide an explanation for those things and when we can’t, it offers us one. These things happen to us because some enemy wants them to, chooses them to and allows them to. We then isolate ourselves from this enemy, focusing on the difference between us and them and emphasise the wrongs that they do. </p>
<p>And this in turn starts a process of dehumanisation in our minds. The apparently British IS fighter known as Jihadi John, for example, refers to David Cameron as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/terribly-effective-islamic-state-propaganda-draws-the-west-into-another-conflict-31801">“lapdog”</a> in the video showing the killing of hostage David Haines. He lays the blame for each of the killings squarely with British and American foreign policy. </p>
<p>Religion can also provide a simplistic, absolute framework behind which to hide from discussion, debate and accountability. It provides a foundation for difference. “Us” becomes people of the same religion and the “enemy” becomes anyone outside that group. The enemy is qualitatively different, not as human and maybe not even human at all – just a dog. This, for some, provides permission to use harm against others. </p>
<p>Years of peace talks in <a href="https://theconversation.com/northern-ireland-has-come-far-since-1984-partition-plan-21763">Northern Ireland</a> have shown how important it is to undo narratives of difference to make progress. The sight of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness sharing a joke like regular people in 2007 has, in the wake of the former’s death, been <a href="https://theconversation.com/ian-paisley-from-sectarian-provocateur-to-peacemaker-31655">cited as a symbol of change</a> in the country. The more human we can make the enemy, the less we will feel separated from them. Only when we stop seeing the opposition as completely different to us, can we start to be reconciled with them.</p>
<p>Rational arguments are one way to contradict the line peddled by radicals. The UK’s policy on Syria has many dimensions. The British public is deeply committed to humanitarian and charitable support, as was made clear when <a href="http://www.dec.org.uk/blog/uk-public-donate-%C2%A334m-syria-crisis-appeal">£3.4m</a> was donated to the cause in just 48 hours in March 2013. The government, on behalf of the taxpayer, donated £11.4bn in aid the same year, with £600m set aside for the Syrian crisis alone. These kinds of figures provide useful ammunition in the battle of the mind. The apparent enemy becomes less hostile and more human.</p>
<p>But reason alone will not win the battle for the mind. Some young people see no opportunity to get involved and make a difference other than by joining the jihad. It’s positive that young people are passionate about inequality, just not that they see violence as the only way to address it.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is where opportunity lies for the UK government. Shouting about the positive work it does internationally, offering young people the chance to make a positive contribution and acting transparently are all ways to counteract the messages being sent to young people by those who wish to indoctrinate them. An alternative needs to be offered on the other side, such as providing opportunities for young people to debate and engage in politics beyond casting a vote.</p>
<p>Military force is not the solution to this problem. At a recent sermon in my local church, we were told: “If, in order to defeat the beast, we become the beast; then the beast has won”. It’s not easy to rid people of firmly held prejudices but a consistent and reasonable argument is a better way to start than threats about removing passports or prison sentences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31710/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicola Bowes does not work for, consult with own shares in or receive funding from any organisation or individual who might benefit from this article and anticipates no conflicts of interest with submitting this perspective for The Conversation.</span></em></p>Governments around the world are trying to come to terms with the fact that their nationals – and young people in particular – are leaving to join extremist groups such as Islamic State. In response, ministers…Nicola Bowes, Forensic Psychologist and Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/318012014-09-18T05:27:58Z2014-09-18T05:27:58ZTerribly effective Islamic State propaganda draws the west into another conflict<p>The horrific murder of British aid worker David Haines – and let’s call it murder rather than “execution” with its connotations of justice – is the latest instalment in what threatens to become a regular and dreadful occurrence.</p>
<p>But while Islamic State has succeed in many of its goals when producing these videos, it is also clearly drawing David Cameron and Barack Obama into further military operations in Iraq.</p>
<p>The video of Haines’ death fits a now familiar narrative. Like James Foley and Steven Sotloff before him, he kneels in the sand next to his masked captor.</p>
<p>First Haines speaks to the camera and, in obviously scripted terms, denounces the UK prime minister, David Cameron, and his government as responsible for his fate. His captor then says: "This British man has to pay the price for your promise, Cameron, to arm the Peshmerga against the Islamic State … playing the role of the obedient lapdog, Cameron, will only drag you and your people into another bloody and unwinnable war.“</p>
<p>It is after this, reportedly, that the beheading begins, but the camera cuts away before any blood is spilt. What it does show is the lifeless, body of Haines with his severed head on his back.</p>
<p>The end of the video shows "Jihadi John” placing his hand on the next intended victim who is named as British citizen Alan Henning. He states: "If you, Cameron, persist in fighting the Islamic State, then you, like your master Obama, will have the blood of your people on your hands.“</p>
<p>This film, and its predecessors involving Foley and Sotloff, have been widely viewed online and the still images have been splashed over the front pages of newspapers around the world.</p>
<p>And while deciding whether to republish the content poses a <a href="https://theconversation.com/dealing-with-graphic-content-is-a-moral-minefield-for-journalists-30383">dilemma for editors</a>, there is no denying that there is public appetite for images of violent extremism. As psychiatry specialist Dean Burnett <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11045833/James-Foleys-murder-and-the-psychology-of-our-fascination-with-the-gruesome.html">has argued</a>, there are many reasons for this but the desire to derive excitement from vicarious situations is a powerful force and there are, he writes, "few things as bad as another human meeting their untimely end in deeply unpleasant ways”.</p>
<p>In this sense, it is undeniable that IS propaganda has been extremely effective. It draws attention to the group’s existence and causes and reinforces, for audiences, the traditional binary oppositions of civilisation versus savagery.</p>
<p>On at least one level, IS propaganda is highly sophisticated. The group has understood the power of social media as a tool for disseminating its message and as a result has won the attention of the world. But IS has also played straight into the hands of David Cameron and Barack Obama by releasing such violent and extreme content.</p>
<p>Military intervention in the Middle East has often followed a similar pattern. Western governments seek to demonise the enemy, communicate a moral obligation to act, highlight the widespread atrocities committed by the enemy and the threat they pose to national security and argue that intervention will benefit the people of the region.</p>
<p>The run-up to the gulf wars of 1990 and 2003, the removal of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011 and the debates around intervention in Syria in 2013 all saw governments trying to convince the public that military action was predicated on the above reasons. IS meets all the criteria too and the justification is right there in the videos.</p>
<p>There is already increasing public support on both sides of the Atlantic for military action in the region. On September 10, the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-prepares-prime-time-address-on-confronting-islamic-state-1410357950">published a poll</a> in which two-thirds of respondents said they believed it was in the nation’s interest to confront IS. Only 13% said action was not in the national interest.</p>
<p>In the UK a survey by <a href="http://rt.com/uk/185760-uk-military-islamicstate-support/">Opinium Research</a> yielded similar results – it found that 60% of people were in favour of taking action to deal with IS. The measures people were prepared to support ranged from a hostage rescue mission by the SAS to deploying soldiers on the ground inside both Iraq and Syria. Only 20% would not support military action of any kind.</p>
<p>Without wishing to credit IS with the complexity of propaganda it may not possess, maybe the point is to draw the US into a ground conflict. At the time of writing, the US had carried out 162 air attacks in Iraq against IS but, as peace studies professor Paul Rogers <a href="https://theconversation.com/boots-already-on-the-ground-as-us-mission-in-iraq-accelerates-31653">has said</a>, there are likely to be more. We are at the start of a war, not an in-and-out operation.</p>
<p>So both sides are following well-trodden paths and familiar arguments are being revisited. What remains startling about IS though is the simplicity of the murders it commits. The modern signifiers of warfare are absent from the films they broadcast – and the act of killing is stripped bare. The starkness of the imagery is matched by the starkness and rigidity of the rhetoric. If its primary purpose is to instill fear, revulsion and then retaliation, then that objective has been achieved. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Jewell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The horrific murder of British aid worker David Haines – and let’s call it murder rather than “execution” with its connotations of justice – is the latest instalment in what threatens to become a regular…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317012014-09-16T14:59:23Z2014-09-16T14:59:23ZTerrorism craves an audience and we are playing into Islamic State’s hands by watching<p>The well-known US security expert, Brian Jenkins, famously declared in 1974, that <a href="http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P5261.pdf">“terrorism is theatre”</a>. And over the last few weeks, the brutal videotaped beheadings of British and American hostages by Islamic State militants have proved the prescience of his statement with horrifying clarity.</p>
<p>We are now accustomed to images in our papers and on our screens of IS murders but we should consider the role we play when we look at the pictures or watch the videos. Every time we engage with the spectacle, we are contributing to the problem.</p>
<p>Scholars have long recognised that terrorism is actually better understood if it is viewed – at least in the first instance – as <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Violence_as_communication.html?id=7fftAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y">communication rather than violence</a>.</p>
<p>In essence, the relative success or failure of a terrorist act cannot be measured by the number of casualties inflicted or the level of financial damage incurred, but can really only be gauged by how much attention it gets. The act needs to secure front-page headlines, airtime and iconic images. Ultimately, it needs to engender fear or curiosity in an audience. By these measures, the abhorrent executions of James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haine were spectacular propaganda successes for IS.</p>
<p>The videos are meticulously staged. The sinister, balaclava wearing, archetypal villain, “Jihadi John”, insouciantly wields a hunting knife beside a helpless hostage wearing an orange Guantanamo-style jumpsuit. All the while, he provides lucid and articulate explanations for this horrendous act in a characteristic London accent. The whole scene will no doubt be indelibly seared onto the mind of anyone who watches it. </p>
<p>And why wouldn’t it be? Most major news outlets have, in an astounding display of servile compliance, featured these images prominently, be it on the front page or in prime-time breaking news. Each has further reinforced the notion that these events were the most important, most newsworthy, most worthy of our attention and moral outrage, happening anywhere in the world.</p>
<p>And of course, that is the very purpose for the existence of this sort of act in the first place. Videos like these are produced to present harrowing, shocking, egregious violence that is then starkly juxtaposed against a cogent, coherent justification. We are so shocked and angered by what we see that we sit up and pay attention to the content of the message. </p>
<p>So if this is so patently clear to many of us, why do the media continue to display this predictable Pavlovian response to terrorism? The media and terrorists are in what we might call a symbiotic relationship. Terrorists naturally benefit from media that inspires fear in a much larger target audience; they use it to turn a local event that affects a limited number of immediate victims into a global issue. And, unsavoury as it sounds, the media benefits from terrorist outrages too, most obviously by selling papers and winning audiences. </p>
<p>As long as we continue to prioritise the beheadings of Westerners while neglecting or providing only cursory attention the far more extensive and egregious crimes IS has committed against the unfortunate local people caught up in its warpath, we are validating the supply and demand calculus that motivates media-savvy militants.</p>
<p>IS has already proved itself to be capable of great brutality, making it unlikely that UK hostage Alan Henning will be released alive. But if the Western media wants to encourage IS to kill him in this socially mediated theatricality, it is going about it in just the right way. A concerted international media blackout against this carefully sculpted theatricality of terrorism might be a much more effective – if less profitable – way to stop IS. Without the headlines, these killers would see little point in continuing to produce the videos.</p>
<p>By focusing our undivided collective attention on individual acts of communicative violence like this, we are tacitly legitimising terrorism as a form of political activity. But more importantly, we are also legitimising state and society’s unwavering focus on terrorism as the single greatest issue and threat affecting our lives. </p>
<p>We know where such a path leads, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/prism-schism-the-nsa-leaks-reveal-a-broken-system-15099">NSA mass surveillance</a>, to <a href="https://theconversation.com/violence-in-britain-how-the-war-on-terror-criminalises-ordinary-people-25517">draconian legislation</a> and legal black holes like Guantanamo to extrajudicial killings in drone strikes. To put this inordinate focus into perspective, more people are killed every year as the result of bee stings than terrorism. </p>
<p>The reality is this has become a vicious self-fulfilling prophecy. As the media covers terrorism, it incites more terrorism, which in turn produces more media coverage. Of greatest concern is that governments benefit inordinately from the general environment of “manufactured” fear and insecurity engendered as a result, to appropriate power, eliminate dissent and ultimately weaken democracy.</p>
<p>How much longer are we willing to allow this state of affairs to continue?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31701/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Akil N Awan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The well-known US security expert, Brian Jenkins, famously declared in 1974, that “terrorism is theatre”. And over the last few weeks, the brutal videotaped beheadings of British and American hostages…Akil N Awan, Lecturer in Political Violence & Terrorism, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.