Father of Manchester bomber posted in 2013 pro-Nusra message on FB: "My greetings to Nusra, may they be victorious over infidels. Say amen."
The local community from their mosque were saying he was a great sweet guy above any suspicion. Quite hard that his views were unknown to them because he was very active in the local mosque.
Maybe they are sharing the same views and are just trying to protect themselves.
Or maybe he was just good at hiding it. I go to university with the same people every day, that doesn't mean I know the details of their private lives or their twitter feed.
Or he might have been radicalised recently.
Or he was a great sweet guy to his community and the people who met him.
Reading the garbage people say online and meeting the person face to face has been quite a different experience, more then once, and those guys were openly, for example, celebrating Hitler online.
You can spot a fundamentalist guy from his talk, from his vocabulary.
It is not easy for a fundamentalist to hide his way of thinking, because he is not smart enough to have vocabulary out of his school of thoughts.
These people don't know outside world, and don't understand it. They never read a book outside islamic books and outside of their profession.
You can spot a fundamentalist guy from his talk, from his vocabulary.
Thats incredibly simplified. There arent just cliche terrorists out there who go mental once they see a women without a burka. If that was the case we wouldnt have any terrorist problems what so ever. The realisation that you would get caught if you promoted your actual beliefe out loud is something alot of elematary pupils already realize. This is even more so valid for people who got socialized in a western society.
The assumption that all fundamentalists are mentally handicapped will bite you sooner or later.
The assumption that all fundamentalists are mentally handicapped
I don't think that was his point. He's saying that you can spot a fundamentalist even if he is not explicitly voicing his support for Daesh or other islamist factions because of the vocabulary they use. There are a number of buzzwords that always come up when arguing politics with an Islamist even when it doesn't directly concern Islam. In my experience it shouldn't take long to figure out an islamist or other religious and reactionary nutcases unless they absolutely never talk politics or news.
I am not talking about ideology or beliefs, I am talking about character.
They would never admit to him having expressed extremist views.
My girlfriend said something that could make sense: that they didn't want to tarnish the reputation of the neighborhood or something.
Regardless, they hid valuable information from the police
I know it's not best thing to say, but there was that EDL founder Thommy whatshisface (who admittedly is not as extreme as the group he founded but still quite far gone), who was saying that the area (around the same mosque i believe) had a major problem with people joining ISIS from that area whilst the local MP was also frequent to that mosque.
So there is a conspiracy thing growing there that radicalization exists in that area through the mosque. I wouldn't say I believe it, yet there exists potential for there to be influential figures there who interpret islam in quite a different way to the majority of muslims.
It wasn't just the EDL guy, this is a widely known fact reported all over the mainstream press. But so far, the reports were that this weren't the mosque's fault, that they were moderate, cooperated with the authorities and shunned upon radicalism. But then again, the sources of this were the same people who said the father of the bomber wasn't an extremist
He was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group which was named as an al-Qaida affiliate by the UN Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee and officially listed as a terrorist group by both US and UK. So any pro-Nusra comments are not really a surprise.
People have to remember that progressive western Muslims are actually the minority.
Do keep in mind there is a vast, vast distance between being a liberal progressive Muslim and blowing up teenage girls with a nail bomb, it's not one or the other.
Why add "Western" there? In my experience Western Muslims tend to be more conservative/religious than people with equivalent education level back home. At least that's the case for Moroccans.
It's the case with many Muslim immigrants. They feel like outsiders, so they over-compensate with faith to feel like they have something of their own
But most Western Muslims would be conservative, not supporting AQ and what it stands for.
even if there are 99% liberal progressive muslim vs 1% conservative/hardliner in total population.
all it need is just one crazy-guy with their suicide-bomb to ruin entire muslim community.
True. In other words they are the radicals
Define progressive.
I could have swore I read something the other day about how he was reported years ago by a neighbor or something.
They were saying he's a "sweet guy" but also had these views, which they reported to the security services
As far as I know (I might be wrong) they only reported the son to the security forces, not the father or the brothers.
I think the whole family were Jihadist-sympathizers according to what the news has published.
The brothers are also arrested, and the sister posted on social media (don't remember exactly which) that his actions are justified because the west and blablabla without condemning his actions. So yeah, this is true
Like father, like son
The son blew himself up in a concert and killed over 20 people...the father showed support to an islamist rebel group in syria in FB (like alot did in 2012-2015).
How is that similar? Lol
You missed the part where both sympathize with terrorist groups founded on the very same ideology
Support for rebel groups like al-Nusra while uncommon is not confined to would-be terrorists. In fact there are even non-Muslims who support them, you may have ran into one on this very subreddit.
Al-Nusra is al-Qaeda in Syria.
during early syrian-civil war, Nusra are viewed as important and helpful group for Rebel force (FSA) to fight against "Brutal Regime".
so i think its understandable if any "anti-assad" guy (Islamist or not) to posting stuff like that in early syrian civil war.
No, it's not. And yes, it was well known that rebels would ally anybody to fight Assad, including jihadists.
Yes but this is cognitive dissonance then. You cannot say you support Nusra while not being a muslim and then pretend to be rational.
No . You just cannot support people who want to either kill you or make you second class citizen or want to force convert you.
Al Nusra is Al Qaeda. And ISIS was part of them until they split off.
So really the difference is that the dad supported Jihadists from a distance while his son actually carried out their message. The dad is just a less extreme version of the son.
There were and still are legit rebel groups that are not al Qaeda. So to pretend like they're just another rebel org is complete bullshit.
"There were and still are legit rebel groups that are not al Qaeda"
Who?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Front_(Syrian_rebel_group)
The Southern Front is probably the largest 'moderate' rebel group that exists. As in actively against Assad. There are a lot of 'rebel' groups allied with the YPG who are only fighting IS right now. So I can't say for sure if they are going to fight Assad. If not they aren't really rebels.
That southern front gets funding from SAUDI ARABIA, and it has many takfiri salafist wahabi groups in its ranks, dare I say maybe the majority.
The only non-jihadi rebels in syria appear to be the kurds, unfortunately.
And numerous American firms and organisations.
In the first decade of the 21st century the Saudis paid approximately $100 million to American firms to lobby the American government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_United_States
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_United_States
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 72279
No the Southern Front is part of the MOC, which is run by the CIA and supported by Jordan, in addition to Saudi and the UAE to a lesser degree.
MOC factions were heavily criticized by Islamists and even many Northern FSA factions ranging from treason to outright apostacy [you know who said the latter, rhymes w/Babhat al-Khusra] due to repeated failure to reignite the front lines with the regime.
Also, you have to keep in mind that Jordan, Saudi, the UAE, Qatar and Turkey are in it for strategic reasons, and not ideological, and so they've been rather indiscriminate in their support especially pre-2013. Heck, in Iraq even KDP received funds from Saudi when things escalated between Barzani and Maliki.
Oh man, can't be. Who would have thought...
Do I sense a souring view of the glorious anti-Gaddafi freedom fighters in jolly old England?
You do indeed my friend. They came by to say thanks for all the support.
I don't think people that wished Nusra to be "victorious over the infidels" have changed their opinion about the group in the last 3 years.
Which is stupid. If they weren't that bad why spend a decade fighting them in Iraq?
[removed]
Comment only in English please
The Guardian once published an opinion piece saying that "it's not forbidden to be an atheist in Saudi Arabia, it's fine as long as you hide it from everybody else"
I don't know about ISIS though but several of their middle east writers, specially Martin Chulov who is a guy that I don't know why he isn't more hated in this sub because he is just a less histrionic Julian Röpcke, apologized explicitly for Al Nusra and would refrain from calling them terrorists.
Link?
The Guardian had a number of jihadi apologists writing aricles for quite some time. They've been one of the most biased western sources in the SCW.
I remember the time when some called ISIS - Sunni rebels or hardline . Interesting time . This is why I can stand the media
Even here in the Arab world we were confused by them. It's not a media/fake news thing. Anyone who would tell you otherwise is lying to you.
Which opinions were these?
In 2013 Nusra and ISIS worked together. Also in many places what we knew as Nusra was literally ISIS hiding behind the banner of Nusra.
Source:
http://www.aymennjawad.org/13388/jabhat-al-nusra-raqqah-governorate
http://www.aymennjawad.org/13319/jabhat-al-nusra-and-the-islamic-state-of-iraq
ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. I remember in September of 2014 watching TV and there were congressional hearings about ISIS, this was also when Russia intervened if I remember. Everyone was just starting to learn about how horrible they were, and no one was sympathetic, especially after what happened in Iraq.
Saying "2014" covers a time frame in which a lot happened though. January and September of that year were night and day.
Thank you. I was just about to say that. Also, November 2015's Paris Attacks is where I'd draw the line.
Things just turned that week. I was just shocked at how outrage over IS and the attack categorically extended to the people not only the rebels.
Don't get me wrong I understand the impact of having violence spreading to your cities, and that people are emotional not rational in those things.
It was just a tough lesson about the affordability of Western ideals for the Arab psyche. Same ideals that inspired people to take to the streets in the Arab Spring.
Worst president ever but protected by MSM
The constitutional law professor who graduated from Harvard is as dumb as a rock? The only foreign country that responded faster to the threat of ISIS was Iran, and the US got heavily involved several months after Iran.
You can be quite intelligent in one area while being horrible in another. Obama's ME policy was a huge failure and their response to ISIL came way too late, after they already retreated from Iraq while it was clear the weak Iraqi army would be unable to hold back ISIL. I won't even go into Libya because that shit is just too depressing.
Obamas Middle East policy was better than most presidents before him, especially Bush jr., and Trump's remains to be seen.
I don't think Trump will ever have a policy outside of saying something stupid and then the military bombs something.
Relative to his peers, Obama wasn't the worst, he even tried to do things differently at the end of his presidency, as if he started to understand that bringing persistent chaos to the ME is bad for everyone, but it was too little too late.
How can that be? I was mildly interested in the conflict and even I knew what ISIS and Nusra were all about right of the bat. First ISIS and Nusra when they broke off from ISIS. The evil shit they did (people that would become leaders of those groups) even early in the "peaceful stage of revolution" is very well documented.
If you knew that "right off the bat" then you had to a high ranking member of JaN. JaN started off as a group branded for the rebellion and for the people, with any ties to AQ hidden. Where public knowledge falls in relation to this mans statement I would have to look into that, but to say you knew straight from the beginning is just distorting history.
http://www.fived.org/images/files/Holy%20Money.pdf
I read this in April 2013 and it talks about Jabhat al Nusra having links to AQ and "tainting the FSA" with their jihadi ideology (p.79)
After this post I did look and the breakdown between IS and JaN, along with the declaration by Jolani to Zawahiri came in April 2013. They first entered the scene at the start of 2012, although are attributed to events happening in late 2011.
Lol mate, they literally broke off from ISIS when they had a dispute over who ought be in overall command, what are you talking abot?? That was all over their social media, and if I "had to be a high ranking member of JaN" to know that, then I guess I am. Hello, my name is Reading Al-Twitteri...
Yes, a year and a half after their formation. Very much "right from the beginning" my friend.
They were ISIS before that, not boy scouts, so yes, right from the begining.
When they first entered, and for many, many months after that they kept all ties hidden. You didn't know "right from the beginning" because nobody did. Its that easy and not hard to admit.
You'd be funny if you weren't so limited. Again, no ties were hidden. Baghdadi sent Golani to Syria to create an ISIS's wing there, which he did. From the moment of their creation they were warring as ISIS until the split came. Their media were full of that info. How do I know that? I've got access to internet, that's how... What you're talking about is as if they were clandestine like 007, while in teality they were as subtle as an elephant in the glass boutique ...
You do realize we only know that baghdadi sent Jolani into syria because of Intel captured after the fact which detailed the plan. None of this was displayed on ISI's media, or JaN's, because the goal was to keep the ties hidden. It was only when some information started to leak out and others be captured, that the truth of the situation became known, and the feud was materializing by that point anyway.
Not only in 2013 . A remember a lot of people supporting Al Nusra in capturing Idlib . Everything was perfect for them until the Russians entered . Since then there havent been many good news for them . They had the perfect momentum in early 2015 and they lost it .
To be fair there've been a lot of flat out genocidal ISIS supporters on this sub. Reddit has also been host to people who idolize and support just about every evil known to man.
I don't know if i'd say "a lot" but yeah there def has been sympathizers posting here before. Much less now.
Remain civil please
So the translation is slightly off, but the implication that he supports Nusra is correct. I wouldn't say the translation is "wrong".
what did he say?
What does it say?
To just go off of this, the fathers statement was made a month after Jolani formerly pledged himself to Zawahiri. I think the fact the father did quote AQ nasheeds in the past, even if it doesn't mean anything, doesn't look good by any means.
Well, that's a bit rude.
Ok, no problem. But what is the fact you're stating here? A guy didn't say "infidels" but was quoting an nasheed from Nusra, group that is known for the hate of "infidels". What exactly has been lost in translation here?
If I had to say it in English, it would be the equivalent of saying "may they be victorious over sin" as opposed to "may they be victorious over sinners"
But the point I'm trying to get across is that the translation mistake doesn't even matter since what he quoted was a terrorist group nasheed. That same group is responsible for a lot of the same deeds that the suicide bomber did, and in fact does itself hate "infidels". And while translation mistake might be relevant in any other case, here it just goes to prove a point.
In the context of counter-terrorism, it's far more alarming when someone is making a direct call to violence, than when they are expressing sympathy for designated terrorist organization. The number of people who openly support the PKK or Hezbollah, both of which are designated as terrorist groups by the UK, is high among the userbase of this very subreddit. I don't think you believe that makes them would-be terrorists themselves. So ultimately I think the translation does make some difference.
Extreme amounts of difference. Especially when we're talking about the father of the guy who ended up blowing himself up among the children on the concert. And if I'm honest, I'd much sooner afford the benefit of a doubt to both Hezbollah supporter and PKK supporter, since their organizations are yet to blow up children in Europe, or run them over by trucks, or open fire in a packed nightclub, or whatever you can think of, while ISIS/Nusra have done all of those things.
He's just being accurate. Why are you so defensive about this?
There's a significant difference between "victory over disbelief" and "victory over the infidels"
The first implies a fight against an idea while the latter implies a fight against individuals.
However it should be noted that "disbelief" in this context means "anything but my strict Sunni-Salafist interpretation of Islam"
I appreciate the linguistic insight given by u/Arab_Moroccan, but contextually speaking it doesn't make any difference
Defensive? If anything you guys are being dodgy and defensive about this. And being a gramatic scholar on a post about a suicide bomber's dad quoting Nusra nasheed isn't wining any points for Muslim people worldwide, if anything it's doing the oposite by showing that same people who say "Oh my, he was a good boy who was very active in the mosque." do in fact for the most part understand what the "good boy" was about, and are not really that much resentful of the deed.
Okay, thanks.
It is pretty rare for a child to get radicalized if parents are not a bit radical themselves or abuse to shit out of him. Parents are always somewhat guilty if the child turns up being shit.
Just untrue. Even if we ignore all of the cases of converts to Islam who turn to a extremist ideology of it.
People do not do suicide attacks without being highly disturbed or brainwashed from early age.
Not necessarily brainwashed. Just very low IQ, borderline retarded. Those are the kinds of people that do suicide bombings. If you tell him that when he blows himself up in a marketplace full of children and elderly he'll get hot naked babes and the body of elvis presely in the afterlife, and he believes it, then there's something lacking in the penthouse.
Again, there's plenty of cases that go against this. If we're talking specifically Islam, there's plenty of people who converted later in life, from no religion at all or from a different religion.
Also many in europe dont even have contact to their parents.
They do all the time. There are many converts among lone wolf terrorists.
I think there should be more regulations over middle eastern people who travel to west and mosques should be bound to a ministry. There too many diverse sects in ME and some of them are hateful against west.
They support Al Nusra in Syria but when Al Nusra visits them its terrorism?
its both terrorism
Depends on whom you ask. I'm just sorry that kids had to die before some shitheads asked themselves the question "Might the guys who are getting our support for fighting against Syrian government actually be modern day nazis?".
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| AQ | Al-Qaeda |
| FSA | [Opposition] Free Syrian Army |
| ISIL | Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Daesh |
| JN | [Opposition] Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Nusra Front |
| KDP | [Iraqi Kurd] Kurdistan Democratic Party |
| MSM | Mainstream Media |
| PKK | [External] Kurdistan Workers' Party, pro-Kurdish party in Turkey |
| SAA | [Government] Syrian Arab Army |
| SCW | Syrian Civil War |
9 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on ^today has 10 acronyms.
[Thread #1445 for this sub, first seen 25th May 2017, 20:23] ^[FAQ] ^[Contact] [Source ^code]
I can see how one can spin this into an excuse to bomb the SAA.
71.4k
Subscribers
472
Online
This subreddit is dedicated to news, analysis and discussion on the conflict in Syria along with the regional and global ramifications.