Jumpin’ Jihadi John
One doesn’t have to scratch too far beneath the sophisticated surface of modern man to come into contact with a primitive, deep-rooted desire for the complex matrix of life to be reduced to a Ladybird language understood by all. In an age before science, supernatural myth and magic offered explanations that eventually evolved into organised religion; but the need for certain elements of the human condition to be defined in the most basic terms remains strong, even in secular societies – and none more so when it comes to Good and Evil.
Annoyingly ubiquitous words that should really be relegated to a redundant lexicon – such as ‘awesome’ – tend to be passing fads of linguistic fashion; but there are other words that have been relentlessly used for so many centuries that they cease to lose all sense of their original meaning and instead become a kind of lazy shorthand. ‘Evil’ is a broad brushstroke of a word that can nevertheless be utilised to summarise individuals or groups, and in some cases an entire race of people; their deeds are evil, therefore they are evil, as though it is not the act itself that is evil, but the act’s perpetrator(s). I doubt any single person can be definitively classed as 100% ‘evil’, for that would imply they embody evil at the expense of all the other facets that constitute a human being, and therefore cannot be a human being at all. They would have to be evil twenty-four-seven in everything they do.
They would get out of bed in an evil manner, having woken up from an evil dream; they would wash their face and brush their teeth in an evil fashion, eat an especially evil brand of corn flakes for breakfast and then drink evil coffee before going for an evil shit whilst thinking evil thoughts. Evil is not a job description, and even if it was, the all-encompassing nature of the word as it is misused would imply an evil person is never anything but an evil person; yet a postman does not spend every waking moment of his life delivering letters. As we have seen via grainy home movies, Adolf and Eva loved their Alsatian.
Indeed, were a Tardis on hand for us to be present at the birth of Mr and Mrs Hitler’s fourth child in 1889, could we smother that infant on the basis of what he would become? Could that bawling babe really be described as evil? Well, if we apply the logic of evil as it is used in common parlance and (especially) in the mass media, then yes.
It fits the child-like notion of Goodies and Baddies that the western world’s population have been schooled in to say that Vladimir Putin is evil, ISIS is evil, Al-Qaeda are evil, and a certain deceased DJ-cum-charity fundraiser was evil – an abstract concept such as evil embodied in one person or organisation. That’s simple enough for any idiot to understand, isn’t it? All are playing the Bogeyman, that ageless individual whose ability to change his face to fit the mood of the moment is remarkably versatile. In the early nineteenth century, he was Bonaparte as portrayed in the caricatures of the time, a malevolent midget with salacious designs on Britannia; later, he was Spring-heeled Jack, the mischievous phantom of the Victorian imagination. Since then, he has taken on numerous (often simultaneous) identities, from Jack the Ripper to the Yorkshire Ripper, from Hitler to Hindley, from Bin Laden to his latest incarnation, Jihadi John.
Highwaymen were ten-a-penny in the eighteenth century, a regular road hazard far more prevalent than, say, car-jackers are today; Dick Turpin was one of many highwaymen who would have been forgotten within a generation had not the pamphleteers and balladeers of the era immortalised him and transformed him into an anti-hero whose legend outlived the man. The aforementioned Spring-heeled Jack was similarly celebrated and essentially created by the Penny Dreadfuls, his audacious and increasingly exaggerated adventures lapped-up by a public eager for a simple pantomime villain without any off-putting complexities, just a straightforward personification of evil.
Two-hundred years on, the construction of Jihadi John has been a partnership between his own corny grasp of ‘baddie’ imagery and a media in search of a new bogeyman, a process as contrived and cynical as the manufacturing of another money-spinning boy-band. The technological advances in global communications mean that any Public Enemy Number One can now achieve his desired notoriety overnight and enable it to be a worldwide phenomenon rather than localised – but only when the media enters into a contract with him. Even posting his pathetic gestures online would be no more than an act of preaching to the converted if news outlets weren’t so insistent on publicising them to the wider world. ISIS promo videos, with armed masked-men mincing about whilst soundtracked by the Ali Hendrix Experience, are hilarious, resembling trailers for straight-to-video 80s action movies; but they are presented to the west with the subliminal tag – ‘Be afraid; be very afraid’.
If the media was genuinely against the promotion of Jihadi John as a sword-wielding super-villain and didn’t want to be viewed as a willing co-conspirator in his pathetic shot at evil immortality, then they should take the piss out of him, not endorse his glamorous infamy. They should drop the name straight away because that enhances his exotic outlaw credentials; before Peter Sutcliffe was exposed as a mass-murderer, the moniker the press had given him made him sound like some otherworldly apparition, not a mentally ill bloke from Bradford. Just as every rapper adopts a pseudonym to lift them out of the ordinary, Jihadi John needs a name that bestows ‘cool’ upon him, and the media has done him a huge favour. Well, drop that name. Call him Jihadi Jessie. He’d love that. Or the Bearded Bender. Why be complicit in his self-mythology? Every time the news screens a clip of him making a pre-execution speech, cut back to Huw Edwards clasping a handbag to his chest and emitting a camp ‘Oooh!’
Naturally, this won’t happen. Unlike Chaplin parodying Hitler, nobody will parody this conceited prick because in the current climate ridiculing him would be viewed as an insult to the memory of those he beheaded. We have to adopt the most solemn tone when uttering his name, despite the fact that ridicule is one way we could belittle him. Give the guy endless publicity and his legend will merely grow; give the guy the po-faced reverence he requires and he will transcend his actual mediocrity, transforming into the Spring-heeled Jack of our time rather than being laughed out-of-town. Airstrikes or boots-on-the ground won’t end his reign of terror; they will only supply the martyrdom he desires, and will probably eventually end up making him the star of an iconic T-shirt that disaffected British teens will embrace with verve. Portray him as a joke and his menace is substantially diffused.
But Jihadi John is here because Jihadi John is needed. He represents a handy example of ‘evil’ for politicians to point to and remind the electorate that their elected representatives might have their hands in the till or profit from promoting the interests of lobby-groups and companies at the expense of public service, but at least they’re not so bad that they behead hostages. He puts a face (or half-a-face) on an anonymous organisation and therefore makes it easier to understand. His presence justifies the war crimes of the free world. His omnipotence across all modern mediums satisfies both the remit of the media to treat their audience like children and for that infantile audience to receive their dose of current affairs in ‘Newsround’-like primary colours. Putin finances rebellion against a democratically elected government in Ukraine and he is evil; Obama waves off drones before they blitz villages and townships in Syria, but he remains one of the good guys. Both acts are despicable, but in order to maintain the balance of power, one is condemned whilst the other is excused.
Jumpin’ Jihadi John will only vanish from the front pages when he is superseded by the next media construct to send us to bed with one eye open. But remember, don’t have nightmares. No, actually – do have nightmares. That’s the aim, after all.
Petunia Winegum
-
March 6, 2015 at 9:58 am -
Can’t disagree with what you’ve said Pet but you might have expanded on the hidden dangers of banning (either legally or by force of moral OUTRAGE) of ‘black humour’ – you know , that *traditional* British way of dealing with all the nasty shit that life throws at us and now is considered to be ‘sick’ and DEMEANING TO VICTIMS. Yes it can demean the victims but it demeans the villain more.
-
March 6, 2015 at 10:00 am -
“They would get out of bed in an evil manner, having woken up from an evil dream; they would wash their face and brush their teeth in an evil fashion, eat an especially evil brand of corn flakes for breakfast and then drink evil coffee before going for an evil shit whilst thinking evil thoughts.”
On the basis of that definition I AM evil!
-
March 6, 2015 at 10:30 am -
I was born in a cross-fire hurricane
And I howled at my ma in the driving rain,
But it’s all right now, in fact, it’s a gas!
But it’s all right. Im jumpin jack flash,
Its a gas! gas! gas!I was raised by a toothless, bearded hag,
I was schooled with a strap right across my back,
But it’s all right now, in fact, it’s a gas!
But it’s all right, Im jumpin jack flash,
Its a gas! gas! gas!I was drowned, I was washed up and left for dead.
I fell down to my feet and I saw they bled.
I frowned at the crumbs of a crust of bread.
Yeah, yeah, yeah
I was crowned with a spike right thru my head.
But it’s all right now, in fact, it’s a gas!
But it’s all right, Im jumpin jack flash,
Its a gas! gas! gas!Jumping jack flash, it’s a gas
-
March 6, 2015 at 9:27 pm -
I don’t think we will go down The Brown Sugar route, those words were so non pc, I think modern day speakers would melt
Both cracking songs from The Stones
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 10:31 am -
While I would not lose a second of sleep whatsoever were Emwazi to be deal with under the immediacy of rule 7.62, a lot of the “if only we had known” hand-wringing coming from certain corners is more than a little futile. If Emwazi had not been radicalised, and not gone to find his infamy where he has, his victims would still be just a dead, but at the hands of others. Emwazi’s value to IS/ISIS/ISIL (or whatever we’re calling is) is not because he is psychopathic enough to be able to carry out melodramtic executions, but because he has the accent and origin that he has.
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:45 pm -
Agreed. Jihadi John is not so much the Embodiment of Evil, he’s more Useful Idiot. The real evil usually stays quietly in the background.
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 10:35 am -
“If the media was genuinely against the promotion of Jihadi John as a sword-wielding super-villain and didn’t want to be viewed as a willing co-conspirator in his pathetic shot at evil immortality, then they should take the piss out of him, not endorse his glamorous infamy.”
“Naturally this won’t happen”.
Four Lions?
-
March 6, 2015 at 12:41 pm -
Something of an isolated example, along with Charlie Brooker mocking IS whenever the opportunity arises. It’s notable that BBC3’s Monkey Dust doesn’t get repeated, and the second series was never released on DVD, no doubt partly due to the Incompent Terrorists segments.
-
March 6, 2015 at 1:24 pm
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 10:59 am -
The problem with the use of the word ‘evil’ is that it is being used as an equivalent to ‘double plus bad’; thus making a redundancy of words.
If we use evil as in the biblical sense, that it means ‘the corruption of the good’, then the terms ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ don’t make each other redundant.
So the opposite of ‘good’ is ‘bad’; and the opposite of ‘evil'[the wronging of a right] is ‘justice’ [the righting of a wrong].
With this use of the word ‘evil’, we can define actions as evil, rather than using the term as part of an adjective noun.
Hence:
-Jihadi John is a twat, who does outrageously bad deeds in the name of his religion.
-An organised religion is a means by which people are bound by the control of their dreams [mythos], by a second party.
-New Labour deliberately opened our borders to other religions, in an act of evil subversion, by undermining our indigenous culture, and religion.
-
March 6, 2015 at 11:44 am -
I hope the UK media don’t find out Jihadi John even appeared on Top Of The Pops…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsyVtTHtA_QI’ll get my coat
-
March 6, 2015 at 12:10 pm -
I knew the song but had never really paid attention to the lyrics before – pretty amazing that it ever appeared during the tea-time slot.
(I used to love John Shuttleworth on R4… off to track some down.)-
March 6, 2015 at 1:00 pm -
’twas always said that “Walk on the Wild Side” got BBC play because Auntie just didn’t get it…
-
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 11:56 am -
I think Mao Tse-Tung was very near to being 100% evil. He was certainly much worse than Hitler or Stalin.
-
March 6, 2015 at 12:05 pm -
Adam Curtis is very thought-provoking on how we make our “facts” fit our stories.
The inability to comprehend Goering seems moot. Everyone thinks “they” are the good and “the other” are the bad.
http://youtu.be/4xoM6-1SWl4-
March 6, 2015 at 1:26 pm -
Yeah, the old ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter’ thing, I guess.
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:29 pm -
Between the lines of Curtis’ exposition seemed to me the naivete of Americans schooled in puritannical notions of “right & wrong”. He explicitly describes in the commentary how the Americans saw the disestablishment of the nation state as being preferable if it contributed to the prevention of further European war. Once the power bloc of the Soviet Empire disappeared like smoke, then the principle of “your enemy is my enemy” evaporated with it and of course Yugoslavia burst open like a putrid flower. Tito was of course every bit as much a tyrant at home as any of the other Communists, but which morals are more important? “Freedom” or the ability of the common people to pursue a simple life without fear of war and death. That latter was what seemed to have constituted Goering’s self-justification. It may be that tyranny is no bad thing so long as it remains one’s own tyranny and not the tyranny of others…
-
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 4:44 pm -
A very large number of perfectly decent, educated, “middle class” Chinese would disagree strongly with you. Something had to be done to lift the Chinese out of centuries of shame and humiliation inflected upon them to a great extent by the British trying to open the country for trade, by fair means and foul. Mostly the latter. He certainly did some very stupid things, as people with unlimited power all seem to do for some reason, but to brand him as unadulterated evil is rather simplistic. Start by reading The Opium Wars by Julia Lovell.
-
March 6, 2015 at 6:14 pm -
Ah, yes. Those evil British again, with their empire and trade. Yomping round the planet spreading respect for the rule of law and democracy. And cricket. How very dare they!
-
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 12:04 pm -
Something in the article above reminded me of a short film seen last year at a festival:
http://fibabc.abc.es/videos/kind-4343.htmlIt’s Spanish, but in German (with Spanish subtitles) and I can’t say much more about it without ruining the effect, an effect already reduced by watching on a computer screen & not on spec in the cinema. Someone may enjoy it.
-
March 6, 2015 at 12:08 pm -
Spring heeled jack was an interesting phenomenon. I may do some more research into these strange sitings. However, I can’t agree that “Jihadi John” is a media construct, save that his evil deeds are publicised by the media, and intended to be. I have no problem describing him as evil. I have written on this before. In E.M. Forster’s great novel “A Passage to India”, the Brahmin character says this:
“Evil is an absence of My Lord”.
What he means by this is evil is the absence of basic human decency, kindness and compassion. In the absence of these qualities, behaviour which we can quite properly characterise as “evil” takes place. This can be on a relatively small scale, such as murder, violence and all sorts of wicked acts; on a more medium scale such as the recent abuse in place like Rochdale, Oldham or Oxford; or on the Grand Scale of Holocaust. Each in there own way a little piece of Hell on Earth, which is the only place Hell ever does exist.
Jihadi John is a person of low mental ability, unable to come to terms with his own inadequacy, and probably a certifiable psychopath. Unlike the unwashed psuedo intellectual Russell Brand, I do not blame “British Society” for “radicalising him”. He and his family were given were given shelter in this country (although nobody ever asked my opinion), and he given the benefit of a free education, with which achieved the right to attend a third rate poly which masqueraded as a University. He should, if anything, be grateful to this country. But he found his niche as a murderer of a pretty gruesome kind.
He may be a nut job, but that is not incompatible with evil.
I have encountered evil in my own life a little too often for comfort. And I have learned this about evil. It needs no reason to hate and attack and trouble the good. It may often generate an excuse, but no reason as such. It is simply it’s nature to do so.
Al-Quada, The Isis creatures (I happily deny their humanity, and don’t care what flack I get for it) and the ilk will need no reason to bring death, cruelty, murder and oppression to any and all parts of the world at every opportunity, including British streets. Our very existence as a relatively free society which does not submit to their barbaric creed is enough. My personal wish is for each and every one of these creatures to be eradicated, much as one needs to eradicate and infestation of cockroaches, or cut out or annihilate a cancer.
No if’s, no but’s, no qualms.-
March 6, 2015 at 12:43 pm -
He has, of course, been thoroughly denounced by his family.
-
March 6, 2015 at 1:03 pm -
“Its”, not “it’s”. Sorry. Unforgivable. Fool.
-
March 6, 2015 at 1:30 pm -
The media gave him his ‘scary’ name and is intent on publicising him as though he were a cartoon character ala Kim Kardashian; one cuts heads off and one has a fat arse. Neither would be much more than silly cults if the media hadn’t turned them into household names.
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:09 pm -
I strongly recommend you do not conflate the two. One is a media whore. Meh. The other will throw you off a tall building or burn you alive.
If you can’t tell the difference,then I am surprised-
March 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm -
I am talking about mediocrities the media has turned into monsters – is that not evident from the whole tone of the article? In terms of the way they are presented to the public, there is no difference. Human beings reduced to caricatures for the entertainment of the masses. The media has been complicit in the creation of both. Either could be selling Coca-Cola.
-
March 6, 2015 at 4:20 pm -
Perhaps Petunia, it is their very mediocrity that drives them (Kardashian or the amateurish expat head hacker, or both)? Seeking notoriety in the only way they can to vindicate their sorry, meaning-lite, lives?
-
March 6, 2015 at 6:29 pm -
I’m with Sigillum on this one. Two other ‘mediocrities the media has turned into monsters’ are Ian Huntley and Katie Price. One has committed some very serious, and genuinely evil, offences; the other is just a banal attention-seeker.
The media created neither Huntley nor the murdering ‘jihadi’. They committed their offences, and the media (with their usual ghoulish relish) reported them.
-
March 6, 2015 at 7:50 pm -
And by doing so, turned them into the people we hate. I say people, but we don’t know the people, do we? We know the interpretations the media has presented us with.
-
March 6, 2015 at 11:39 pm -
What more do you need to know to be able to hate him?
-
March 7, 2015 at 12:23 am -
I find his actions repugnant and I dislike the cartoon character that is ‘Jihadi John’; but the person? I’ve never met him, so I can’t possibly comment. None of us can truly say we ‘know’ anyone until we have looked them in the eye and spent time in their company, so how can we express genuine hate towards them? That’s the general point I’m trying to make, the way in which the media deforms reality and dilutes people into black & white heroes and villains by circumnavigating all shades of grey, fifty or more.
-
March 7, 2015 at 8:05 am -
I disagree. No doubt in a fee days or weeks the Grauniad will produce some handwringing piece about how unloved, disadvantaged, downtrodden and marginalised he was. Cage have already been given far too much airtime to make their case that spooks tormented him into doing what he did, even though in his own words the threats amounted to nothing more than “we’ve been monitoring you and will continue to do so” over a glass of juice and halal snacks.
His actions tell me all I need to know – I dont need to “look him in the eye” or “spend any time” with him to understand them, or him, or his barbaric mindset and ideology. I get the general point you are trying to make, which is certainly valid in the case of Savile, but falls apart when you try to apply it to Murdering Mo where you commit the omnipresent error of equivocation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 8:41 pm -
‘…Jumpin’ Jihadi John will only vanish from the front pages when he is superseded by the next media construct’.
I hope that ‘Jihadi John’, that murdering scumbag; brutal slayer of an innocent charity worker, and countless others, will vanish painfully, limbs blown off, in a large explosion, courtesy of a Predator drone strike…
Yes, the press are utilising pond scum as a face that the public can identify with and hate, but that does not explain where this individual learned his terrible craft. I, for one, could not countenance sawing a man’s head off for a million pounds, not while he writhed, gasped, gurgled, shat himself; while I got covered in his blood, and was left holding his severed head in my hand. All the more horrible because the killer is an educated man, and a fellow countryman of the man he decapitated. How warped does one have to be? It is not something he would have learned while we were busy paying for his degree…
-
March 6, 2015 at 8:44 pm -
I certainly won’t miss him, but he’ll be replaced by the next one once he’s gone.
-
March 7, 2015 at 8:05 am -
Rinse and repeat
-
-
March 7, 2015 at 8:11 am -
“it is not something he would have learned while we were busy paying for his degree”
The university education system would rather seem to be a major part of the problem thhough, wouldnt it, given that in place of critical thinking they now promote moral equivocation, grievance mongering and the nurturing of a strong sense of victimhood?
-
-
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:00 pm -
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:10 pm -
Agreed – I have my reasons for failure, not least two tooth extractions
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:06 pm -
Strangely perhaps, I find the Islington bicycle stabbing more evil. JJ is, in his mind, killing for a cause. That somehow seems less evil to me than killing for a bicycle. Maybe my values are skewed.
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:10 pm -
Same stuff
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:47 pm -
There is an element with the Islington stabbing that seems even more psychopathic in its casualness. I’m sure when caught and tried the little scrote will bleat, “I didn’t mean to kill him,” as if he somehow expects that stabbing someone in the chest is an action utterly devoid of possible negative consequences.
-
March 6, 2015 at 4:41 pm -
I was greatly troubled by the Islington killing. It was the sheer mundanity, pointlessness and casual savagery of it.
As you say, what the fuck do you expect if you plunge a knife into someone’s chest?
-
March 6, 2015 at 5:15 pm -
Same.
-
March 6, 2015 at 7:38 pm -
“As you say, what the fuck do you expect if you plunge a knife into someone’s chest?”
Have you ever plunged a knife into someone’s chest? I have. On several occasions. I haven’t followed the Ins & Outs of this case but I doubt the 13 year old had any realistic expectations -assuming he has been reared on a diet of Grand Twock 4001 Chainsaw & Sex Edition etc. Just as an aside, do you know how bloody difficult it is to kill someone with a single stab wound? There is a reason they teach it to commandos/special forces…takes knowledge, skill and practice…lots of practice. Or to put it in the words of a famous fictional knife-man “By Christ Princess, you’d ‘ave to be dead lucky!”
-
March 6, 2015 at 9:01 pm -
Last I read, the arrested were 17, 18 and 20. And nobody expects anything other than severe damage when knifing somebody, with a strong possibility of death.
-
-
-
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 2:34 pm -
You generally find greater moral complexity in WWE compared with the meeja.
-
March 6, 2015 at 3:00 pm -
This is a great article and you make excellent points. I think the way in which this issue seems to be being reported by some news outlets is quite disturbing. It’s often hard to tell whether it’s news or publicity. If the media has taken something as comparatively benign as the Savile allegations at face value, you have to wonder if they’d even recognise if they were being used/manipulated or just chase after the story come what may. It’s the casualness and normalising of the story that I find particularly worrying. A TV presenter saying she’d watched one of the execution videos, a photomontage of men in orange jumpsuits and one in a cage. Casual barbarity streamed straight into the living room.
-
March 6, 2015 at 3:20 pm -
A clear – very clear due to the ‘villain’ being both clearly innocent and capable of expressing himself – example of this media “build-a-villain” game was the treatment of Dave Lee Travis, especially by the BBC. The news coverage of his trials, his solitary conviction and his (suspended) sentencing were all malicious attempts to paint him as a sexual predator in the face of his being cleared of 14 charges and just about everybody he ever worked with coming forward to vouch for his good character & gentlemanly qualities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmaXnsph5D4 -
March 6, 2015 at 3:30 pm -
Quite remarkable that at the same time there is widespread hysteria over imaginary “Snuff Movies” from the 1970’s being real.
-
March 6, 2015 at 3:50 pm -
We have certainly now reached the stage JG Ballard predicted in ‘The Atrocity Exhibition’.
-
March 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm -
I also preferred the scenario in Theatre of War….
-
-
-
March 6, 2015 at 4:02 pm -
Jihadi John has grouped up with Jihadi George , Jihadi Paul and Jihadi Ringo to form a pop group, there first record about to be released is “I wanna hold your head”
-
March 6, 2015 at 4:03 pm -
“I doubt any single person can be definitively classed as 100% ‘evil’…”
Agreed. Some (including me) suppose that man has a dual nature: the ego of which he is primarily conscious; and an indwelling divinity or conscience – ‘the imprisoned splendour’ as Robert Browning called it (Paracelsus). Thus the difference between saint and sinner depends upon whichever nature prevails. ‘To know’ says Browning ‘rather consists in opening out a way whence the imprisoned splendour may escape, than in effecting entry for a light supposed to be without’. Condemn the deed of course, but if possible allow the doer to heal himself and in the meantime treat him as sick and lock him up.
-
March 6, 2015 at 4:44 pm -
I think I’ve posted this before, but here goes; in order to explore the dichotomy of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ we should look at the psychology of the basic, average, bog standard human. We are actually hard wired to kill under given circumstances, but our societal conditioning teaches us that killing is not allowed, certainly not in polite society, and definitely not at dinner parties, at least not before the cheese board and coffee.
Seriously, it’s ironic that a ‘good’ act, say, giving a beggar in the street ten bucks can become ‘evil’ because said beggar then spend his days takings on booze or drugs, gets off his face then harms or kills others. Perhaps using the same corkscrew logic this inept head hacker (his technique is terrible, very clumsy) thinks he is ‘defending’ his religion by killing ‘infidels’. To him, we of a less intense religious mindset are ‘evil’, even less than human because we do not worship as he claims to do, therefore he is doing ‘good’ by killing ‘unbelievers’, even though most of us on this thread and beyond can honestly say we’ve never harmed anyone of said eejits religious sect.
-
March 6, 2015 at 8:14 pm -
There are 3 Million Moslems in Britain and a recent poll showed 13% of them approved of IS, its aims and methods. We live in interesting times but our grandchildren may well see insurrection on the streets of this increasingly overcrowded land.
-
March 7, 2015 at 8:08 am -
‘Jihadi John’ is evil? No way, he is a nice lad. It’s MI5 and the rest of us that are evil according to the BBC.
-
March 7, 2015 at 10:27 am -
The best way to fight evil is to take the piss out of it. It lessens its impact and stops you being scared of it – the whole aim of the evil thing. So in that line see this picture of Jihadi John – https://twitter.com/IDS_MP/status/573202587505315840
{ 62 comments… read them below or add one }