Profile of a Young Somali
November 29, 2010 12:44 PM Subscribe
The Washington Post profiles a patriotic and radicalized 22 year old Somali man, Abdul Qadir Mohammed. (Single link Washington Post)
Interesting, thank you.
posted by Dim Siawns at 1:12 PM on November 29, 2010
posted by Dim Siawns at 1:12 PM on November 29, 2010
The FBI thwarts its own terror plot.
I don't disagree with you, but that young man is Mohamed Osman Mohamud.
posted by bearwife at 1:16 PM on November 29, 2010
I don't disagree with you, but that young man is Mohamed Osman Mohamud.
posted by bearwife at 1:16 PM on November 29, 2010
That's rather sad. He's growing up and out of the simplistic fundamentalist mindset, but is now shunned by both sides. I hope he survives.
posted by zarq at 1:35 PM on November 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 1:35 PM on November 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Suspected Oregon Terror Act Yet Another Plot Foiled Because Of Intelligence Provided By A Muslim.
posted by ericb at 3:55 PM on November 29, 2010
posted by ericb at 3:55 PM on November 29, 2010
Interesting that the WaPo story refers to his name as "Abdul Qadir Mohammed" -- and seems to be the primary source for others that use the name in reprinting their article.
Indeed, most others report his name as "Mohamed Osman Mohamud."
posted by ericb at 4:11 PM on November 29, 2010
Indeed, most others report his name as "Mohamed Osman Mohamud."
posted by ericb at 4:11 PM on November 29, 2010
I'm pretty sure we're talking about different Somali jihadists: one raised in the US, possibly entrapped by the FBI, and certainly a Columbine-scale asshole- and one born and raised in Somalia, a child soldier who is outgrowing his fundamentalist brainwashing.
posted by jenkinsEar at 4:20 PM on November 29, 2010
posted by jenkinsEar at 4:20 PM on November 29, 2010
Yes, Mohamed Osman Mohamud and Abdul Qadir Mohammed are two different people. The linked article is not about the guy who just got arrested in Oregon.
posted by muta at 4:21 PM on November 29, 2010
posted by muta at 4:21 PM on November 29, 2010
possibly entrapped by the FBI, and certainly a Columbine-scale asshole-
Which, not to derail, but raises the theoretical of post Columbine law enforcement targeting angry high school aged outcasts, instigating them to shoot up their schools, providing them with plastic guns, and arresting them in grandiose photo ops to serve life sentences, and would that be any different to this bullshit we've got in Oregon right now?
posted by iamck at 10:10 PM on November 29, 2010
Which, not to derail, but raises the theoretical of post Columbine law enforcement targeting angry high school aged outcasts, instigating them to shoot up their schools, providing them with plastic guns, and arresting them in grandiose photo ops to serve life sentences, and would that be any different to this bullshit we've got in Oregon right now?
posted by iamck at 10:10 PM on November 29, 2010
Regarding the "bullshit we've got in Oregon right now" let's consider the options:
You cannot arrerst someone just for having extremist beliefs. If there is reason to think that a particular person intends to commit an act of terrorism, you can therefore just wait for them to do it, no matter how many people are killed as a result, and then arrest them afterwards (if they haven't already blown themselves up in the process) or you can inflitrate the terrorist operation so that no one winds up getting killed or injured, but you still obtain a demonstration of criminal intent which enables you to legally act against the would-be terrorist. Which option do you prefer? Saving lives seems worthwhile to me.
As far as your comparison to Columbine, I hardly think that it would have been bad for the FBI to have prevented the Columbine massacre had they been able to do so, even had this required them to arrange for the homicidal students to have non-functional guns. I would not describe that as instigation. The FBI is not urging anyone to commit crimes.
posted by grizzled at 6:25 AM on November 30, 2010
You cannot arrerst someone just for having extremist beliefs. If there is reason to think that a particular person intends to commit an act of terrorism, you can therefore just wait for them to do it, no matter how many people are killed as a result, and then arrest them afterwards (if they haven't already blown themselves up in the process) or you can inflitrate the terrorist operation so that no one winds up getting killed or injured, but you still obtain a demonstration of criminal intent which enables you to legally act against the would-be terrorist. Which option do you prefer? Saving lives seems worthwhile to me.
As far as your comparison to Columbine, I hardly think that it would have been bad for the FBI to have prevented the Columbine massacre had they been able to do so, even had this required them to arrange for the homicidal students to have non-functional guns. I would not describe that as instigation. The FBI is not urging anyone to commit crimes.
posted by grizzled at 6:25 AM on November 30, 2010
Grizzled -- the comparison is rather if in the post Columbine hysteria, the FBI infiltrated schools and basically encouraged kids to shoot up their schools -- not only by providing fake weapons, but by providing a theoretical framework and a support group. And that's probably what happened here.
posted by iamck at 11:39 AM on November 30, 2010
posted by iamck at 11:39 AM on November 30, 2010
If it should turn out that the FBI persuaded an innocent young man to become a terrorist so that they could then arrest him, that would certainly be outrageous. I can't completely rule out the possibility, because it's true that the human race has a limitless capacity for insanity, but that scenario really does sound a bit on the crazy side even for the FBI (which hardly has a spotless history). Real terrorists do exist for the FBI to investigate; it is hardly necessary for the FBI to create more of them. Admittedly, if the FBI creates their own terrorists, it does simplify the ensuing investigation.
posted by grizzled at 11:46 AM on November 30, 2010
posted by grizzled at 11:46 AM on November 30, 2010
Is a young man with no connections to any organization a terrorist? Any more than said school shooters? Again, sorry for the derail -- this doesn't really belong here. But
posted by iamck at 2:35 PM on November 30, 2010
posted by iamck at 2:35 PM on November 30, 2010
A man without hope
is humanity wasted
another failure
posted by edgeways at 10:55 AM on December 29, 2010
is humanity wasted
another failure
posted by edgeways at 10:55 AM on December 29, 2010
« Older Staggering cache of Picassos turns up in France | Look at this fucking two-hundred-year-old hipster Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rhizome at 1:09 PM on November 29, 2010