Time magazine decides what the story is and then makes the facts fit.
Time has an article titled, “Defying stereotypes, most domestic ‘jihadists’ are educated, well-off” prominently illustrated with a courtroom sketch of David Coleman Headley.
Headley, according to Time, fits the definition of an educated, well-off ‘jihadi’ because – as the reporter describes him – he is a “Chicago businessman.” Actually, according to his Wikipedia bio, he was an employee of his friend’s immigration agency, hardly a “businessman.” It doesn’t appear that he ever went to college, and he’s a convicted heroin smuggler.
According to media reports, he was able to front himself off as a successful businessman in India, with a personal trainer and smoozing at the gym with Bollywood types, but it’s a huge inaccuracy to imply this con-man loser was some kind of successful person who inexplicably turned on his life of accomplishment and became a ‘jihadi.’
There are also problems with saying Ramy Zamzam comes from the ‘educated, well-off’ class. Zamzam may have been a student at the dental college, but his family lived in a basement apartment (we of the ‘educated, well-off’ class tend to like natural sunlight). The building shown in the media looks like typical public housing project construction. The local imam said he was carrying the hopes of his family on his shoulders for a better life.
I understand why educated, socially and economically accomplished terrorists are so fascinating, and some certainly do exist, but misrepresenting these people as something other than what they are is just shoddy.
