Now that the whole world is outraged at the video showing the actual beheading of US journalist James Foley, experts began to crack the incident shot-by-shot to pronounce that it was indeed a dead body of the victim that knifed to death and the video was well-scripted, taking care of even the portions in which both characters have actually acted it out.
Like any other similar video produced in the past, a masked Islamic State terrorist pronounces that the man kneeling down on his legs was U.S. journalist James Foley, who went missing since 2012 and then goes ahead with his heinous beheading act.
Islamic State (ISIS) rebels later released the video on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 showing the beheading of Foley, and images of another U.S. journalist who they said would be the next to face similar beheading, in their video, titled “A Message to America”.
Islamic State, or ISIS is an offshoot of dreaded al Qaeda terrorist outfit that had attacked New York’s twin Trade Center towers on 9/11 in 2001. It has also threatened to attack Americans anywhere in the world, hinting at another attack on US installations.
Security experts are busy to determine the authenticity of the video but the video experts are sure that the video was mainly for the propaganda to scare the US, which has again upped its military raids on Iraq’s ISIS-held pockets.
Wondering why Foley was not showing any fear when the knife was put on his neck, one security expert with vast experience told The Times, “My experience of these things is when the knife gets close the knees buckle and you become like a rag doll, whereas this guy seemed to sit upright. It could be that that particular knife wasn’t the one that killed him, that that was a play-acting thing.”
Experts point out that the video showing Foley’s right ankle had bruises hinting that he had been “kneeling on the ground longer than what was shown in the video”, while the second contradiction was the knife on the ground was different from the one used.
“The guy is obviously dead but it may be that particular scene was acted and that was why he is staying stiff,” the security expert noted.
Joe Fields, of Breakthru Productions in London, confirms that the video was well-produced with both Foley and the executioner John appeared to be speaking out well-scripted lines and the microphone used was a professional one used in television studios without any need for sound editing or dubbing. These two factors lead experts to conclude that the man, named John, was speaking in British accent but not the one who killed Foley, hinting at some force upon hinm to act.
The Guardian too covered a story quoting linguistic experts. Prof Paul Kerswill of the University of York told the Guardian that the man’s accent was “multicultural London English” used by people who mix with the East End. Dr Claire Hardaker, another linguistics expert at Lancaster University, said the British accent is from a person from the south belonging to London, Kent or Essex.
Prof Peter Neumann, director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, at King’s College London says the British accent was used by the militants to mislead the people about the origin of the man who killed Foley. “This is significant because it signifies a turn towards threatening the west. They are saying we’re going to come after you if you bomb us,” Neumann said.