Terrorism and Ideology
I can't believe I'm starting a thread with terrorism in the title but anyway....
Last night on (Australian) ABC TV, they did a couple of stories about Al Qaeda's use of the internet. Here are links to the transcripts:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...4/s1069029.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...4/s1069030.htm
Because the internet is essentially about the dissemination of information and ideas, both stories had the recurring theme of the role of ideology in the WOT.
This is a quote from the first story
At the end of the interview Hegghammer concludes
In the second interview, former Reuter's journo Paul Eedle, talks about how the West by failing to understand AQ's propaganda has essentially served to confirm the beliefs contained in that propaganda to many Muslims.
I don't think the US does ideology well. I think successive US governments have demonstrated they don't understand the power of ideology. Having studied the history of (what was) the USSR and Eastern Europe under Communism at uni, I'm reminded now how I often thought back in the later years of the Cold War how the US just didn't get Marxist ideology in its various forms.
This, to me, is where the WOT gets scary - in the failure to know thy enemy.
So what I want to hear about is
- what people think is the ideological thinking of each of the current players, do they have an ideology?
- what role does the battle of ideas play if any?
- if you think the battle of ideas is important, how do you win it?
And personally mods, I don't think slanging Norway should be tolerated.
Last night on (Australian) ABC TV, they did a couple of stories about Al Qaeda's use of the internet. Here are links to the transcripts:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...4/s1069029.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...4/s1069030.htm
Because the internet is essentially about the dissemination of information and ideas, both stories had the recurring theme of the role of ideology in the WOT.
This is a quote from the first story
Quote:
MARGOT O'NEILL: Thirty minutes north of Oslo lies the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.
It's here that Thomas Hegghammer researches Islamist websites.
Last year he found a 42-page document detailing how terrorist attacks timed for the Spanish elections could damage the Western coalition in Iraq: "Spain can stand a maximum of two or three attacks before they will withdraw from Iraq."
With hindsight it provides a further possible link between Al Qaeda and the Madrid bombs.
But there was something else which grabbed Thomas Hegghammer's attention.
THOMAS HEGGHAMMER, NORWEGIAN DEFENCE RESEARCH: What was surprising both to us and to other analysts was the level of sophisticated analytical thinking in the document and it is very informed about the internal political situation in Spain, in Britain, as well as in Poland.
So, this is quite unique in the, sort of, Al Qaeda literature which we've seen so far.
MARGOT O'NEILL: Thirty minutes north of Oslo lies the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.
It's here that Thomas Hegghammer researches Islamist websites.
Last year he found a 42-page document detailing how terrorist attacks timed for the Spanish elections could damage the Western coalition in Iraq: "Spain can stand a maximum of two or three attacks before they will withdraw from Iraq."
With hindsight it provides a further possible link between Al Qaeda and the Madrid bombs.
But there was something else which grabbed Thomas Hegghammer's attention.
THOMAS HEGGHAMMER, NORWEGIAN DEFENCE RESEARCH: What was surprising both to us and to other analysts was the level of sophisticated analytical thinking in the document and it is very informed about the internal political situation in Spain, in Britain, as well as in Poland.
So, this is quite unique in the, sort of, Al Qaeda literature which we've seen so far.
At the end of the interview Hegghammer concludes
Quote:
The thing that we, the West, or we might do, with Internet and with all these radical Islamist web sites is not to close them down or track them down, but rather to read them more in detail and to try and understand the ideology, because then that is where you really get the early signs of the ideological developments, which are later going to affect us or might affect us physically.
The thing that we, the West, or we might do, with Internet and with all these radical Islamist web sites is not to close them down or track them down, but rather to read them more in detail and to try and understand the ideology, because then that is where you really get the early signs of the ideological developments, which are later going to affect us or might affect us physically.
In the second interview, former Reuter's journo Paul Eedle, talks about how the West by failing to understand AQ's propaganda has essentially served to confirm the beliefs contained in that propaganda to many Muslims.
Quote:
Many of the actions I think that Western governments have taken in the last two years have played into Al Qaeda's view of the West as endlessly hostile to Muslims.
Many of the actions I think that Western governments have taken in the last two years have played into Al Qaeda's view of the West as endlessly hostile to Muslims.
I don't think the US does ideology well. I think successive US governments have demonstrated they don't understand the power of ideology. Having studied the history of (what was) the USSR and Eastern Europe under Communism at uni, I'm reminded now how I often thought back in the later years of the Cold War how the US just didn't get Marxist ideology in its various forms.
This, to me, is where the WOT gets scary - in the failure to know thy enemy.
So what I want to hear about is
- what people think is the ideological thinking of each of the current players, do they have an ideology?
- what role does the battle of ideas play if any?
- if you think the battle of ideas is important, how do you win it?
And personally mods, I don't think slanging Norway should be tolerated.
Comments
Wow... Simply Wow!
(if i have time i will respond to your actual post but....)
In this respect, I don't believe that killing people for killing people gets anyone anywhere. Violence Begets violence, and it's terribly cyclical in nature.
I also cannot understand unfathomed hatred, the type that we hear islamic extremists talking about, the relentless and deep-rooted hatred for all things USA. How can you love your enemy when they would never love you? And this is the crux here, the crossroads. Will you, forsake the teachings of Gandhi or jesus, and fight fire with fire, or will you hold steadfast even against such hate? Just as vegetarians might argue over whether they should have a bowl of their best friend's home made chicken soup, "I mean, it's just one bowl, I'll go back to being a vegetarian afterwards, honest." It's so much to think about, being ultra stubborn is a problem with many people, hinders their effectiveness at coping with complex situations, but being wishy-washy and back and forth, is equally ineffective.
I'm trying very hard to believe that if we never started this pointless war, *eventually* those who hate us, would cease to do so, but must so many die as a result of potential attacks that would be inbetween point A and point B?
beliefs are dangerous.
WW You've chosen to answer in more general terms and I meant to say in the original post that this is fine by me. So thanks for reminding me. I think Ghandi is an excellent an example of someone who knew and understood their enemy well and who defeated them without rockets and guns. And innocent lives were lost in the process but do you think Indians now regret Ghandi's approach? Sometimes people have to die for the greater good. Sometimes people die for no good reason at all.
Scott You've left out the bit I'm most interested in. How, in terms of the terrorist's ideology, will the current US approach lead to defeat. That's an example of how I think the US doesn't do ideology well. I'd argue that the current US administration does a very poor job of explaining how their plan is going to get us from Point A to Point B.
Originally posted by crazychester
I'd argue that the current US administration does a very poor job of explaining how their plan is going to get us from Point A to Point B.
very good point, if they were doing a good job explaining it, would there really be so much dissent?
Originally posted by rageous
poor explanations are the lynchpin of political campaigning. it's far easier to make general statements that are much less opt to be scrutinized and subsequently debunked.
yup, see my earlier post in this thread
Originally posted by segovius
Imo people in the west do not need to understand terrorist ideology so much as they need to understand Islamic ideology. If they did understand this then they would be able to tell the difference between original Islam and radical Islam.
Why this would be useful:
Islamic radicalsim is in reality a form of 'cult' - that is to say, it stands in relation to orthodox Islam as (say) Jonestown or Koresh does to Christianity.
Nobody mistakes 'Christian' cults for Christianity, they see them for what they are: degenerate derivative abberations.
This may not matter to us in the west but a very important aspect is that al-Qaeda and other radical groups gain their foot-soldiers from middle easterners and north Africans who know nothing of Islamic culture but are attracted to the ideology. In fact they are not Muslims in belief (although they are by culture) before they convert - and they convert to a radicalised rewritten version.
These terrorists need to be marginalised before they can be defeated. This isn't happening and it will never happen as long as people are unable to draw a distinction between real and false Islam.
Marginalising them in this way will gain the massive support of millions of Muslims who (if only by default) are now bracketed with the Islamists. The support of these is essential to success.
Excellent point. The Bush Administration's failure to understand WHY they are doing what they're doing is the biggest problem we have. Instead of fighting terrorism he's fueling it by fueling their fears of an oppressive America running the world. By using G-d in each and every speach he propogates the notion that the war isn't terrorists vs. the US. It's Islam vs. Christianity.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
Excellent point. The Bush Administration's failure to understand WHY they are doing what they're doing is the biggest problem we have. Instead of fighting terrorism he's fueling it by fueling their fears of an oppressive America running the world. By using G-d in each and every speach he propogates the notion that the war isn't terrorists vs. the US. It's Islam vs. Christianity.
I've been complaining about god bless america for years.
Originally posted by BR
I've been complaining about god bless america for years.
If you are talking about when people sign off at the end of speeches, I'm for the speaker saying whatever personal thing they want to . If it happens to be a Christian that wants to say God bless America etc. so what, because the implicit freedom is that a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, whatever, can say whatever they want at the end of their speeches.
Originally posted by MarcUK
If there was a islamic president of the USA, would you'll be happy with 'praise Allah' at the end of a speech. There would be riots in the streets.
There would be riots in the streets well before that. We'll simply never have an Islamic president. That's just reality, not my opinion. If Kerry is Jewish, who knows, I suppose a "name changed" Muslim could be president someday.
But as regards to me, if it ever got to that, no, as long as it was not a part of the overall speech or policy.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Not everyone is a christian, and some rightly find it offensive.
And stifling a majority isn't offensive? 3 words: Run for office. Until then go stew in the corner. Respect for personal views extends both ways. You have the right to say "There is no God, and if there were I doubt he'd bless us anyway" at the ends of your speeches, should you even get into office. But tolerance isn't merely letting atheists run around in a God free society, it is also letting religious people be as religious as they want to be, up to and including being a freak about it.
And I'm practically an atheist (although atheism is now such a hostile ideology I avoid the term.)
Originally posted by MarcUK
Apart from that, it is just plain stupid, because whatever the intention, it will come across to many people (most likely the entire populous of the middle east) as a christian vs islam thing, only adding weight to their arguments when recruiting a new batch of terrorists.
It is a Christian vs Islam thing ? to them. Just as an overly suspicious, accusing wife can cause the husband to cheat, so too can a predominantly Christian nation get fed up and go on the offensive.
Which is it: that America is a decadent, image and sex obsessed, greedy, loveless, depraved, divorce-filled, gluttonous, Godless nation (according to Evangelical preachers and radical islamic rhetoric) or we are a Christian nation that is on a Christian-based Crusade to defeat Islam?
Puh-leez. Yes, we are anti-Radical Islamist and we will destroy it like we did the National Socialists and the Imperial Japanese but that has nothing to do with being anti-Islam the religion, anti-Arab/Muslim the people.
Germans and Japanese are a free prosperous people and so too will be the people of the middle east. God has nothing to do with it. (Last I checked Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism and Taoism are still "allowed" in "occupied" Japan.
Originally posted by MarcUK
If God would bless any nation, I'd sure as hell bet that it most definately not be the USA. Its just plain old dumb psychological trickery to round the sheep. There should be no place for religion (ie. unproven personal beliefs) in the context of running a country or the slaughter of thousands of people. Isn't that a fundamental reason why were in this mess?
Blather and flame bait.
Funny how hateful speech is fine when it's your particular little cynical clique is doing it.
We're in this mess because of hateful intolerance of others as you have displayed in those words. The Taliban blew up ancient, beautiful, culturally important Buddhist statues for being un-Islamic. I have no doubt whatsover you would do the same to American and Christian structures if you had the freedom to do so.
Sad.
There would be riots in the streets well before that. We'll simply never have an Islamic president.
Why, because Americans are not as tolerant and diverse as you claim? Because alignment to some unproven person belief is more important than capability?
And stifling a majority isn't offensive?
who are you stifling, by not uttering the words?
3 words: Run for office. Until then go stew in the corner.
sadly I dont have $150million to waste
Respect for personal views extends both ways.
Exactly.
You have the right to say "There is no God, and if there were I doubt he'd bless us anyway" at the ends of your speeches, should you even get into office.
But I wouldn't, because my personal unproven belief has exacly nothing whatsoever to do with how capable I am in running a country
But tolerance isn't merely letting atheists run around in a God free society.
True
it is also letting religious people be as religious as they want to be, up to and including being a freak about it.
sure, in their homes, churches, etc.But when they are the most powerful people in the world, their unproven personal opinion is not required when all that matters is that the job gets done properly and honestly.
And I'm practically an atheist (although atheism is now such a hostile ideology I avoid the term.)
I refuse to align myself to anything.
It is a Christian vs Islam thing ? to them.
Which is exactly why, we should not be aligning ouselves to anything. It is about civility vs terrorism
Just as an overly suspicious, accusing wife can cause the husband to cheat, so too can a predominantly Christian nation get fed up and go on the offensive.
But it should not be in the name of Christianity, or blessed by Christianity OR god. It should be about civility vs terrorism.
Which is it: that America is a decadent, image and sex obsessed, greedy, loveless, depraved, divorce-filled, gluttonous,
sadly true, along with most of the western world, of which I am part.
Godless nation (according to Evangelical preachers and radical islamic rhetoric).
no comment
or we are a Christian nation that is on a Christian-based Crusade to defeat Islam?
Thats the impression you get when you give an unproven personal opinion at the end of a speech.
Puh-leez. Yes, we are anti-Radical Islamist and we will destroy it like we did the National Socialists and the Imperial Japanese.
good, i hope we do. But, should we be fighting Radical-Islamists, or terrorism. Not every radical-islamist is a terrorist, and the peaceful one's think were on a crusade.
but that has nothing to do with being anti-Islam the religion, anti-Arab/Muslim the people.
in an ideal world.
Germans and Japanese are a free prosperous people and so too will be the people of the middle east. God has nothing to do with it. (Last I checked Buddhism, Shintoism, Confucianism and Taoism are still "allowed" in "occupied" Japan.
"God has nothing to do with it". You said it.
Blather and flame bait.
Much overracting i think
Funny how hateful speech is fine when it's your particular little cynical clique is doing it.
And you're coming across as...
We're in this mess because of hateful intolerance of others as you have displayed in those words.
No I am saying that Religion and state should be seperate. There is no place for unproven personal opinion in the serious job of running a country.
The Taliban blew up ancient, beautiful, culturally important Buddhist statues for being un-Islamic.
I don't doubt the Taliban are Scum
I have no doubt whatsover you would do the same to American and Christian structures if you had the freedom to do so.
WHATEVER! No, I wouldn't. Are you implying that I am a likely terrorist?
Sad.
reeeaaaaalllly
Originally posted by MarcUK
WHATEVER! No, I wouldn't. Are you implying that I am a likely terrorist?
Sad.
reeeaaaaalllly
Ok neither of you are any such thing.
Originally posted by MarcUK
I might get flamed for this, but I wonder to myself, what would happen if we spent $100 billion being genuinely nice, friendly and understanding. It seems most of the large terrorist threats come from impoverished countries, where a few with the $, can lead a whole army of uneducated idealistic peasants. If they had homes, jobs, education, prospects, responsibilities, commitments, would they feel the need to blow the shit out of us?
This is what I wonder about too. The way I see it, Pride is a big motivator of the "kill or be killed" "he hit me, so I'll hit him" attitude. And likewise, Pride would be a big motivator to not accept help from someone. "leave us alone! we'll figure it out on our own!"
I'm sure many would welcome earnest loving and helpful attitude, but somehow it seems like the same who go out of their way to kill us, would be just as virile without the bombs involved.
Also, any humanitarian acts would be working against the inertia of thousands of years of malcontent wrought from the crusades, and more recently all the crass rallying statements mr. bush likes to make.
I was talking to someone about this, they believed that non-violent appeasement can never work, because it has never worked in the past. But the way I see it, it's not that it has never worked in the past, it's that no one has ever earnestly and steadfastly tried it! What's more, those who DID try it, succeeded!
I think with the massive steps we've made towards human and civil rights(remember most of the the things we take for granted today would be unheard of 2000 years ago) these concepts are so fresh and so new, that now is as good a time as ever to actually try non-violent forms of appeasement.
unfortunately, once you retaliate, you put in motion a cycle that would be very difficult to stop.
Violence in whatever name will never solve the situation. You cannot bomb every terroist into submission. You might, however let them be so succombed to greed and self fulfillment that they really dont give a shit about anyone else.
[edit] what I meant to say, was that if the whole world was trapped in the same rat-race as the rest of us....
Or using psychological tricks to get support?
Seeing GWB use god and christianity so much particularly when talking about the war on terror, saddens me greatly, how un-christian of him.