Al Qaeda's information warriors
The Times of London has a story from a trial of three al Qaeda ops who were disseminating info for al Qaeda in Iraq.
Quote:
Violent al-Qaeda propaganda, including footage of the beheading of hostages, was distributed around the globe by computer by young men sitting in their bedrooms in Britain, a court heard yesterday.
Three men appeared before Woolwich Crown Court accused of inciting terrorism abroad. They were said to have a “close affiliation” with al-Qaeda in Iraq, the group founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Younis Tsouli, 23, Waseem Mughal, 24, and Tariq al-Daour, 21, allegedly played important roles in al-Qaeda’s “media war” and had massive quantities of films, audio recordings, books and documents promoting the extremist ideology of Osama bin Laden and global jihad.
Among the footage found in police raids on their homes in London and Kent were films of the beheading of the British engineer Kenneth Bigley as well as the executions of American, Korean, Japanese, Egyptian, Iraqi, Turkish and Bulgarian hostages.
The footage of Mr Bigley’s death was found in a computer file labelled “The throat slitting of the Briton who Blair and his people would not help”. Other video material showed him pleading for his life along with his fellow hostages, the Americans Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong.
Police also seized film of the beheadings in Iraq of the Americans Nick Berg and Paul Marshall Johnson Jr, and the murder in Pakistan of the US journalist Daniel Pearl. The videos contained scenes of hostages as their heads were severed.
Other films found on the men’s computers or on discs in their rooms included footage of suicide attacks in Iraq, the video wills of “martyrs” and stylised productions eulogising the 9/11 hijackers.
...
Mr Tsouli had a Powerpoint presentation entitled “carbom-bzip” and another file containing video clips of the World Bank building and the US Capitol in Washington DC and the George Washington National Masonic Memorial.
A CD was found in the home of Mr Mughal containing a file giving instructions on how to make a suicide-bomb vest.
Mr al-Daour had a CD file entitled “special course in manufacturing explosives”, a document with instructions for firing a rocket-propelled grenade and a data file, “The Mujahidin Explosives Handbook”.
...
There is more at the link. I have comments on the group here.
The Red Nosed Dragon. Debunking Muslim Terrorism.
The general idea sustaining the following suggestion has been largely inspired by a mere statement counterterrorism expert Brian M. Jenkins made in Unconquerable Nation; Knowing our Enemy; Strenghtening Ourselves. In a chapter of this essay titled What Does Bin Laden Really Fear, the author wonders at some point:
Quote:
“What worries bin Laden the most?
It is not death. Bin Laden exhorts others to martyrdom, and although he does not seek it himself, he has said several times that he will not be taken alive. Of course, one would hardly expect him to announce that, if cornered, he will meekly surrender. But for the past quarter-century, he has chosen a path of danger from which there is no return. We concede his willingness to face death.
(….) For bin Laden, rejection and ridicule would be worse than death.
(….) We in the West sometimes seem to pay more attention to bin Laden’s latest screeds than do those in the community he addresses. It is hugely entertaining for the Muslim world to watch the jihadist torment the tiger, but to many Muslims, even those angered by U.S. policies, bin Laden is a crackpot.”
In this chapter Brian M. Jenkins identifies other sources of concerns for Bin Laden, but previous incidents and anecdotes tend to suggest that the aforementioned one applies not only to the Al Qaeda leader, but to Muslim terrorists and their organizations overall.
Political and religious power relies overwhelmingly, and always, on universally acknowledged recognizance and on fear in numerous instances. That’s why one of its worst enemies is what any political or religious power fears the most in general: ridicule and discredit.
On October 15, 1940, the famous American actor Charlie Chaplin released his first dialogue picture, The Great Dictator, a fearless satire of Adolf Hitler and Nazism. The Great Dictator had to become the most commercially successful film Charlie Chaplin ever made.
The film was seen as an act of courage in the political environment of the time. Chaplin played the role of a Nazi-like dictator "Adenoid Hynkel," unmistakably modeled on Hitler. The names of the aides of Adenoid Hynkel are similar to those of Hitler. "Garbitsch" (pronounced "garbage"), the right hand man of Hynkel is very similar to that of Joseph Goebbels and Field Marshal "Herring" was clearly modelled after the Luftwaffe chief, Hermann Goering while beyond doubt the "Diggaditchie" of Bacteria, Benzino Napaloni, was modelled after Benito Mussolini.
In The Great Dictator, the rally speech by Hynkel, delivered in German-sounding gibberish, is a superb caricature of Hitler's oratory style, which Chaplin studied carefully in newsreels.
Coincidence make that, sixty seven years after the first release of The Great Dictator Al Qaeda’s doctrine is a syncretic creation that embraces and integrates elements drawn from Western revolutionary socialism and European nihilist antecedents. The notion that “the world can be transformed by terror is not a peculiarly Islamic aberration,” as John Gray, a British political philosopher and author, currently School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, has observed:
Quote:
“From the Jacobins through . . . the Baader-Meinhof gang, the modern West has spawned ideologies and movements that sanction the use of terror to make a better world. Even the Nazis . . . believed that they were creating a new and superior type of human being. However horrible their utopian vision, all these movements
believed they could create a future better than anything that had existed in the past by the systematic use of violence. Al-Qa’ida has more in common with these modern Western experiments in terror than it does with anything in Islamic traditions”.
Gray, John, Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern, London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 2003.
Satire has been regularly used as weapon in all times of politics and warfare since it belongs to the realm of psychological warfare, but not as much as it could have been. The reason explaining this stems from mere deterrence since it is so easy to do to others what others do against you when it comes to mockery. Any government and any political leader are vulnerable to ridicule in one way or another since this form of propaganda can dearly undermine people’s confidence and obedience to authority. But what can do terrorists against that if we attack them thus way without attacking Islam and the Muslim world?
At this regard the policy of the United States has been this of relative passivity and the U.S. Government, its institution and political leaders seldom strike back in a similar manner. If some foreign countries are consistent in their willingness to favor or discreetly fuel anti-Americanism or even varied slanderous acts of aggressive propaganda against U.S. Presidents, for example, then the United States has reacted with equal consistence in its unwillingness to size countless immediately available opportunities to strike back the same way.
Is this passivity opportun when it comes to irrational violence? No, as the example of the film The Great Dictator shows us.
When circumstances happen to be exceptionally compelling and are likely to gather the general approval of the public opinion, of an overwhelming majority of honest citizens whose security and freedom are seriously put in jeopardy at some point, then the recourse to exceptional methods is not only likely to gather general a general approval, but is even expected.
That’s why the idea sustaining this post is to advocate the recourse to offensive psychological countermeasures against Muslim terrorism in general and against Al Qaeda in particular. Note that I say countermeasures since Muslim terrorism relies largely on internet and to the attention of the media to spread its propaganda and to emulate vocations. Those countermeasures would focus on undermining the generally perceived and admitted credit of Islamic terrorists and this of their cells and broader organizations, and more particularly of this of their infamous perpetrators and leaders. As previously suggested by Brian M. Jenkins in Unconquerable Nation the best option I would equally recommend consist simply of turning Muslim terrorism into ridicule so as to discredit it, on the one hand, and as a way of providing moral superiority, self confidence and strength to its victims, on the other hand.
Terrorists and their leaders benefit of worldwide media coverage; that is to say superior to this many statesmen and movie star do. During the past 6 years Osama Bin Laden has enjoyed worldwide a media coverage close to this of the Pope, and far greater than people such as the Japanese Prime Minister or the German Chancellor. Almost each time Osama Bin Laden releases a speech it is immediately broadcasted worldwide.
No matter how infamous they are considered by most of us Muslim terrorists have won exactly what they expected: notoriety and credit. An inquiry I made on July 2007 shows that Al Qaeda and its leader Ossama Bin Laden won huge notoriety. Looking for books and biographies on and of notorious person provides a hint of his notoriety in virtue of the law of the offer and demand. In the table bellow some popularly known persons picked up at random are ranked by the number of books found on Amazon.com in entering their name.
Titles found on Amazon.com, July 2007.
16 on George W. Bush
15 on Pope Benedict XVI
13 on Vladimir Putin
10 on Tony Blair
6 on Hu Jintao
6 on Osama Bin Laden
1 on the King of Jordan (Abdullah II).
1 on Angela Merkel
1 on Jacques Chirac
0 on the King of Saudi Arabia (Abdullah bin Abdulaziz).
Note that I am reasoning here in terms of notoriety, independently of the fact that this notoriety can be positive or not.
When looking on Yahoo.com for the number of available entries relating to names of popularly know persons picked up at random provided the following results.
Entries found on Yahoo.com. July 2007.
377,000,000 Harry Potter
124,000,000 Britney Spears
77,900,000 Tony Blair
63,200,000 George W. Bush
38,400,000 Dick Cheney
20,100,000 Angela Merkel
19,800,000 Vladimir Putin
19,700,000 Richard Reid (the “shoe bomber”)
19,200,000 Kofi Annan (former UNO Secretary)
18,800,000 Jacques Chirac
16,500,000 Osama Bin Laden
8,500,000 Yasser Arafat
7,090,000 Lady Diana
5,220,000 Ban Ki-moon (UNO Secretary)
4,890,000 Benedict XVI
4,110,000 Hu Jintao
2,450,000 Abdullah II (King of Jordan)
1,670,000 Zacarias Moussaoui (French Muslim terrorist of Morrocan origin)
1,110,000 Mohamed Atta (9/11 hijacker)
155,000 Abdullah bin Abdulaziz (King of Saudi Arabia)
While taking a look at this ranking list we can notice that Ossama Bin Laden collects nearly three times more public interest than the General Secretary of the United Nations or the Pope Benedict XVI; four times more than the President of the Popular Republic of China. However, it is interesting to note than the Muslim terrorist Richard Reid (aka the “Shoe Bomber”) has largely beaten his spiritual leader, while Zaccarias Moussaoui and Mohamed Atta are well down the list, contrary to all guesses.
Today, Islam and terrorism are promising commodities for authors and politicians in order to get reputation and recognition. But, regretfully, many studies about the good vs. bad publicity issue have shown that any publicity is good publicity.
Richard Reid is the clown I would choose in my satire, owing to his particular physical features and to its authentic stupidity. He is the perfect dumb and he is so notorious already, as Yahoo.com testifies for.
About Ossama Bin Laden, I would just name him "Overladen Bin."
"Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?"
"A: One...and it's not funny."
This old, classic joke from the 70s plays exactly on what you are talking about Dominique. Having started my undergraduate education at one of the most left-wing campuses in the U.S. (Reed College), I encountered many extremely serious and perennially indignant militant types. I do remember well that the absolutely worst thing from their point of view was ridicule or any sort of humor directed at their own sense of high seriousness. And that happened to be a time in my life when I was only too happy to supply the required ridicule. This occasionally resulted in unpleasantness, even once having a heavy object hurled at my head. :D
So I'm predisposed to agree with you that satire is an excellent pyschological weapon. Anyone using it against a target connected to Islam (whether the "real" kind or some "perversion" of it, a subject that is beyond me) would need to be very careful and "culturally sensitive" (god I hate that phrase but I guess we're stuck with it). I think of the Danish cartoons and George Bush's inadvertent use of the word "crusade" and so on, and shudder at how easily we in the West manage to pass the Law of Unintended Consequences over and over again. Still, more power to anyone who can wield satire with the required subtlety!
The Red Nosed Dragon. Debunking Muslim Terrorism. (Part II)
Nat,
First of all, this long answer is nothing but a gathering of personal notes I previously wrote about that case. It shed light on the point you underline, but it is longer enough to fill two comments.
Your point is correct about the Danish Cartoons, as it applies in the case of similar cartoons published by the French satitic newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Engaging into such propaganda action requires not attacking or criticizing Islamic religion, Muslims, and people of Arabic countries as well. I continue to argument my point bellow about this question, though, once more I do not have the feeling to be the author of a great idea since Brian M. Jenkins pointed his finger on this vulnerability first.
Which advantages are to be found in retaliating against Muslim terrorism by way of offensive propaganda, and which can be the constraints we meet, possibly?
Although Muslim terrorism happens to collect interest and relatively discreet assistance from certain foreign governments, on a case by case basis, terrorist cells and groups remain a non-state actor. It doesn’t exert any control over any nation and it doesn’t enjoy any form of assistance or judicial assistance from international organizations such as the U.N.O. or the UNESCO when it comes to media and culture spreading.
Therefore, it cannot expect legal recourse and any of its possible claims about unfair propaganda attacks or similar reasons cannot be received. Equally, foreign countries expressing sympathy for the cause of Muslim terrorism can hardly legally retaliate on their behalf. At this regards the only likely exceptions to this rule at this time might be the Islamic Republic of Iran which has been regularly involved in Muslim terrorist operations worldwide since 1982 at least, and in insurgency in Iraq since the last three years, reportedly. But Iran has outlawed itself, owing to its non-respect of sanctions imposed by the U.N.O. and, as result of its reckless hostile behavior and policy Iran has lost much credibility on the international stage overall.
It ensues that Al Qaeda in particular and any other Muslim terrorists in general, whichever the organization or group they belong to are, cannot expect any consideration, sympathy or legal recourse if ever they happened to be the target of an open and massively orchestrated hostile propaganda. This point provides the United States and its allies with certain advantage and comfort.
In revenge, Muslim terrorist organizations are relatively well sheltered from hostile propaganda directed at them each time Muslim religion is mentioned or taken as cause of Muslim violence. This fact has been best exemplified by this we know today as the “Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Cartoons Controversy” (aka the Danish Cartoons affair).
For the record, on September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted in a satiric manner the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist, and argue that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of ignorance about the history of western imperialism, from colonialism to the current conflicts in the Middle East.
The controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries. Ultimately, this led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence, including setting fire to the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria, and the storming of European buildings and desecration of the Danish and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other radical Muslim leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats. Also, a consumer boycott was organized in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries. During weeks, numerous notable demonstrations and other protests against the cartoons took place worldwide.
On February 9, 2006, Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical political weekly newspaper published on its front page a cartoon of a weeping Prophet Muhammad saying “C'est dur d'être aimé par des cons” (“it's hard to be loved by jerks”). Compared to a regular circulation of 100,000 sold copies, this edition was a great commercial success. 160,000 copies were sold, and another 150,000 were in print later that day.
Immediately alarmed by the possible consequences, as the previous incident of the cartoons published by the Jyllands-Posten suggested it, French President Jacques Chirac did choose to publicly condemn “overt provocations” which could inflame passions. “Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided,” the French President said.
Soon, the Grand Mosque of France and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF) sued Charlie Hebdo, claiming the cartoon edition included racist cartoons. Philippe Val, Charlie Hebdo’s Publisher, retorted “It is racist to imagine that they can't understand a joke.” but Francis Szpiner, the lawyer for the Grand Mosque, argued on the plane of the very Mulsim terrorist question that: “Two of those caricatures make a link between Muslims and Muslim terrorists. That has a name and it's called racism.”
On March 22, 2007, the French court finally acquited executive editor Philippe Val. The court followed the state attorney's reasoning that two of the three cartoons were not an attack on Islam, but on Muslim terrorists, and that the third cartoon with Mohammed with a bomb in his turban should be seen in the context of the magazine in question which attacked religious fundamentalism.
The aforesaid examples show us the difficulties and constraints one may face when attempting to mock Islamist fundamentalism. If ever the United States decided to engage into psychological warfare against Muslim terrorism the way I recommend here, then there would be a more obvious need not to be vulnerable to retaliation on the ground of intolerance toward Islam and racism. But that’s not all.
For, Arabs states are especially proud of their culture and common identity and any intrusive attempt of this sort I am proposing is likely to be misunderstood if not carefully prepared. The example of satellite broadcasting in Arabic countries enlightens us about this constraint since it is difficult to accurately circumvent the geographic scope of Arabic Muslim identity on Internet.
Among the many international organizations or the bilateral initiatives of common exploitation of communication satellites, certain aim first and foremost at a political finality. This was the case of the Arab Satellite Communications Organization (or NASCO, but also known as Arabsat). On the one hand, this satellite telecommunication system which operates five satellites platforms is in keeping with the Arab League to realize a large project whose aims are to express an Arabic cultural unity. But, inasmuch as the NASCO beams also on non-Arab Muslim countries in Africa and as far as on the Republic of Zaire, and on the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the Middle East, it is also perceived as a mean of unity between the Arabic Islam and the non-Arabic Islam. The goal of the NASCO is to secure the cultural independence of an Arabic identity in providing it with autonomous means in the domains of information and telecommunications as well.
In Algeria, the opponents to satellite dishes defend that they represent “a tool of customs’ perversion” of the Islamic society. Algerian Muslim fundamentalists protest against what they see as an “enterprise of social subversion and cultural alienation that questions fourteen centuries of Muslim unity,” and which “throws at the face of the Maghrebin viewer a string of sacrileges: ostentatious mixing, promotion of alcohol, indecent attitudes, and provocative commercials.”
All this give us a hint about the way the Muslim Arabic world may react to our possible attempt to interact thus way with it and it suggest to us to keep this parameter in mind.
But at this last regard and about the question of freedom of opinion and information the position of the United States has always been consistent since it advocate the free utilization of satellites or the sake of communication and television broadcasting in arguing both legal arguments and political considerations.
From a legal viewpoint, the United States remind the freedom of information as it is defined by the article 19 of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR). This text consecrates the internationalization of communication in granting to any individual “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The United States equally underlined the free utilization of the extra-atmospheric space as declared in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
On a political viewpoint, the United States has managed to make his viewpoint consistent in insisting on direct contact between people which guarantee the independence of the viewers facing the power of the State. This subscribes to a U.S. doctrine of the information at the service of people and not to this of governments.
That’s why any attempt to discredit Muslim terrorists should resist the temptation to clearly associate it with unmistakable Muslim and Arabic features. But this apparently challenging constraint does not question the feasibility of my suggestion.
The Red Nosed Dragon. Debunking Muslim Terrorism. (Part III)
But before explaining how we can discredit Muslim terrorists, I must underline a second constraint. As I explained while commenting the cases of the satiric cartoons on Muslim fundamentalism and intolerance, if there are ways to find compromises so as not to hurt the exacerbate sensibility of religious Muslims, then Muslim terrorists are much likely to look for retaliation if ever they feel that their honor and their cause are in jeopardy. This behavior is typical of this of the true believer in general and it especially applies about dedicated Muslim believers.
That’s why Muslim fundamentalists are much more likely to attempt lethal retaliation against those who are identified as the authors of propaganda actions against them and their credo than Nazi were with Charlie Chaplin. This risk and the high probability of its happening prevent us from requesting the participation of famous actors and humorists, celebrities, filmmakers, artists, journalists, and other public persons likely to collect the interest of a large audience. Media, film companies, and movie theaters as well are equally concerned by this threat if ever they officially offer their collaboration in the frame of such undertakings.
If ever a Jim Carrey or any other actor of the same breed is sincerely willing to walk on the steps of Charlie Chaplin it would be unwise to expect that famous actors and movie companies would take such risk, and put the life of their employees and customers at stake. That’s why all actions and works done in order to serve the goals and aims of the psychological operation I am suggesting have to be prepared and undertaken with suitable discretion.
Since the media, authors, and private companies which can manufacture, promote, release, and market propaganda films and video, items and else are likely to be equally targeted by terrorists, then special provisions would have to be taken in these other cases too.
As I said, thinking, designing, making and manufacturing steps have to be done with suited discretion, not to say secrecy. The authors and source must be elusive, preferably.
When it comes to films and videos making, actors and figurants’ names should be nicknames, preferably. Make up and slight modifications of the physical features of those contributors would be equally commendable. Of course, those natural constraints do not arise in the case of cartoons, sketches, pamphlets, graphic design, special effects and photo montage, and other technical aspects of the works on a general basis since they are of unknown origin as soon as no one claims their paternity.
The primary source of release and promotion should be Internet, preferably, which just happens to be the very primary source of release and promotion used by terrorists and their cells and organizations. This should easily allow suitable anonymity. Once films, video, pamphlets and sketches and other satiric items should be available online, then internet blogs, websites, web newspapers and magazines and other off-line media alike should run no risk in announcing and commenting their existence and the usual rumor and gossip will achieve the last step of each and every of these psychological actions. The role of the media is to act, wittingly or not, as a sound box, as some acoustic music instruments need a sound box to amplify the vibration of a string. This is common practice for the propaganda specialist.
Is retaliation expected on such ground?
Yes, possibly. But, once more, it will be harder for the opponent if the attacks do not make allusion to Islam, to religious Muslims and to a country or a civilization in particular. That’s the mistake Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and French newpaper Charlie Hebdo did; and in these cases the sanction happened that way.
On February 6, 2006, Farid Mortazavi, graphics editor of Hamshahri, announced a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust, in response to the twelve cartoons published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to challenge Western use of the Freedom of Speech.
The twelve best contributions were to be rewarded with a golden coin each, which were later increased to $5000 to $12000 prizes for the top 3 cartoons and 3 gold coins each for 12 other cartoonists. Later, Hamshahri published an English introduction to the contest, as well as preliminary rules.
In that introductory message for the contest, they denounced what they called Western hypocrisy on the freedom of speech, alleging that "it is impossible in the West to joke upon or even discuss certain topics related to Judaism, such as the Holocaust, and the pretexts for the creation of Israel."
On February 14, 2006, the editor in chief of Hamshahri commented in Persian that "the purpose of establishing such a competition is not to offend or ridicule anyone, but to do a discussion about the realities of the Holocaust." He also indicated that Hamshahri tries really hard not to cause pain for anyone and also added that the newspaper has no contention with the Jews in Iran or any other place, but that it has problems with Zionism.
Masood Shojaei, the director of Iran’s Caricature House which cosponsored the competition also said: "Iran’s Caricature House, as the only technically qualified center involved in the competition regards the holocaust topic as a terrible and saddening issue". The exhibition put on by The Iran Cartoon Organisation and Hamshahri newspaper opened on August 14, 2006.
After the winners were announced in November 2006, Shojaei said the competition would become an annual event. The Associated Press quoted him as saying "Actually, we will continue until the destruction of Israel." Eventually, Shojaei categorically denied that he even spoke to the Associated Press reporter.
We may notice that Iran took the initiative of this retaliation and that the feud stemmed from critics over the fact that Muslims and Islam were aimed at; not terrorism or extremist Islamism, even though it was clearly what the Danish cartoonists had in mind.
Some people just can't take a joke!
Well, humor is ingrained in OUR society. One of the first weapons used by Americans after 911 was making fun of the morons that caused this one on us. We have been doing this ever since. In my opinion we have a "society" of our own. If "they" don't like than that is just tough ####. Humor is a great weapon. Especially, in today's war against terror.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqtpfq6OJ9A
Attacking the al Qaeda "Narrative"
General James Mattis - Attacking the al Qaeda "Narrative" by Jim Guirard at the SWJ Blog...
Quote:
In his June 2007 State Department E-Journal article, New Paradigms For 21st Century Conflicts, Dr. Dave Kilcullen of General David Petraeus' senior staff in Baghdad called for, among other things, a "New Lexicon" for better defining and more effectively defeating enemies which subscribe to the faith-based mantra of "Death to America, the Great Satan".
In other public statements and in several Small Wars Journal postings, Kilcullen entered very slowly, very prudently into the virtually verboten realm of attacking al Qaeda-style Terrorism in Islamic religious context, rather than in Western secular terms only -- referring to the AQ terrorists as "munafiquun" (hypocrites to authentic, Qur'anic Islam) and pointing out that "they call themselves mujahideen" but are doing barbaric things which are anything but holy.
To which this word warrior says: Spot on! Two small steps for a good man, two giant steps for truth-in-language and truth-in-Islam in the War on al Qaeda-style Terrorism -- a.k.a., Irhabi Murderdom and the AQ Apostasy, as this essay recommends as its most appropriate new names.
But even these two measured Kilcullen attacks on the terrorists' religious legitimacy were in conflict with the State Department's basic rule in such matters. As stated on page 25 of the US National Strategy For Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, the official advisory is, in part, as follows: Use caution when dealing with faith issues. Government officials should be extremely cautious and, if possible, avoid using religious language, because it can mean different things and can be easily misunderstood...
Part of me is drawn to this but...
It also worries me. I think back to Dubya's frequent use of mufsiduun (well, really the English evildoers) way back when. I remember well the nearly universal postmodern sneering at this sort of talk that ensued around my university, at cocktail parties, in the Western media generally. And I'm sure the same thing would happen all over again if our government or military tried talking that way again as a deliberate matter of policy.
Maybe it doesn't matter, but maybe it does. I don't know exactly how attuned your average Mahmoud is to the discordant din of public discourse in the West, but I'll bet that whatever edge such an alternative lexicon might potentially have, it would be substantially dulled by our own cacophany over its use. It might even backfire. It would be one thing if Muslims themselves naturally developed this alternative lexicon, but I'm pretty nervous about us trying to adopt it as a deliberate tactic.
Satirist turns terrorists into Dad's Army
From today's Sunday Times.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle3177654.ece
Quote:
CHRIS MORRIS, the satirist whose television act features jokes about paedophilia, drugs, incest and rape, is to make a movie intended to show the funny side of terrorism.
He says the film will seek to do for Islamic terrorism what Dad’s Army, the classic BBC comedy, did for the Nazis by showing them as “scary but also ridiculous”.
Morris said: “Most of us would dearly love to laugh in the face of our worst fears. Why aren’t we laughing at terrorists? Because we don’t know how to, until now.”
Though the film is a work of fiction, Morris has researched it over the past two years by visiting places in Britain associated with terrorist plots, including Leeds, Bradford and Luton.
“I don’t plan for this film to be offensive, but I do want it to be very funny,” Morris said. “I accept, though, that some may find poking fun at terrorists is offensive.
“There is this Dad’s Army side of terrorism and that’s what this film is exploring,” said Morris, who once, while hosting a Radio 1 show, made a hoax announcement about the death of Michael Heseltine, the former Conservative deputy prime minister.
For those not familiar with Mr Morris and his humour, here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvyX-CwHpAQ
Should be interesting...
Dean Ing's "Soft Targets"
Y'all are discussing one of the major threads in Dean Ing's "Soft Targets". A great read by a brilliant fiction writer. Note that in the book the comedian who has the nerve to initiate the humor campaign against the irhabi becomes a target of violence, and also note that this book was written in the late '70s early '80s.
My favorite joke from the book was something like (forgive me as I don't have a copy on my desk);
Achmed: "We must kidnap everyone who thinks we are idiots!"
Abdul: "But Achmed, where are we going to keep five billion hostages?"
Also, Jeff Dunham and Achmed the Dead Terrrorist are an excellent example of anti-irhabi humor (though targeted at Western audiences). Gotta love the eyebrows.
I agree that one of the major unspoken objectives of the AQ criminals is to be taken seriously. They also want legitimacy. If we would try to deny them legitimacy, why not also deny them the serious tone that they crave?
