The Terrorist's Point of View

I just read this in today's Wall Street Journal (excerpted below)...

Quote:

---

The austere but gripping "Bullet in the Head," which has already been released in Spain and comes out in France in March, is part of a new wave of fact-based European films grappling with terrorism in striking and unusually visual ways. Other examples include "Hunger," a brutally savage yet painterly depiction of IRA prisoner Bobby Sands' 1981 hunger strike directed by English contemporary artist and former Turner Prize winner Steve McQueen; Germany's Golden Globe-nominated "The Baader Meinhof Complex," about a radical group of left-wing European terrorists who began operating at the end of the 1960s and gave birth to the Red Army Faction; and the French-made "Public Enemy No. 1, parts 1 & 2," a diptych of films about the notorious gangster and pseudo-terrorist Jacques Mesrine, who roiled France during the 1970s.

All these films have attracted controversy for choosing to depict terrorism from the terrorists' point of view -- an approach far removed from the usual Hollywood focus on officers enforcing the law.

---

from Radical Chic: Europe's New Wave of Films About Terrorism
Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2009

I don't have a lot to say on this, but I am interested in the reaction from the rest of the board, particularly the social sciences folks. As someone with an interest in training and military education, I see value in films that are able to convey the motivations and general mindset of our adversaries. If that can help to educate our personnel and make them more effective in combating our adversaries and in deterring people from joining their ranks, then great. On the other hand, I wonder whether the directors, "get it right." When is the last time that you saw a movie about the US military that even came close to getting it right?

That thought aside, should it trouble us that the rest of our society will be watching these films? Is there any real danger that a significant number of people will become sympathetic to our adversaries? Or that the films might even be recruitment tools within our country or, more likely, in countries where the terrorists/insurgents/others generally hail from?

Movies from the terrorist perspective don't necessarily make terrorism look good.

Or did you feel an urge to bomb U.S. battleships when viewing "Tora! Tora! Tora!"?

The European terrorism was very different than the Muslim terrorism is - European terrorism of the 70's was highly political and directed against a single opponent state.

At least the German movie is a kind of history lesson for the new generation that doesn't recall all those RAF wanted posters at police stations (these posters faded away in the early 90's).

Schmedlap,

Let's not forget Grand Theft Auto and the large demographic that it targets...

Regards,

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Movies from the terrorist perspective don't necessarily make terrorism look good.

Or did you feel an urge to bomb U.S. battleships when viewing "Tora! Tora! Tora!"?

---

I understand what you're saying. But, whether it looks "good" is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, there is no existing Japanese fleet of kamikazes that anyone can join. There are, however, a fair number of terrorist organizations that are always in need of more recruits. Fortunately, for us, the terrorist flicks mentioned are about European groups. But what if a movie were made here at home that was sympathetic to anti-globalization protesters who destroy private property or, on a more extreme level, movies that are sympathetic to even more radical organizations, such as the Earth Liberation Front? What if Adam Gadahn or John Walker Lindh were glorified? Would some people watch those and suddenly want to be part of similar groups? I think so. After all, such groups exist (or could be easily copied) and they appeal to a large number of (largely young) Americans who have an urge to live out a fantasy of being an underdog in a movement rebelling against a (perceived) evil oppressor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surferbeetle

Let's not forget Grand Theft Auto and the large demographic that it targets...

---

The thing about Grand Theft Auto is that it is mindless individual mayhem. It is not part of a movement. It does not appeal to any desire to be part of something. The desire to be part of something is, from what I've observed, a much more powerful motivator.

I'm kind of torn, here. As much as my gut detests those who become apologetics to terror as a tactic, I think there is much utility in becoming empathic, if not sympathetic to the causes of insurgents.

And I have a hard time seeing them purely as "opponents." I'm stuck on "misguided" as a term.

Putting a group in an oppositional relationship gets in the way of finding solution, imo. And while a bullet to the brainpan may be a valid solution, I don't want to rule out more non-distributive methods.

Hi Schmedlap,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

That thought aside, should it trouble us that the rest of our society will be watching these films? Is there any real danger that a significant number of people will become sympathetic to our adversaries? Or that the films might even be recruitment tools within our country or, more likely, in countries where the terrorists/insurgents/others generally hail from?

---

It wouldn't surprise me if some people became sympathetic as a result of watching them. Films like these will probably be shown in various and sundry university courses where the "message" will be interpreted into a "larger context" that may give support to the groups actions (depends on the course and the prof teaching it).

Your later point about, say, ELF viewpoint films is well taken, but a touch behind the times. ELFs message, or at least its substrate message, is already part of the mainstream of ideas floating around, and the same is true for most of the anti-globalization groups.

Far more dangerous are the shows that portray America in a false and dangerous light that plays to the suspcions of those who distrust us to begin with.

Like "24" for example. Sure, I enjoy the action and the intrigue, but then I know that it is a rediculous caricature of America. There are many, I am sure, who watch it and think "Yes, the American government is as corrupt and instable as I imagined, and her operators will go to any length to preserve her."

I know that when I spent 7 months embedded in an Eqyptian Army unit, I was shocked at the widely held perspectives of America and Americans shaped by the television and movies that we put out to the world. I also realized that many of my own perspectives of middle eastern people and culture had also been misinformed by our media at home as well.

Keep an open mind, because truth is an elusive animal indeed....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi Schmedlap,



It wouldn't surprise me if some people became sympathetic as a result of watching them. Films like these will probably be shown in various and sundry university courses where the "message" will be interpreted into a "larger context" that may give support to the groups actions (depends on the course and the prof teaching it).

Your later point about, say, ELF viewpoint films is well taken, but a touch behind the times. ELFs message, or at least its substrate message, is already part of the mainstream of ideas floating around, and the same is true for most of the anti-globalization groups.

---

Did you watch one of these films?

Maybe at least a trailer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opq65hdMJHc
It's a movie about failure.


@Bob's World;
"24" is probably a bigger problem than just that, such shows have also a domestic influence.
Popular culture stuff is often used for inward propaganda - even without government influence. Let's recall all those Cold War movies with the Russians as bad guys. Several dozen computer games and B-movies had Arabs as bad guys since about fifteen years (it began before 2001).
North Koreans, mainland Chinese and Russians are nowadays secondary bad guys next to Arabs for our entertainment industry.

I was very amused about the hypocritical critique on Hezbollah's propaganda computer game mod. Many critics really behaved as if we had no such propaganda.

Hezbollah’s video game modification from Wired (August 2007)

Quote:

---

"That game is Battlefield 2, only with some kind of Allah mod," notes one gamer at the Crossfire 3.0 forum.

---

CS Monitor’s report on Muslim video games (June 2006)

Quote:

---

It's just one of several new games produced in the Middle East with the idea that video games, like other media, play a role in shaping young minds and impacting self-esteem. The makers hope "Al-Quraysh," named after the prophet Muhammad's tribe, will help to correct the image of Islam, alleviate tensions with the West, and stoke pride among young Muslims.

---

From Slate (August 2005)

Quote:

---

Coll and Glasser don't say what games the Bin Ladens Jr. play (or if they use an "Iced Coffee" mod to add burqas to the women of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas). The world's jihadist gamers do have several titles to choose from. Hezbollah produced a game called Special Force that allows players to simulate attacks against Israeli troops. The pro-Palestinian Under Siege is in the same genre. And there is at least one children's game with some jihadi content: Innovative Minds' Islamic Fun features a game called "The Resistance" alongside inoffensive-sounding kiddie fare like "Tree Hop" and "Two Bunny Race." The storyline: "You are a farmer in South Lebanon who has joined the Islamic Resistance to defend your land and family from the invading zionists."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

It wouldn't surprise me if some people became sympathetic as a result of watching them. Films like these will probably be shown in various and sundry university courses where the "message" will be interpreted into a "larger context" that may give support to the groups actions (depends on the course and the prof teaching it).

---

Marc,
Thanks for the response. But I'm also curious - should this concern us? You have the unique perspective of having the anthropology background and the experience teaching. Based on your experience with students, do you think that the students will not only become more sympathetic, but also be more likely to act upon those sympathies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

As much as my gut detests those who become apologetics to terror as a tactic, I think there is much utility in becoming empathic, if not sympathetic to the causes of insurgents.

---

I'm with you on that. That's why I didn't have a reflexive reaction against these films. If someone could make a movie that could help me to understand what is going on inside the mind of a jihadist nutbar, then I'd donate some cash to fund the production. The reason that I don't think that I'll be following through on that intent to pay is because I think making a movie that accurately portrays our adversaries would be even more challenging than producing one that portrays our own military accurately - a feat that is rarely, if ever, accomplished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Far more dangerous are the shows that portray America in a false and dangerous light that plays to the suspcions of those who distrust us to begin with.

Like "24" for example.

---

That is a very good point. Many of us often get annoyed at shows that portray our military as a bunch of high school drop-out losers who had no other options in life. We should be equally annoyed when we're portrayed unrealistically at the other end of the spectrum.

Hi Schmedlap,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Marc,
Thanks for the response. But I'm also curious - should this concern us? You have the unique perspective of having the anthropology background and the experience teaching. Based on your experience with students, do you think that the students will not only become more sympathetic, but also be more likely to act upon those sympathies?

---

Sorry for the delay - I've been going nuts with work....

Should it be of concern? Yes, but probably not in the way most people would think of it. The real danger, to my mind, comes in the reaction of various security organizations. The likelihood of recruiting people on campus via this type of action is miniscule, but the damage to the education system can be extreme.

Look at it this way. There are three primary goals of having films like this shown in class (at least if I take the perspective of an irhabi ;)):

1. Recruitment: minimal effect, although it may generate some support amongst Muslim students and a very few non-Muslims.
2. Popular support: a much larger effect likely. This is a strike aimed at mobilizing general support against some actions and/or policies in the homeland (Canada, US, UK, whatever...). Given that the films will probably be cut to show the foreign actors in the worst possible light (or at least a bad light), this will probably enjoy some success, especially when put into the larger context of globalization / anti-globalization.
3. Security services over-reaction: this is a classic from the old wars of national liberation; try and get the security services to over-react and, quite frankly, it has succeeded in some cases. This isn't done in the sense of arrests, it's done to create a "chilly climate" and, by doing so, to "prove" that there is a conspiracy.

This gets me to your question about students being more likely to act and, again, the answer is yes, but not in a general, overt manner. I seriously doubt that you are going to get more than the miniscule amount going the overt support / attack route. What you are more likely to see is an erosion of the perception that the government is their government.

I believe the tactical and philosophical shift implemented by General P. has paid huge dividends and said dividends offset any negative ramifications of these films as they impact Public perceptions. In-country, indigenous perceptions is what counts and the radical shift from Control to Empowerment
has created person-to-person, culture-to-culture relationships never before attained in non-conventional conflict environments. The Western Public has a short memory, Iraqis and Afghans don't and that's the bottom line here - broadcast the films, it doesn't matter in Baghdad and kabul. I believe Iraqis and Afghans have entirely different perceptions of the violence that occured and to a lesser extent is still happening in their homeland and said perceptions stand in sharp contrast to Western interpretations of survival/terrorism/nationalism as portrayed by these films. One man's drug lord is another man's terrorist and one man's Jihadist is another man's kidnapper. The Western Public chooses one end of the polarity then soon forgets it.