Counter-narratives and Info Ops: Debating Jihadi YouTube Videos

[davidbfpo]

The Danger Room article cited by Erich is:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...rror-wannabes/

This is worth citing:

jihadi wannabes can still find such content on counterterrorism research sites. The most recent issue of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s America-focused Inspire magazine actually warned readers to stay away from jihadi websites and visit terrorist research sites such as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) and SITE Intelligence Group to find al-Qaeda material and avoid attracting the attention of intelligence agencies.

YouTube stepping up enforcement of its policies against extremist content isn’t a bad thing. But policymakers in the United States and Britain should be clear about what this will achieve and what it won’t. Limiting videos from al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers on the most popular online video site simply means placing it just a few inches off prime shelf space — not taking it off the internet entirely.

[davidbfpo]

I am curious that this pressure on You Tube to remove some content took place now, even if the videos feature the feared cleric al-Awlaki.

In neither the Home Secretary's in London or her junior Security Minister's speech in Washington DC, were the videos explicitly referred to (speeches:http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N4CD17AFA05486/ and http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...y_strategy.pdf

Yes, the impact of such videos featured in the radicalisation of a woman who stabbed a MP:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11682732

An "easy win" and some helpful headlines I fear. Almost reminiscent of the action taken to stop Irish republican speakers during 'The Troubles', with their voices silenced and dubbed over. A policy that didn't last that long, long enough to be cited decades later.

Maybe it is all politics; this article offers an explanation:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...terrorism-laws

Where is the counter-offensive in Info Ops? Yes, some of it will be covert, IMHO not much sign of activity in the open. One drawback is that those who wish to view such material may already be far too far along the radicalisation process, or the "snakes & ladders" model (espoused by NYPD's study) to listen to the counter-narrative.

Is the counter-offensive principally aimed at the vast "silent" majority, retaining their loyalty or at a minimum neutrality; the "vulnerable" to radicalisation even those already radicalised?

Erich - there is an earlier thread 'Countering online radicalisation: Is government censorship effective?' and link:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7528

[Joske]

This is an interesting article about Zachary Adam Chesser.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...g_the_watchers

About the question if it is a good strategy to take down these videos instead of countering them with info-ops of ourselves, you should first determine the reason why these "facebook-terrorists" post them online and what effects they have.
On another note this world of jihadi-websites and would-be internet terrorists, could provide an excellent opportunity to do psuedo-operations and locate would-be terrorists.

[Rex Brynen]

If anyone has ever followed the quality of "debates" on YouTube, they'll see the immediate flaw with the notion that you could use it as a forum to counter jihadist propaganda...

...namely, that any intelligent counter-argument that one might frame and post would soon be lost in the deluge of marginally semi-literate racist anti-Muslim posts by other YouTube users. These, in turn, would only strengthen the jihadist narrative that we're in the midst of a civilizational war, with Islam pitted against a hostile (and rather moronic) West.

YouTube political discussions probably rank among the stupidest, most depressing things on the planet. I sometimes want to shower after accidentally reading them.

[Taiko]

If anyone has ever followed the quality of "debates" on YouTube, they'll see the immediate flaw with the notion that you could use it as a forum to counter jihadist propaganda...

...namely, that any intelligent counter-argument that one might frame and post would soon be lost in the deluge of marginally semi-literate racist anti-Muslim posts by other YouTube users. These, in turn, would only strengthen the jihadist narrative that we're in the midst of a civilizational war, with Islam pitted against a hostile (and rather moronic) West.

YouTube political discussions probably rank among the stupidest, most depressing things on the planet. I sometimes want to shower after accidentally reading them.

We are also assuming that fanatical islamist will conduct a 'rational' debate on the 'flaws' in their argument with westerners.