Attacking the al Qaeda "Narrative"

[Dominique R. Poirier]

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.