Attacking the al Qaeda "Narrative"

[Nat Wilcox]

"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.

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!

[Dominique R. Poirier]

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.

[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.

[Abu Buckwheat]

(….) For bin Laden, rejection and ridicule would be worse than death.

This is why I love Brian Jenkins. The man is one of the few wired in old school experts around.

[marct]

Hi Dominique,

The entire area of social theatre is a really interesting one. You mentioned that people would be afraid of the possible danger, and that is true. On the other hand, we have seen some examples of anti-irhabi theatre appearing already. Here's one of the funiest:

I wanna be like Osama

There are other examples as well, such as Little Mosque on the Prairie that played on CBC and is up on YouTube.

The trick with social theatre is to correctly identify a) the audience and b) the goal. For example, Little Mosque was aimed at reducing tensions in Canada, not at stopping the irhabis.

The trick in understanding the audience is in making sure that the humour fits the culture. This problem really showed up in the recent (2005) attempt to market The Simsons in the Arab world.

BTW, back in the early 40's Radcliffe-Brown published a couple of articles on "joking relationships" which led to an understanding that almost all humour is based on structural faults in a culture / society.

On Joking Relationships
A. R. Radcliffe-Brown
Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul., 1940), pp. 195-210
doi:10.2307/1156093
This article consists of 16 page(s).
View Article Abstract
Available here on JSTOR (requires login)

A Further Note on Joking Relationships
A. R. Radcliffe-Brown
Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Apr., 1949), pp. 133-140
doi:10.2307/1156517
This article consists of 8 page(s).
View Article Abstract
Available here on JSTOR (requires login)

Probably the best work done in the area was by Victor Turner (e.g. the Anthropology of Performance and From Ritual to Theatre) and by him with Richard Scheckner (Between Theatre and Anthropology).

On a more pragmatic level, I think that the "danger" factor is more from the extreme PC crowd than from the irhabis. The reactions you noted about the cartoon affair being termed "racist" - which is semanticaly ridiculous; Islam is a religion not a "race" (whatever that may be!) - are quite likely to be brought up. "Racism" and "sexism" being the two current high cards in victim poker.

Honestly, if I was setting up a satire campaign, I would have two aim points in mind: the irhabis who slaughter people and the "race industry" who tell everyone that this is just an historical "correction of grievances against the imperialist West".

Marc

[Nat Wilcox]

"Racism" and "sexism" being the two current high cards in victim poker

hee hee hee.

[marct]

Jihad: the Musical, has a download page with two of the songs in mp3 format. It is currently playing at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival until August 26th or a fatwa appears.