Are we caving to AQ threats?

[Tukhachevskii]

Based on post, the average Yemeni is a jihadist, which is highly doubtful. The average anybody simply doesn't give a flying hoot if a foreign embassy closes for a day. I suspect the AVERAGE Yemeni couldn't give a flying hoot either way.


We risk our lives because of what we believe in, not because were cowards who cowardly commit suicide while killing innocents because they're looking for an easy way to paradise and virgins. Don't forget who the cowards really are.

Sir,

I appreciate yours, and everyone else's, comments. Forgive me for taking a rather "high and mighty tone" with the learned and most experienced members of the SWC (unfortunately that is a hazard of our medium) but unfortunately my post was written on the back of a simultaneous argument I was having whilst on the phone! The comments were based upon meetings I had with Yemeni's from various strata of society (though usually village folk). Anyway, I think one of the problems when examining Islamic/Islamist conflicts/warriors, for me at least, is that we assume that there are jihadists and non-jihadists when, IMO (and IMO only), the "jihadist" phenomena is really a question of a "spectrum/continuum of adherance"; jihad is a universal obligation upon Muslims but just why, where, how, and for whom a Muslim becomes an actualised "jihadi" is case dependant. AQ and other organisations are mutually imbricated or rather are interpenetrated with other networks (tribal, social, ethnic, sectarian) and are able to tap into existing preconceptions, greivances, &c. AQ may exist at the fringes of the wider Islamic social system but it draws its strength from the centre...

As for our percieved cowardice and the routine closure of embassies etc. my comments were specifically aimed at Yemen and further more the notion that the "enemy gets a vote" and that "war is a contest of wills" and the related concepts of perception management &c. The entire thrust of the point I was attempting to make, and which seemingly failed monumentally, was based upon the following assumption from an article by Harold D.Lasswell, "The Strategy of Soviet Propaganda", Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Jan., 1951)

[/QUOTE]Political propaganda is the management of mass communications for power purposes. In the long run the aim is to economize the material cost of power.[/QUOTE]

I was attempting to make a point about not having to un-necessarily add to the enemies arrayed against us by at least economising our matierial power with ideological/psychological/informational power (i.e., not appearing weaker, and thus a tempting target, where we don't need to). Nonetheless, good points all round and I hope I write clearer posts in future,

Regards,

T