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

[marct]

Hi Tukhachevskii,

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,

Obviously I can't speak for Bill who, I believe, most of this post was sent to, but I did want to comment on a few things.

As you noted, the medium we are using can cause difficulties with communicating our actual intentions. There are two other things that cause difficulties. First, the medium, despite emoticons, really doesn't allow us to convey a lot of emotional tonality which, in English at least, is responsible for a lot of the contextual meaning of a particular message. Second, we are talking about highly emotionally charged issues, which makes it even more difficult since the medium restricts / reduces the emotional content of our signals.

Or, to quote that great philosopher Stan - "Sierra happens" !

Personally, I happen to agree with your position and, especially, your comments about jihad being a continuum. I also believe that we (the west broadly construed) and the irhabi are fighting totally different wars, with the bulk of their perceived AO being in the construction of perceptions for both global and local market places.

I suspect that we (the posters on this thread) will continue to disagree on what should have been done in this case, but as long as we can agree to disagree, then things should work out. Who knows, we may all be wrong !

Cheers,

Marc

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Tukhachevskii,

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!

No worries, this is a forum for adults to free fire within reason, and you'll note several heated debates as you look through previous other discussions, especially when it came to EBO, drug wars, Iraq, etc. Disagreement does NOT equate to disrespect, and there is no need for an apologies among brothers and sisters in this community of interest. Clarifications are always useful, and I find that discussing a topic here actually helps me clarify my position. What's great is if you keep an open mind, you may find that some of your positions may change (my have) based on discussions here. Since most of us have limited time we frequently post quickly without choosing our words carefully (at least I do).

Hell, I even had fellow member that I respect greatly accuse me of smoking crack on a previous discussion, so we all have our moments. For the record I have never smoked crack.

I do enjoy a few cold ones every once in awhile.

[slapout9]

Disagreement does equate to disrespect, and there is no need for an apologies among brothers and sisters in this community of interest.

Bill, don't you mean Disagreement DOES NOT equate to disrespect?

I told you about smoking that stuff