|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Violent propaganda | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Wild Ass Guess.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
1. wag, wit, card -- (a witty amusing person who makes jokes) ref: See Dan Carroll Seriously, though...consider the fact that in the third world, over 50% of the populations are under the age of 27. They want to come up in the world, and they don't want to be Capitalist clones. They were and are young and impressionable, thus the dogma of the elders has fostered terrorist ideology. As exposure to the ways of the West increases, many will abandon hardcore terrorist activities, but ideologies do not change overnite. Look at the far right Christian ideologies that justify a military industrial mode that the U.S. is now under? Encarta writes: Prophex nifty quote on social darwinism had me scramble to understand it.(you must be taking it in school) It makes sense, though. Aging Americans want to keep their social security and eat their cake too. In order to do this, any upstart rogues who want to build wealth on the planet must accomodate the U.S. interests first. Thus, we have a war.
Social Darwinism transposed Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest from nature to society. Competition for goods, services, wealth, and power was considered natural and therefore necessary. Those who succeeded were supposed to be the fittest. Social Darwinism was also used to justify distinctions among races and among nations as well; some were deemed superior and others inferior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Reco'nize.
"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." -Isaac Asimov
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I'm just implying that the terrorists mean what they say. So far they want Afghanistan, Algeria, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Saudi-Arabia, Iraq, Tsjetsnia to turn into strict Islamic nations. So those plans to pay them off with a comfortable life won't work, because their desire is ideological.
Well I don't see any counterargument in this thread, except for the idea that it would create more terrorists. I already covered that possibility in post 1, I think you are likely wrong about it. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I already covered that possibility in post 1, I think you are likely wrong about it. For what reason? As you pointed out, when Theo Van Gogh drew verses from the Koran on a woman's naked body, somebody stabbed a manifesto into his chest about 30 times. I'd say that's a pretty graphic foreshadow of the effects your plan would have on the Muslim world. They wouldn't be demoralized; they'd be galvanized. They wouldn't dispair; they'd be buoyed on righteous outrage. The West would reap a whirlwind of destruction if your plan was implemented. You're doing to have to do better wth a rebuttal than "I think you're wrong."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: Basic human rights, an idea made famous from John Locke, implied life, liberty to all humans. You show a strange philosophy about these people who share Islamic values not being human. That was annoying but these basic human rights most of the time surpass the beliefs, and ideas shared by a group of people. (Check the average Christian of America, sry for the generalization but this is what I have observed.) How can it not work? Humans share a core desire of a happy life. Of course America is destroying this. Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Gee, are you all too frightened to do it, to pick up the gun and shoot the terrorist?
Well sure there will be counteraction, but on the whole, these protesters would be either terrorists, people not much supportive of free speech, careless people not accepting to take a little collateral damage for the greater good, and a more legitmate complaint of a few devotees who have religious study as their main life's fullfillment. I was thinking about it a bit, what this propaganda should look like. A good violent propaganda does not contain overt lies, because that is too easy to discount. What would work IMO is something like: - a wordy cartoon of the prophet having sex with a young child (which is generally believed to have happened AFAIK). On the face of it such a cartoon should look to be innocent, or non-judgemental about what is described in it. Indeed the cartoon should maybe attempt to portray it as a good thing, that the prophet had sex with a young child, because that way it is more insidious. The cartoon should also have a high standard of accuracy and precision, so that it becomes more real, and so that the ethical judgement invited would naturally also be of a high standard (equal to the high standard of precision and accuracy). The effect should be to have the images and words turn up in the readers imagination or dreams, where it will change into something altogether more menacing to their morale, rather then to shock the readers on sight of the cartoon. A high ethical judgement on the prophet having sex with a young child is a lot of mental work, and certainly it is very risky work considering a muslim may not defame the prophet in thinking about it. It is sure to lower morale that way. Anyway, I think the general rules for demoralizing propaganda are to portray something that looks bad, and then to create a lot of doubt about whether it is good or bad, with an extreme attention for accuracy and precision. Well you could do it with anything, it may also just be fantasy. For instance;one day Bin Laden found a small cut on his skin. He dutifully cleaned it, and all what was left was a small thin red line, and Bin Laden went back to his daily routine again. But then the next day the wound reopened again, so he did the same, and put a plaster on it, and forgot about it. blablablablabla........ Eventually the wound turns into a sort of mouth, which sings Islamic prayer. With lots of minute detail and physical accuracy in the story, and of course lots of worry and doubt from Bin Laden whether this is a blessed special gift or an uh... obviously ghastly deformation. So then more mouths appear over his body, but not in places that you can see on TV images of Bin Laden of course, so that gullible people may actually believe Bin Laden has this condition. In the end Bin Laden's body is covered with mouths singing Islamic prayer, mouths which also give of a scent, and Bin Laden appreciates it as a good thing, and some woman finds it attractive. Of course it may be possible to consider it as a good thing to be covered in mouths. However that takes a lot of work, and if you slip up then on the downside you have one big fearsome image to deal with. Would this work? Does free speech work to surpress evil ideology? Yes it does. Especially it works with those who are against free speech, to send them into an uncontrollable rage that disables their normal function. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No - I think the "terrorists" are in the right, and the West is in the wrong.
quote: This would be a good example of something that would send the (accurate) message that the west is comprised of a bunch of ignorant intolerant hypocrites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 131 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
You say you think the terrorists are in the right, but surely there's a qualification to that; namely, that you don't share their religious sentiments, or hold the belief that-to-the-letter Sharia or whatever is going to be A Good Thing?
As a side note, did you see those excellent "Power of Nightmares" documentaries? I only caught two of the three but thought they were really illuminating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Correct - but equally, I think the whole attribution of the cause of the present conflict to religion is mistaken. The third world is conducting an armed resistance to Western imperialism - much as it has done, on and off, for the last 200 years. Certainly, their rhetoric is phrased in religious terms, just like Bush's rhetoric is phrased in democratic terms: both structure their arguments in the light of the prevailing ideology.
quote: Oh yes, very good indeed, although as it happens I also only saw 2 of the 3. Indeed, I think that case is entirely plausible; its one of the reasons I have taken to saying "if they exist" whenever I mention Al Qaida.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 131 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
My personal belief is that if you disrespect someone's culture and beliefs, then you are going to annoy them. Even if the person is quite moderate in their views, you could anger them significantly. This is because you are attacking not only their beliefs which might not be that strong, but also the beliefs of their family and people they care about, some of whom might take religion much more seriously. Does that sound reasonable?
I was wondering: did you get this idea after hearing about the attempts to demoralise other civilian populations by airdrops of leaflets in 20th century wars?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5620 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well, it's an ugly thing violent propaganda, but it may be an effective weapon. It is just very mean, in a way, to intentionally hurt this way. That would be a good argument against it, I guess.
Again, I think you should simply consider how you would react to such propaganda, if you were the victim, for instance as a Christian, I don't know, and it was anti-christian fundamentalist violent propaganda. It seems all the people here that don't like it are saying, that they would not be angry, if they were collateral damage, but others would be angry. So far noone here would be angry, or would they? I did not come up with it after reading about the leaflets. Just as something someone like me can contribute in the effort against terrorism. I would not spread this kind of violent propaganda as widely as leaflets. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Wag the dog I would assume.
The military does use propoganda. For instance, when we were fighting Taliban in Afghanistan (about 6 months ago) we were having trouble flushing them out of the mountains. So we got an Arabic speaking individual on a loudspeaker to shout, "Take your Burkhas(sp?) off and fight like men!" Over a loud speaker during the next patrol. It had the desired effect. I don't think "calling them names" is going to help. It would add to the pool of suicide bomber volunteers. I like the "If you do (X) we are going to kick your ass" approach. Then we simply stick with it. They may not like us (not that they did before) but they will have a pretty good idea what our reaction will be, and hopefull that reaction is not to simply call them names. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I like the "If you do (X) we are going to kick your ass" approach. Then we simply stick with it. Of course the problem is we really do have to stick with it. Like we say "show you don't have any weapons, or we'll kick your ass", then when they show us they don't have weapons we don't then say "well that means your hiding them" and kick their ass anyway. I see you have reappeared at EvC, have the WMDs you promised surfaced yet? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
quote: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml And again, that was only 1 reason we went to war against Saddam. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024