Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
39 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,952 Year: 18,988/19,786 Month: 1,408/1,705 Week: 214/446 Day: 12/98 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Violent propaganda
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3880 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 135 (191175)
03-12-2005 11:35 AM


A lot of people get killed in the war on Islamic terrorism. But maybe killing the terrorists isn't the only solution.

I want to talk about if maybe violent propaganda against Islamic terrorism, openly issued by the military, may also be very effective.

Some analysis would be made of common psychological weakpoints of terrorist beliefstructures, finding the weak spots in it, where it would liably hurt.

Such propaganda might include for instance defaming the prophet Muhammad, something that is not allowed within Islam. It might include porno of some holy figures.... well, strange I realize.. I don't know.

A psychologist may have a better handle on it, altough they usually only know how to make a person feel better, not worse.

The effects of such propaganda should be to break the terrorist down mentally, and to overwork the terrorist organization in dealing with the propaganda.

Another beneficial side-effect may be that the larger muslim population would be more cut loose from the terrorists. This is because I think the connection between them requires a high level of purity in the Islamic discourse, which would be shattered by violent propaganda.

On the other hand, there may, almost certainly at first, be a backlash to support the terrorists among the general muslim population. And of course, what all this does to diplomacy may be very unpredictable.

I don't really know for sure what the effects would be, and how big they would be. Would official propaganda undermine actual hateliterature against muslims, or would it encourage it? It's difficult to say. I wish I had some spare thirdworld country where I could test this policy, before writing this post.

Personally I would be willing to take a little collateral damage on my own religion, for the greater good. Of course, I would insist that there is some precision as to where the propaganda is aimed, just like with laserguided bombing, so I never get to actually see it, ideally.

In Nigeria large riots broke out with killing and raping, when a journalist wrote in the newspaper that perhaps the prophet would like one of the contestants of the Miss World contest (which were taking place in Nigeria) as his bride.

In the Netherlands member of parliament Hirsi Ali was targeted for assassination, and filmmaker Theo van Gogh was assassinated, after they made a short movie about Islamic repression of women, showing the Koran on women's breasts.

These examples show that terrorists are hypersensitive to what they conceive as defamotory to their beliefs. Of course the difference would be that unlike these authors, the military would not mean what they say, they would only mean to destroy the terrorists. (which would mean that any military caught being truly hateful towards muslims would be thrown out sooner?)

Many terrorists in captivity have been reported to be mentally ill. They may be already fragile, and I think it's very possible that they can be taken out this way, to the mental hospital, rather then to the morgue. Although I should add that trying to deliberately causing a mental breakdown to a person, is ethically as much questionable as murder, seeing that so many people who have a mental breakdown prefer suicide rather then living with mental illness.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-12-2005 11:50 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 03-12-2005 2:04 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 03-12-2005 5:27 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-12-2005 6:39 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 11 by joshua221, posted 03-13-2005 9:00 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3896
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 135 (191186)
03-12-2005 1:44 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31518
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3 of 135 (191190)
03-12-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
03-12-2005 11:35 AM


IMHO such tactics, in addition to being down right stupid, would be counter productive. I know personally, as a Christian, such attempts to defame Muhammad or Islam would simply make me MORE sympathetic to the Terrorists causes. In the general Islamic population worldwide it could only increase recruitment for terrorist organization.

I can't see much difference between an organization that would promote such practices and the terrorists themselves. As an American I would find any such tactics to be totally un-American and if carried out under Executive orders, an Impeachable Offense.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 03-12-2005 11:35 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 135 (191200)
03-12-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
03-12-2005 11:35 AM


The effects of such propaganda should be to break the terrorist down mentally, and to overwork the terrorist organization in dealing with the propaganda.

The effect of the action you describe would be to enrage otherwise sympathetic Muslims, and to overwork the terrorist organizations with the flood of new recruits you would generate.

You'd be confirming the worst things that the jihadists say about the cultures of the West. You'd be rising (sinking?) to their expectations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 03-12-2005 11:35 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13051
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 5 of 135 (191208)
03-12-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
03-12-2005 11:35 AM


The Great Satan defines itself
I agree with others that the propaganda would have an opposite effect of the one desired.

One point to consider is that the terrorists have sidestepped the U.S. technological net designed to capture them. This indicates to me that their communication and support system is based on human messangers and is anti-tech. Any technological blitz against them will make them that much more anti technological. This war is a war of ideas and ideologies.

One thing that might break them? Drop money on them. Money and the tools of the Great Satan system of the west. They would in theory implode.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 03-12-2005 11:35 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 7:22 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 10 by tsig, posted 03-13-2005 6:43 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 33 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-14-2005 4:07 AM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3880 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 6 of 135 (191268)
03-13-2005 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Thugpreacha
03-12-2005 6:39 PM


Try and look at this the other way around. What if some country decided to do like this on Americans or British, or Christians. Incredibly vile propaganda. IMO the effect of this would be very limited, because generally those are free societies, and Christians live in free societies. Would it be some horrendous crime if some country did put stuff like that on the airwaves, with the intent of demoralizing the people?

In Vietnam the Vietcong did try to demoralize with radiobroadcasts. Was that some warcrime? The effects were not that big as far as I know, although I guess some of the soldiers may have gained some unwanted ability of sarcasm, cynicism over it.

The difference is that these muslim fundamentalists are hypersensitive to such propaganda in my estimation. If you would want to get under the skin of some American, you would probably need to know very personal information about that American, about his lovelife, familylife and whatnot. There most all of us have some hypersensitivity.

But this hypersensitivity of terrorists is out of place, it doesn't seem to be aimed at cherising life or people, or even God, or religion.

The debate following the murder on Theo Van Gogh had two opposing sides. One to curtail free speech, to be more politically correct, the other to support Van Gogh's style of free speech which was generally politically incorrect.

For instance after the murder someone made a painting on his house that made a quasi-christian appeal to decency in protest of the assassination, but it was spraypainted over by the police. Things like that might cause riots the police said, between muslims and the general population. Generally an atmosphere is created in the Netherlands where you have to take account of the hypersensitivity of muslim terrorists. It is oppressive IMO.

I don't think it's right to give into a hypersensitivity like that. To be sure there are religious scholars who require a hypersensitivity in this area of religion, to do their work properly. But to have this hypersensitivity in general society is unhealthy IMO. And if the muslims get to have hypersensitivity protection, then next the christians want it as well, and there would be no end to it.

One thing that Western society is much hypersensitive about is the holocaust, which is quite a legitimate sensitivity IMO. But holocaust historians oppose the suppression of holocaust denial by government, as it is done in Germany.

So I would say it is only a free society who is able to effectively use such weapons of propaganda. It is more the thing to do of a 60's free society then of an 80's free society. I would hate to think that some are using the terrorist hypersensitivity to turn back the clock on the 60's.

I think all of you need to explain a bit about your ethics, why the military can use guns and bombs, but can't use words and pictures as weapons.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-12-2005 6:39 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nator, posted 03-13-2005 7:29 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 8 by CK, posted 03-13-2005 10:12 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2005 6:22 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Loudmouth, posted 04-13-2005 5:50 PM Syamsu has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 460 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 7 of 135 (191269)
03-13-2005 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
03-13-2005 7:22 AM


quote:
I think all of you need to explain a bit about your ethics, why the military can use guns and bombs, but can't use words and pictures as weapons.

Nobody is saying that words and pictures can't be used.

What is being said is that to use them in the way you suggest would be very, very counterproductive and would lead to more anti-American sentiment and terrorism, not less.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 7:22 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2418 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 8 of 135 (191281)
03-13-2005 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
03-13-2005 7:22 AM


quote:
Try and look at this the other way around. What if some country decided to do like this on Americans or British, or Christians. Incredibly vile propaganda. IMO the effect of this would be very limited, because generally those are free societies, and Christians live in free societies. Would it be some horrendous crime if some country did put stuff like that on the airwaves, with the intent of demoralizing the people?

Us brits would just laugh and wonder when we got catch the repeat. On a more serious note, your tactics would open the US govt to lawsuits from it's own citizens I would think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 7:22 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 135 (191327)
03-13-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Syamsu
03-13-2005 7:22 AM


Would it be some horrendous crime if some country did put stuff like that on the airwaves, with the intent of demoralizing the people?

We wouldn't be demoralized; we'd be moralized. We'd be out in the streets calling for a third and fourth term for W.

The difference is that these muslim fundamentalists are hypersensitive to such propaganda in my estimation.

So hypersensitive, in fact, that it would turn them into terrorists.

I think all of you need to explain a bit about your ethics, why the military can use guns and bombs, but can't use words and pictures as weapons.

You don't seem to have understood a single objection leveled against your plan, which is weird because every single one of us in this thread are telling you the same thing. Maybe I can make it simpler for you.

It's completely appropriate for the military to employ words and pictures - it's called "propaganda", btw - and they do, already. But the specific propaganda you propose would make more terrorists. It would make more people want to attack the US. In essence this is the "weapon" you propose the US start using:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 7:22 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1199 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 10 of 135 (191332)
03-13-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Thugpreacha
03-12-2005 6:39 PM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
One thing that might break them? Drop money on them. Money and the tools of the Great Satan system of the west. They would in theory implode.

What a great idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-12-2005 6:39 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 11 of 135 (191348)
03-13-2005 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
03-12-2005 11:35 AM


hm
I think you are utterly disregarding the reasoning behind the terrorism. Look at the justification of a people under industrialization and war.


The subtlety of nature is far beyond that of sense or of the understanding; so that the specious meditations, speculations, and theories of mankind are but a kind of insanity, only there is no one to stand by and observe it.
-Francis Bacon "Novum Organum"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 03-12-2005 11:35 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 10:34 PM joshua221 has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3880 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 12 of 135 (191360)
03-13-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by joshua221
03-13-2005 9:00 PM


Re: hm
The objective of the terrorists is to make nations which are hypersensitive to observance of Islam. I don't think it's right to say that they would be satisfied with anything else, like a comfortable life and peace for everyone, even if we could provide it.

I acknowledged in my first post that there may be a backlash, of course. There seems to be no weighing of pro's and con's in the replies.

The nature of events in the war indicate, that this war is all about free speech. Well I wouldn't go as far as saying that we should choose to support the principal of free speech, even if it meant more terrorists. But in a complex uncertain situation it is sometimes better to support the one fundamental thing that you know for sure to be good, to get good results, rather then to base your action on the assessment of the complex situation. That is because the assessment is likely to be wrong, because the situation is too complex.

So on the one hand terrorists would be weakened because their beliefs are weakened. On the other they would be strenghtened because people don't like a foul mouth and would fight it. It is uncertain IMO what the bigger effect would be. So I would suggest to test it, and the Netherlands would be an appropiate candidate to do it.

Depending on where you live, or what people you have in your neighbourhood, you may get killed depending on what you write here. Certainly the area where I live has many muslim extremists. It's not impossible I would get attacked if I say the wrong thing on this forum, and someone pointed it out to some local cleric here. I'd say it would be very good for some people around here, to get some free speech in their face, and better then doing nothing. But I'd prefer my government to do it for me, then for me to do it would be more risky, as well as it's a dirty job.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by joshua221, posted 03-13-2005 9:00 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-13-2005 11:02 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 14 by joshua221, posted 03-13-2005 11:19 PM Syamsu has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31518
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 13 of 135 (191361)
03-13-2005 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Syamsu
03-13-2005 10:34 PM


Re: hm
The objective of the terrorists is to make nations which are hypersensitive to observance of Islam.

Talk about a WAG. Really something with NO support at all.

There seems to be no weighing of pro's and con's in the replies.

Sure there has. There are NO pros and lot's of Cons. LOL

So on the one hand terrorists would be weakened because their beliefs are weakened.

So far you have never shown anyway that their faith would be weakened.

So I would suggest to test it, and the Netherlands would be an appropiate candidate to do it.

LOL. You're pretty free using other nations for such experiments. LOL.

You keep mentioning free speech but I fail to see how what you propose is free speech?

For example, we know that Paul of Tarsus was a queer, and that while Jesus may well have been bisexual, he certainly preferred having his gay male friends closest. But would publishing the facts really shake the faith of the Fundamental Christian Terrorists that would like to wipe Islam from the face of the earth?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 10:34 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by joshua221, posted 03-13-2005 11:21 PM jar has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 14 of 135 (191364)
03-13-2005 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Syamsu
03-13-2005 10:34 PM


Re: hm
quote:
The objective of the terrorists is to make nations which are hypersensitive to observance of Islam. I don't think it's right to say that they would be satisfied with anything else, like a comfortable life and peace for everyone, even if we could provide it.

How can you say that? Your implying that they aren't human!

quote:
Depending on where you live, or what people you have in your neighbourhood, you may get killed depending on what you write here. Certainly the area where I live has many muslim extremists. It's not impossible I would get attacked if I say the wrong thing on this forum, and someone pointed it out to some local cleric here. I'd say it would be very good for some people around here, to get some free speech in their face, and better then doing nothing. But I'd prefer my government to do it for me, then for me to do it would be more risky, as well as it's a dirty job.

I respect this, but I'm afraid you are letting your dark situation take the best of you.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 03-13-2005 10:34 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 03-14-2005 11:43 PM joshua221 has responded

  
joshua221 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 15 of 135 (191365)
03-13-2005 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
03-13-2005 11:02 PM


Re: hm
what does WAG mean?


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-13-2005 11:02 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 03-13-2005 11:28 PM joshua221 has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Tal, posted 04-13-2005 10:59 AM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019