Understanding terrorism

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

So we should base our military strategies around the propoganda of the enemy? This isn't a PR campaign, this is a military campaign.

It is both. And yes, you do have to take enemy propaganda into account when making military strategy. Because if we end up behaving the way their propaganda predicts, they become stronger.

[bargalunan]

Originally Posted by marichiko

I couldn't resist. You did sort of leave yourself wide open, there. I'll be good. I promise!

Originally Posted by BigV

Hey, mrn, do you even read your own posts? Or are you more of a perfomance artist, just firing them off blindly, like some beat poet of the blog generation? Should I be listening for content and consistency or is it more the flow, the rhythm?
.

MrNoodle you're fantastic : in 10 lines, you always give rise to 2 pages of good comments. On the one hand, that make me… cheerful !
(Hoping that won't hurt you)

About US influence in Eastern Europe :
Ukrainian president Iouchenko’s wife is US, his three children have US nationality.
He was famous in having been poisoned by Russians and his spotty face was showing it. In fact he had plastic surgery in Austria and didn’t respect the precautions like no alcohol…
Info coming from Ukrainian medias. French medias have never said it. Ukrainian people are already disgusted with Orange Revolution (organised by US)...

[mrnoodle]

We do not behave as their propoganda predicts. Our rules of engagement, rules for prisoner treatment, and rules for interacting with non-combatants are more stringent, more bend-over-backwards conciliatory than those of any armed force in history. Anywhere.

The only place enemy propoganda is having the desired effect is on our own soil. The "insurgents" (a misnomer, as they are not from Iraq, nor are they fighting on behalf of Iraq -- they target civilians) are failing. Iraqis are not joining insurgent forces -- in fact, they're working with us, fighting alongside us, and refusing to give in to terrorism.

Where enemy propoganda works is in the American media, who are on a constant mission to prove wrongdoing on the part of American forces and leadership. Soldier A shot someone without provocation. Soldier B didn't handle the Koran with latex gloves, thus offending the prisoners. Theinsurgencyiswinningtheinsurgencyiswinningtheinsurgencyiswinning. Day after day after day. Nary a single kind word about a soldier, unless they are thoughtful enough to die and provide more proof that theinsurgencyiswinningtheinsurgencyiswinningtheinsurgencyiswinning. Hell, the terrorists hardly even NEED al Jazeera. They have the New York Times.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by tw

blah blah blah, skip over a few paragraphs, miss little, blah blah blah

You have stated that the Muslim Brotherood is a bunch of little organizations all over the world. OK. You call it the Muslim Brotherhood.

GW calls them Al'qaeda. (I know that's spelled wrong, but I dont care enough to go look find it to correct.)

Seems to me that the idea is the same. A bunch of people that don't mind killing civilians and innocents or themselves, all of whom are Muslim, and extremists.

So GW tries to "label" them as Al'Qaeda. You label them the Muslim Brotherhood. Doesn't matter what you call them. They are still the enemy.

[Hobbs]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The only place enemy propoganda is having the desired effect is on our own soil. The "insurgents" (a misnomer, as they are not from Iraq, nor are they fighting on behalf of Iraq -- they target civilians) are failing. Iraqis are not joining insurgent forces -- in fact, they're working with us, fighting alongside us, and refusing to give in to terrorism.

I don't know if I agree with this statement. I tried reading this several times so as not to misquote, mislead, or take out of context thereby angering you... . The propoganda is working very well off our soil. You have to remember, there are lots of people over in Iraq who have been led to believe that we are responsible for the misery in their country via the embargos. There are lots of folks over there who hate us after all these years just in general. When someone says something bad about the U.S., they are more apt to believe it than not. The terroists know this and use this very well. If it didn't work, they why bother release statements, videos, audio tapes. True, some of these have the United States as a targeted audience in mind, but it is very effective in Islmaic countries as well. I might not aide much in recruitment purposes, but it does bolster support and serves as justification for thier actions. Yeah, a lot of what is reported by the terrorists are not true (reports of abuse, number of dead woman and childern), but lots of people over there are not willing to give us the benifit of the doubt.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's easy to say, but it doesn't hold up. Plenty of Americans sent money to the IRA, out of sympathy for Irish independence. Plenty of Americans have sympathy for Irish independence, but sent no support. Most Americans didn't think about it either way in their daily lives, but might have had an opinion (informed or not) if asked.

Now, knowing what the IRA did with the money, it's easy to say that the first group is just as responsible as the IRA itself, and that would be reasonable. But if your response is "screw em", and you initiate a campaign that causes some people in the first and second groups start to actually join the IRA, and gets the third group to start thinking about the IRA's cause more seriously - causing some in group three to move to groups one and two - you are worse off than you were before.

We are seperated from Ireland by an ocean, and it is not the policy of our country to fund terrorists (conspiracy theories aside). Our citizens have the freedom to behave quite badly. Those who send money to the IRA are culpable in the crimes the IRA commits. If Ireland wants them punished, they should get the justice they deserve. If some idiot doesn't like it, and joins the IRA in protest, he is a tard, and yes, he is now as culpable as the first idiot. If a third idiot decides "hey, what's with all this anti-IRA stuff?" and decides to go down the same path, how is that Ireland's fault? Ireland should stop taking out IRA bombers because it makes idiots mad? Screw em to the nth degree.

Originally Posted by BigV

...how?

Killing lots of terrorists. Training Iraqis to do the same. Providing infrastructure and terrorist-killing services while leaders from the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish factions meet and try to come up with a constitution. Making sure that constitution doesn't allow for things like executing children while their mothers watch. Making sure it does allow for things like schooling and jobs for girls. Making the country the most inhospitable place outside of the US that a terrorist could ever hope to find himself condemned to.

Above all else, not bailing out because we're afraid the enemy might get more angry at us. Screw em.

[mrnoodle]

re: Hobbs

Of course there are people who believe the anti-US propaganda. But not the kids who line up for candy and photographs with the soldiers.

Oh wait, they're dead. Killed by the noble freedom fighters.


(I don't get mad at these discussions, not really. It's just mystifying how people's outlooks can be so different given that we're all looking at the same information)

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

We do not behave as their propoganda predicts. Our rules of engagement, rules for prisoner treatment, and rules for interacting with non-combatants are more stringent, more bend-over-backwards conciliatory than those of any armed force in history. Anywhere.

I didn't say rules. I said behavior. Of course there are rules against things like Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo and "disappearing" prisoners, but they also need to be followed. And even if every rule of engagement were followed to a tee, we invaded a country on false pretenses! Nothing could have assisted enemy propaganda more than that.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The "insurgents" (a misnomer, as they are not from Iraq, nor are they fighting on behalf of Iraq -- they target civilians) are failing. Iraqis are not joining insurgent forces -- in fact, they're working with us, fighting alongside us, and refusing to give in to terrorism.

Did you read the blog of Michael Yon, which UT linked to in the Image of the Day on the IED? In that blog, Yon writes about his experience with our troops as they caught a terrorist red handed, trying to blow up a bomb buried under a road in Mosul. They take the terrorist back to his house to search it. His mom is very proud of her boy:

She smiled the whole time, as if to say, That's my boy! The translator heard her say to her son, "Don't worry. You will be released soon." She smiled at me.

The most serious terrorists do not fear prison here. Captain Jeff VanAntwerp, who commands Alpha Company, recently told me that Iraqis joke among themselves that they would pay 5,000 dinar per night to stay at Abu Ghraib prison. It's air-conditioned, the showers are good, the food is good, and the water is good. The mother seemed to know this and it curled in contempt behind her smile.

Our guys back at the Yarmuk traffic circle called saying they were in a little firefight and were taking mortar fire. But on the block where the terrorist lived, with his proud smiling mother, soldiers knocked on the neighbors' doors. The children clearly recognized the man, but everyone disavowed knowledge of him, despite that his mother encouraged him in front of us.

When the soldiers talked with other neighbors, they showed the transmitter and the terrorist. But clearly this was not diminishing his stature: We were making a local hero. And his neighbors were coalescing to shield him. This wasn't getting us anywhere useful, so we changed course...

Sure, there are some foreign terrorists in Iraq. But there are native Iraqi terrorists too. And they enjoy the support of many of their fellow Iraqis.

[Hobbs]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

re: Hobbs
Oh wait, they're dead. Killed by the noble freedom fighters.

And what did we see shortly after this occured? Riots in the street by civilians protesting the freedom fighters...no. They blamed the U.S. Fist-pumping marches denouncing the U.S. "occupation." Grrr! Drive me nuts!

[mrnoodle]

So.

The behavior of a minority of individuals indicts the whole country (vis-a-vis American actions).

And...

The behavior of a minority of individuals does NOT indict a whole country (vis-a-vis terrorism).

mmmmk.

And we didn't invade a country on false pretenses. As I recall, we didn't ask for their permission in the first place. We did get bad intel on WMD, but that was only one of several reasons Bush gave at the time. It was the sexy one, but not the only one. At any rate, dragging this up every time you are forced to admit that we need to win this war is bad form.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Sorry you didn't get the first part of that. It was a bit sloppy, I'm distracted from my post writing by actual work . Here are the Cliff notes:
--snip--
I will spend my lunch hour digging up the actual US news reports that are used by Arab leaders as anti-American propoganda. asshole, I was going to eat instead.

--snip--

Dude, have a sandwich and a soda. Seriously. This is not about being able to find a reference to an American media story published in some Arab media that is unfavorable to us, and by extension, helpful to the cause of some of their viewers? Trivial. Don't you think even GWB's "axis of evil" is burned into the the crawl on tv screens around the world? Does that make GWB the sympathizer? What about the broadcasters of his remarks?

Just have your lunch. I, too, find work intruding on my part of the conversation today.

Cheers.

[mrnoodle]

I was kidding. I didn't look for shit. I went to Wendy's


Still missing the point though: The terrorists don't need to make their own propoganda, they can use ours.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Hobbs

And what did we see shortly after this occured? Riots in the street by civilians protesting the freedom fighters...no. They blamed the U.S. Fist-pumping marches denouncing the U.S. "occupation." Grrr! Drive me nuts!

I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or not.



I really have to get back to work.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

We are seperated from Ireland by an ocean, and it is not the policy of our country to fund terrorists (conspiracy theories aside).

Hrm. Yah. Conspiracy theories, Mujahideen aside. And I'm not sure where the ocean fits in.

Our citizens have the freedom to behave quite badly. Those who send money to the IRA are culpable in the crimes the IRA commits. If Ireland wants them punished, they should get the justice they deserve. If some idiot doesn't like it, and joins the IRA in protest, he is a tard, and yes, he is now as culpable as the first idiot. If a third idiot decides "hey, what's with all this anti-IRA stuff?" and decides to go down the same path, how is that Ireland's fault? Ireland should stop taking out IRA bombers because it makes idiots mad? Screw em to the nth degree.

Whether they are culpable tards or not is irrelevant, and I agree they are. The issue is whether the punishment works. Killing a terrorist is a pyrrhic victory if you end up with two more. If England had decided to fight the IRA by bombing a whole town, they would have been worse off than before.