I think that rightly or wrongly when they see two groups of Muslims arguing they have sympathies with both sides and see it as a complex internal problem. When the US is involved and does some oppressing in a country where it oughtn't to be it's a lot clearer.Why do you think they are only bothered by the involvement of the US, and not the actual oppressive policies and regimes themselves?
A number of people think that, this number is swelled by less radical people when bombs from the US start falling on their heads. The bigger the number of people who agree with you the more power you have. I think I may have said this already.The US is there, it's big, it's decadent and it's polluting the mind of the Muslim world with its TV shows, it's big macs and its dangerous ideas about political freedom (show me one Muslim leader who doesn't feel this last point!). Bin Laden or Jihadists in general are not bothered about Msulims being oppressed just as they are not bothered about US foreign policy, except when it is directed at them (indeed you can easily make the same point about the war/low intensity conflict in Iraq: it's only a recruiting tool). Islamists want the old Mulism empire back (inc Andalusia, remember), all of it, "end the occupation of Muslim lands", and they want to return to the goal of the Islamic Empire, Jihad, to open the House of War to the House of Islam.
Don't necessarily agree with that. Some people are killing people 'cause their uncle got killed by a Sunni last week, yes the lines may be drawn on religious grounds but that doesn't mean that every killing is for reasons of religious fundamentalism."The terrorists are killing ordinary Iraqis for the same reason that they would happily kill you or I given the chance - because they wish death upon those who have left the true path, who are infected with Jahilya, who are not like them. Islamists are nihilists in love with death in the name Allah (inc their own), not political agitators who's demands can be met through negotiation."
Oh yeah, and Mr Tea: is initial US support for Afghan jihadists now also one of the reasons jihadists hate America?
A number of people think that, this number is swelled by less radical people when bombs from the US start falling on their heads. The bigger the number of people who agree with you the more power you have. I think I may have said this already.
Anyway, gotta rush and play football now but will be back at work tomorrow (unfortunately) so keep it coming.
What bombs? Let's be specific.
I think that's a bit disingenuous - did or did not the US heavily bomb Iraq in 2003?
Obviously they weren't trying to inflict civillian casualties, but equally obviously, lots of them happened.
Got fucking dicked on 8-2 - anyway, you're probably right, it has been derailed from what you originally wanted to talk about but I disagreed so strongly with some of the premises in the original post that I had to say so."Likewise - well, not the football, worse look, but there's plenty more where this came from.
Also, where does this stand in relation to 4GW and narrative warfare?"
Well, I was talking about after/during the Iraq (and Afghan) war here where there have been a number of civilian targets hit. I'm pointing out that this is likely to radicalise people and that in principle radicalisation can happen through the actions of a country - I'm not saying that this is a specific cause of 9/11.What bombs? Let's be specific.
Got fucking dicked on 8-2 - anyway, you're probably right, it has been derailed from what you originally wanted to talk about but I disagreed so strongly with some of the premises in the original post that I had to say so."Likewise - well, not the football, worse look, but there's plenty more where this came from.
Also, where does this stand in relation to 4GW and narrative warfare?"
Well, I was talking about after/during the Iraq (and Afghan) war here where there have been a number of civilian targets hit. I'm pointing out that this is likely to radicalise people and that in principle radicalisation can happen through the actions of a country - I'm not saying that this is a specific cause of 9/11.What bombs? Let's be specific.
Well, I was talking about after/during the Iraq (and Afghan) war here where there have been a number of civilian targets hit. I'm pointing out that this is likely to radicalise people and that in principle radicalisation can happen through the actions of a country - I'm not saying that this is a specific cause of 9/11.
But, let's get back to the original point.
If I'm understanding (and remembering) you correctly, 4GW is an asymmetrical battle fought by a dispersed group against a more technologically advanced and numerous enemy utilising modern media to highlight this disparity (and the inevitable(?) killing of civilians) and win public support. You're saying that this is being used effectively by Jihadists - how should the West respond?
They [Israeli soldiers] are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot.
No, but if they were involved in some way in the flying of a plane into a US building (or something similar) a few years down the line I wouldn't be surprised."And these people who witness American bombs falling on civilian targets are so infuriated that they go out to Iraq to become insurgents and kill huge numbers of civilians?"
Well, I would guess the biggest single thing has been US backing of Israel."And prior to the invasion of Iraq, what drove Islamist recruitment? It is after all, an old movement."
They may be "used as "recruitment tools" - but they don't need to be, they are recruitment tools in themselves. (obviously I think that they are part of the cause/reason but you know that)."I'm not saying that these ideas and narratives (US "occupation" of Iraq) aren't used as recruitment tools (in fact, that's 4GW), but that these are not the cause, they are not the reason why the Islamists are fighting."
I would say that the IDF, the US whatever are making it pretty easy for them at times. Keeping up a solid bombardment of a civilian population regardless of casualties doesn't need to be spun. Nor does Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib etc In terms of your 4GW these things are pretty much the equivalent of blue on blue."And how is 4GW being used effectively by the jihadis? Who has the stronger stories, for instance? Martin van Creveld says that you can't defeat a much weaker opponent because in doing so you loose the moral high ground"
No, but if they were involved in some way in the flying of a plane into a US building (or something similar) a few years down the line I wouldn't be surprised.
Well, I would guess the biggest single thing has been US backing of Israel.
They may be "used as "recruitment tools" - but they don't need to be, they are recruitment tools in themselves. (obviously I think that they are part of the cause/reason but you know that).
I would say that the IDF, the US whatever are making it pretty easy for them at times. Keeping up a solid bombardment of a civilian population regardless of casualties doesn't need to be spun. Nor does Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib etc In terms of your 4GW these things are pretty much the equivalent of blue on blue.
I pretty much agree with what IdleRich has written: 1. There is an irredeemable kernel of bad guys that are going to hate the West no matter what actions we take. Those blackguards must be eliminated (preferably put before an international tribunal). 2. Their influence and recruitment base, however, is very much affected by the actions of the West. 3. It follows that the most efficient strategy ought to be one where the the two points are addressed simultaneously. In my opinion, Vimothy is overestimating the need to combat the hardcore fanatics, and underestimating the importance of catering to the second, and infinitely larger, group.