Why ISIS Is Winning The Online Propaganda War (dailydot.com) 168
blottsie writes: The U.S. government has been unable to fight the Islamic State on the one battlefield it currently commands: the Internet. Exemplified by an August 2014 video produced by the State Department, the U.S. remains ineffective at combating violent extremism online. A definitive report by the Daily Dot explores how ISIS succeeds in spreading its message and recruiting new militants, and why the U.S. government continues to fail in its efforts to stop ISIS online.
ISIS is exploiting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Young men whose culture expects a lot from them, but who have little options for employment or success due to cultural behaviors which limit their options, namely high birth rates and slow economic growth. This is both promoted by religious leaders and cultural prohibitions against lending
Either lower the birth rate or increase their opportunities and there will be no more people wanting to join ISIS
Re:ISIS is exploiting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they pay better than most other jobs in the region, in dollars. Apply the religious angle to get them to work for a little less. When ISIS cut wages a while back, many of the fighters jumped over to Al Qaeda. Toss the culture crap, it's plain old capitalism that motivates these guys. And maybe the drought, too. War is still more profitable than desalination.
Re: (Score:1)
GTFO! Silly rabbit...
Re:ISIS is exploiting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, sure, it's all our fault, we haven't given them enough opportunities.
Take Salah Abdeslam, for example. He had a good job as a technician at the Brussels public transport company but got fired because he regularly didn't show up for work. We should have given him more opportunities, we deserve to get shot to bits for not helping these people more.
Re: (Score:2)
And the frustrating part is if we set up basic guaranteed income (something I am somewhat a fan of), he'd likely sit around complaining that it wasn't enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Two base principles of economics: People are rational in maximizing utility, and people have different utility functions. People value the religious aspect of ISIS at different rates. There are going to be a few who value it very highly and many who value it negatively (see, non-Muslims). The more people value the non-ISIS alternative, the fewer people will opt for ISIS.
Re: (Score:2)
You made a mistake by not helping this guy. You needed to communicate with him. You needed to ask him a deep, existential question that would cause him to question and reassess his actions, attitudes, and core beliefs in light of the impact he is having on the world and of the impact the world can have on him. You needed to ask him a question that would help him onto the path of nonviolent enlightenment.
Sometimes you can even ask such a question without using any words at all. A question like - "You don'
PR war to hate Islam (Score:3, Insightful)
The only propaganda war ISIL is winning is spreading hatred of Islam far and wide. And it's not going to be these young men who have to wear that, it's going to be your normal suburban families who just happen to have a different religion from those around them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, it is pretty stupid because it doesn't establish what the goals are, or what "winning" means. The US isn't trying to stop people from being asshats online, so it can't "lose" at that. The strategy is actually instead to track them silently so as to know who to drop a missile on, and what bank accounts are big enough to be worse seizing.
If some part of the US Government was actually tasked with disrupting online activities they don't like, then the premise might make sense.
And as for the general concep
My two cents (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can find something to believe in that is bigger than yourself, it can make all your doubts and insecurities go away.
So either be grateful or hateful that you're smart.
what gives you meaning that counts. (Score:1)
If you can find something to believe in that is bigger than yourself, it can make all your doubts and insecurities go away. So either be grateful or hateful that you're smart.
Wanting or getting a sense of purpose in life has nothing to do with intelligence - at least whatever is measured by IQ and SATs. The most insecure people I know are quite brilliant and wonder why they're wasting their life on crap that's basically a consumer product that really doesn't better mankind. Or getting into a profession because they wanted a job but would rather have studied 19th century French literature - so they grit their teeth everyday and go to work. Some are lucky. I know an OB/GYN who s
Re:My two cents (Score:4, Insightful)
The words from those same foreign assholes fall flat. Well, something like "come join us and we will provide for your needs and give you a job" might not fall so flat, but those aren't the words we are saying to them.
That's pretty much it. Those aren't the words anyone else is saying to them, and that's too bad.
A mirror image is available in nearly any inner city in the world. We lose our youth to gangs in our own nations, and we act surprised when they begin to heed the resonating call of a worldly struggle.
They must be offered an alternative or there's really no conteast at all for their hearts and minds.
Your story is short of facts (Score:5, Informative)
Most Domestic 'Jihadists' Are Educated, Well-Off [time.com]
However, many foreign terrorists are also very wealthy.
Osama Bin Laden Had $29 Million in Wealth, Requested it Mainly Be Used for âJihadâ(TM) in Personal Will [theblaze.com]
Whatâ(TM)s made the Islamic State one of the richest terrorist armies in history? [pbs.org]
The World's Richest Terrorists [danielpipes.org]
Re: Your story is short of facts (Score:2)
I read TFA and all the comments but I still can't figure out what message they are delivering to recruit.
Lots of crazy speculation here but it would be nice to understand the message and perhaps that might be a good starting point for a counter message.
Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
This "we'll take care of you" narrative is just about the only thing you hear from the do-gooders that're fscking up by the numbers here in Europe.
Free monies? Check. Housing? Check. More help "integrating? Check. Special and remedial language courses and schooling? Check and check. Extra doubplelus more counselling? Check, check and check. They're getting way more "help" than the natives do. It doesn't help at all.
There are piles of evidence that nothing of that actually works. And still you can regularly hear politicians harping on a schooling or support or whatever other course track thingy this week. It still doesn't work.
The problem is that these extremist youths aren't extremist because they're poor. They're poor because of their death cult beliefs. But because of their beliefs they're easy to convince to dig in even deeper, and anyway, even observing that it's their backward belief system of virulent hate that's keeping them back is "racists". This is why, with every terrorist attack, even where the attackers where shouting very literal and widely known invocations of their belief, you'll see oodles of "experts" tumbling over each other to insist that nothing of all that had to with their so-called "religion" at all, nosiree, honest. You're not supposed to point to the actual cause because that's not polite, see?
There are more problems, but the fundamental problem should already be visible: The west is operating on a certain set of assumptions ("we'll help you, then you'll be thankful and take the hint to be more like us"), and these people are operating on wildly different assumptions ("We get free stuff? Sure, give us some more. Us thankful? Nah. We have our own 'culture'. And now that free stuff is a right so we demand more or we'll call you racist... again.") that makes us look weak and contemptible in their eyes.
And that's the European situation. The US situation is possibly worse because the US and thus the US government is even worse about this perception dichotomy thing. It's why the US has lost just about every war in the last couple decades. Military might? Sure. Er, excuse me, "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!". But making it stick? HA HA HA HA. The name of the game is "hearts and minds" and against these people, the west sucks at it. The more west you look, in fact, the more they suck at it.
This is why, for one, Assad needs very much to stay where he is, yet "the west" keeps on wishing him away. This is why the "Arabian spring" turned into nothing short of a global disaster. If you're wondering how that could come to pass, well, there were these wars arming and destabilising the region, and then all it needed was a relatively small trigger. The only spark of hope for us is that the region is full of extremists that disagree with each other and therefore dislike each other to death, and that's not much of a spark. We in the west are more or less entirely powerless, because we're so completely out of touch with their frame of reference.
And that in turn is exactly what's making this counter-propaganda so excreably bad: It doesn't resonate with the target demographic at all. The ISIS propaganda, OTOH, resonates very well indeed, to the point it has no problem getting hordes of disaffected young men to join them and commit mass atrocities.
Re: (Score:3)
There are piles of evidence that nothing of that actually works.
What the hell are you on about? Integration and support are the only things that do work. De-radicalization through integration has been very successful in Europe. The real challenge is getting the help to those who need it.
Re: (Score:2)
De-radicalization through integration has been very successful in Europe.
Quotation required.
It's not ISIS (Score:1, Troll)
It's US/ISIS, fighting against the Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, the Troll mod. Sorry if it hurts the Slashdot/ISIS crowd, but this phase of the war goes back to 1979 [arizona.edu].
"What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"
Are you going to argue with success?
And then the same man spills the beans in the very first response here [nationalinterest.org]. Qataris, and Saudis, and Turks! Oh my!
"And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that 'democratic.'"
G
Reason two why NSA is a paper tiger (Score:4, Insightful)
I have already theorized that if online surveillance were really as all-powerful as paranoids think it is, the NSA would have no trouble pinpointing ransomware operators and having them picturesquely snuffed out.
Reason two: wouldn't a cyberspy agency with real power be able to use the Internet to scramble ISIS communications with fake chatter, misdirected operational orders, and sites filled with doctrinal errors designed to turn wealthy Muslims against ISIS?
Re: (Score:2)
The people who are good at that kind of thing are busy spamming comment threads on sites like Breitbart and DailyKos.
Re:Reason two why NSA is a paper tiger (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA has better things to do than pinpoint ransomware operators. We pay their salary, but that doesn't buy us their loyalty.
ISIS isn't a significant threat to Americans, but it creates an enemy to fear, which is extremely useful to those who wish to strengthen their own power base by taking freedom (or privacy) away from their citizens.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
If the three letter agencies can’t make enough money selling drugs to finance their black ops, perhaps a foray into ransomware will pick up some business?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ISIS is actually less threatening to us than a mosquito/Zika outbreak or a sudden death from a fall on the stairs at your pwn home.
Re: (Score:1)
the NSA would have no trouble pinpointing ransomware operators and having them picturesquely snuffed out.
Not a paper tiger (Score:2)
I have already theorized that if online surveillance were really as all-powerful as paranoids think it is, the NSA would have no trouble pinpointing ransomware operators and having them picturesquely snuffed out.
Reason two: wouldn't a cyberspy agency with real power be able to use the Internet to scramble ISIS communications with fake chatter, misdirected operational orders, and sites filled with doctrinal errors designed to turn wealthy Muslims against ISIS?
And when the NSA pinpoints the ransomware operator, what are they supposed to do? A drone strike in a place we're not at war with is a bad idea. A formal criminal action will fail because they live in corrupt countries. And even if you tried, you would be revealing sources and methods you use to spy on terrorists.
Being good at spying is very distinct from being good at propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
"And when the NSA pinpoints the ransomware operator, what are they supposed to do?"
Hire local talent to do the "wet work" in some manner that will dissuade anyone else in the area from getting into the ransomware business. By handling it this way, the agency need reveal nothing about its intel techniques.
Re:Reason two why NSA is a paper tiger (Score:4, Insightful)
I have already theorized that if online surveillance were really as all-powerful as paranoids think it is, the NSA would have no trouble pinpointing ransomware operators and having them picturesquely snuffed out.
Reason two: wouldn't a cyberspy agency with real power be able to use the Internet to scramble ISIS communications with fake chatter, misdirected operational orders, and sites filled with doctrinal errors designed to turn wealthy Muslims against ISIS?
Reason 3: Our governments find it useful to have a perpetual war (sell more and more weapons!) in the middle east (away from home) with an aspect of terrorism that is scary enough (be afraid we will protect you if you give us your civil rights!) without it being any significant threat to us or our society and thus do nothing of significance to end the war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the NSA care about ransomware operators? Nobody important really got hit by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple Solution: Golden Rule ,,, (Score:2)
"He who has the gold, makes the rules."
WHO is funding ISIS ?
Since we haven't evolved to live on a planet without money yet, the only effective way to stop any propaganda is to find out WHO financially supports them and cut off their money supply.
All the Petabytes of Information the NSA has and they have to target American Citizens instead ??
Re: (Score:1)
yes but we like the saudi dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think the World Health Organization is funding ISIS, it seems very unlikely.
Re:Simple Solution: Golden Rule ,,, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Simple Solution: Golden Rule ,,, (Score:5, Informative)
Contributions from wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia (as well as Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates) does comprise a major part of the revenues ISIS collects. However, it's not the greatest part. Most of it comes from theft (particularly of oil resources), kidnapping, extortion and taxation. [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Simple Solution: Golden Rule ,,, (Score:5, Interesting)
Contributions from wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia (as well as Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates) does comprise a major part of the revenues ISIS collects. However, it's not the greatest part. Most of it comes from theft (particularly of oil resources), kidnapping, extortion and taxation. [washingtonpost.com]
You'd think that by now all the oil resource sources and distribution facilities would have been blown to hell and back to keep ISIS from having that money.
There's obviously a deeper game being played.
Re:Simple Solution: Golden Rule ,,, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out why this got downvoted. It's an extremely valid point. It seems like the "coalition" did little but target ISIS pickup trucks *until* the Russians came in and started bombing the oil facilities, raising the bar and doing some real damage to ISIS's economic infrastructure. Now the coalition is finally taking out some oil refineries but it's very little very late.
We agree - and I don't know why my comment would be downvoted either but there it is...
Re: (Score:1)
Here we have the most correct and easy to understand summary so far, yet somebody is modding it down. Okay class, anybody know why?
Re:Simple Solution: Golden Rule ,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
an "ally" of the United States and the Obama administration
They were also an "ally" of the Bush administration, and the Clinton administration, and the prior Bush administration and so on; because they're allies (for whatever that's worth) of the United States, regardless of its presiding administration.
Why would you mention Obama here unless for a needless (and false) partisan attempt at blame-assigning? US-Saudi relations have nothing to do with Obama specifically and long, long predate him.
Re: (Score:2)
As a non-American, I guess the reason is that Obama could have stopped it, but hasn't, regardless of what his predecessors did.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what they'd make of those pictures of George Bush Junior holding hands with that Saudi prince...and even kissing him.
Re: (Score:3)
The truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The truth (Score:5, Informative)
"People don't go looking for impartial information, they go looking for material that affirms their already held beliefs."
I remember Umberto Eco pointing it on his novel "Foucault's Pendulum" when making one of the characters saying (more or less) "conspiracists don't want new information, they want to be reasserted on their believings". Yes, tinfoil conpiracists are an extreme case, but I think you are right: to a shorter or larger extent everybody wants to be said that they are right and that they are special.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reason for that is that when someone has spent much time/energy (preaching, praying, being constantly mindful of following rules, etc.) on something that they believe is worth while, they don't want to be shown to have wasted all that effort in something futile.
It's easier, more comfortable, to find like minded people who justify all that effort. Thus begins the positive feedback loop that leads to unreasonably strong opinions (extremism).
And if too many people still keep undermining those opin
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on that is what maintains an individual's investment in the conspiracy theory. I believe also that people are 1st drawn to a conspiracy theory because they are looking for easy answers in a world that is more chaotic than they are comfortable with. It's a belief that an all powerful entity (Illuminati, Government, Aliens, Corporations, etc.) truly is in control of all the bad things in the world and if we just know what they are up to we can solve the evils of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
They did the study by seeing which which sites/news sources people with different political views went to.
The people who primarily read Fox News periodically check out other sites like CNN, MSNBC, yahoo!, etc.
The libs are the ones in an echo chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone really still care whether Punch or Judy are going to be running the show?
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing how emotionally invested people are in the decision about which muppet is going to sit on the hand.
"...A definitive report..." (Score:2)
Woah, no shit. (Score:2)
ISIS is winning the propaganda war because... (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about:
1. Everything you know about ISIS.
2. Who showed you these things?
By portraying ISIS as evil incarnate and letting them provoke a reaction out of us, we are helping them get what they want.
Without everyone being up in arms about them and feeding the media frenzy about a bunch of backwards goatherders, they would not have been able to successfully recruit their terror cells.
Re: (Score:2)
we are helping them get what they want.
Do you even know what they want?
Re: (Score:2)
Like every snotty child, attention. Ignore them for the most part and if they get annoying, just slap them left and right 'til it's not funny anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That solves the problem, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you honestly see any other alternative? If you think a media blackout can keep explosions and gunfire, tens of deaths, hundreds of injured and huge heavily armed manhunts in the middle of major cities and occupying vast areas in the middle east a secret you must have missed the invention of cell phones and the Internet. Particularly in anything resembling a free and open democracy. And once you start losing faith that the mainstream media is telling you what's actually happening, the crazies start being
Re: (Score:1)
"2. Who showed you these things?"
Answer- our government. But the important question is WHY? Our government (the US and Europe) has choreographed a scenario that propels us into perpetual war against 'the enemy', or 'terrorists'. This vague and frequently redefined 'enemy' is always at our throats, always willing to sacrifice good citizens in their blood thirst.
And, as slashdotters know, our own propaganda has CREATED these 'terrorists' by marginalizing decent citizens to the point of desperation.
There are p
Re: (Score:2)
I see how my own points were slightly ambiguous. When I say, "who showed us these things?", I meant to think past the people who shared them. I think our government and our media did what they think are correct in showing us these things. And I would agree with them.
But ultimately, who created it? ISIS did. Everything we know about ISIS is only what they want/allowed us to know.
Did you know ISIS sets up hospitals (not just for their own fighters) and provides healthcare to the people. They
Re: (Score:2)
By portraying ISIS as evil incarnate and letting them provoke a reaction out of us, we are helping them get what they want.
The propaganda from ISIS themselves paints them as worse than anything I've seen from our government.
Re: (Score:2)
ISIS created the propaganda. Our government and media spread it. We listen to it.
Each of these three steps are planned by ISIS. Every reaction to each step is exactly what ISIS wants to happen.
Online Extremism is Good? (Score:2)
Reality is online extremism is not really all that much of a problem. Most countries have laws in place to cover certain kinds of speech and on line extremism is pretty much like criminals carrying around a sign stating their crimes and expecting not to be arrested. You are kind of meant to allow it to happen and then investigate and arrest it creators and prosecute them not only for those specific speech crimes (keep in mind, money is speech and paying someone to kill someone else is just free 'er' paid f
Wonder if it's censorship (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like the news not showing anything that might not be sensational enough.
There is apparently a group of 400 British citizens negotiating with the British government to be able to return to the UK without being deported (if they are dual citizens) or thrown in prison (if they are not). They stupidly went to Syria or Iraq thinking that they would join in a Holy War to form an Islamic Republic. Now
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree. Bring them back, put them on TV, find out what they know and have them explain how they were duped.
Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Can someone explain to my why that in the United States of America, the right hates and wants to carpet bomb a bunch of right wing extremists who believe in God, Guns and family values, while the Wacky left wing wants to protect and defend a bunch of people who want to keep women covered and walking 6 paces behind the men.
Why do we fight the wars we do? It is because someone in the media says those guys are evil. I remember when Russia was evil and the Mujahudeen were our buddies. What has changed?
To me th
Re: Hmmm (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Other people can argue the God and family values, but I highly doubt that ISIS really wants the civilians who live in areas it controls to own guns.
ISIS wants guns for itself and its fighters, of course, but that isn't the same thing as wanting the general population to be permitted guns.
Simple... (Score:2, Informative)
It's also why Trump is doing so well. People in general are very gullible.
Re: (Score:3)
In all fairness to Trump, he is an excellent con-man! I do however think he has not quite thought this through, because if he becomes president, he will have to deliver _something_ over those 4 years, quite unlike his usual modus operandi.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In all fairness to Trump, he is an excellent con-man! I do however think he has not quite thought this through, because if he becomes president, he will have to deliver _something_ over those 4 years, quite unlike his usual modus operandi.
Yeah, the most interesting question about Trump is "What is his face-saving end game?"
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Do you think he cares if he stands a chance for reelection?
Of course (Score:1)
Same reasons the Republicans win (Score:1)
They attack everyone's flaws and those are always plentiful... but in the long term they are nothing because they have no platform, no leadership, no ideas and they exist only as parasites on the system they claim to hate so much.
As I said.. just like today's Republican politicians.
It's easy to be critical of others and rally hate like that. We've seen this thousands of times throughout history and it's happened millions of uncountable times. However, when the shit hits the fan people demand reform and real
To butcher Baudelaire... (Score:1)
The finest trick of the terrorist is to persuade you to fear him.
When you have angry, disaffected young men who feel slighted by society/parents/whatever, they'll gravitate to anti-authoritarian entities. Usually these are individuals or groups that cause a lot of angst for people in power, and the knee-jerk reaction of the powerful is to speak out against them. This is the same as lavishing attention upon these groups, and makes them even more attractive to the disaffected.
I think the media probably need
Yes, we are losing the soft power war. (Score:2)
Then again when it comes to ISIS/Daesh, I must admit the hard power approach looks very attractive.
These extremist really like this propaganda line, when bragging about themselves and addressing the West:
"We love death more than you love life."
Given this sentiment I am inclined to say, let's help them along. Give them what they so dearly love.
On the other hand, from a more rational point of view, the soft power approach would probably be more cost effective.
Nut Job Movements (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nut Job Movements (Score:5, Interesting)
You are arguing from the typical, venerable, valid-in-post-enlightenment-culture dynamic in which ideas propogate on their own merit. In such an environment, the adaptive strategy for dealing with bad ideas is to ignore them and let them die on their own lack of merit, or "burn out" as you put it. This has been known to work as long as the immunity mechanisms against bad ideas are intact, and are capable of dealing with the particular strain of ideological pathogen.
This strategy is not effective against ideologies not in that set, such as ones that spread themselves by the sword or by intimidation or in populations that believe ideas for reasons disconnected from the merit of the idea itself. The fact that said ideologies are bad or invalid or incompatible with civilization as we know it is not directly relevant to whether they will catch on or not. Such ideologies have spread themselves very effectively and they don't care that they are regression or that they are harmful. Effective disease agents dont care that they make the host organism sick, they are effective by definition if they propogate themselves, and just ignoring the symptoms and counting on typical immune mechanisms to make them go away doesn't always work.
Westerners think that ignoring ideas or debunking them is going to always work, but those techniques only work in certain contexts and against certain threats. Ghandi's techniques were only effective because he was operating against the British Empire and pushing their buttons, for example.
The West is not able to fight back bad ideas because, sometimes in an attempt to stop low level autoimmune problems, she has ingested massive doses of immune-suppression; immune mechanisms such as the nuclear family, shared but diverse Christian heritage, societal structures are weakened, made obsolete by technology, or dismantled, and ideological infections thought to be conquered are breaking back out in the unprepared populace, and getting some rest and drinking some fluids until it burns out may not work.
The Islamic Sense Of Guilt (Score:2)
Muslims all over the world think the West is corrupt and immoral and it must be set on the right path.
2nd and 3rd generation Muslims that live in western countries fill ashamed of and guilty to help maintain these western immoral and corrupt societies. Some of those react by embracing terrorism.
1st generation Muslim immigrants that have struggled to get a place in western societies don't choose terrorism because they are torn inside: from one side, they dislike the West, and from the other side, they feel o
Feminism (Score:2, Funny)
Also governments can't take the moral high ground because they are corrupt.
All power corrupts, we'd be better off without governments, no power to abuse.
Unless you've got enough religious nutjobs, then you just need enough power to keep them from forcing their religion on everyone else.
Have they tried? (Score:2)
The U.S. government has been unable to fight the Islamic State on the one battlefield it currently commands: the Internet.
I don't get the impression that they/we have actually done much to even engage in a propaganda war online. Perhaps because he real battle has to be fought elsewhere, in the communities, where so many young people are vulnerable to the frankly idiotic nonsense from Daesh. I don't think it is only about lack of good opportunities; many of them seem to be genuinely motivated by moral concerns, even if they are perverted in the extreme. It is in many ways driven by the same factors that created the hippies, the
Commands? (Score:3)
Free Speech (Score:3)
To be perfectly frank, I don't want anyone to succeed at quelling speech online, or offline, anywhere. I am proud of the fact that dissenting opinions and views, like those of frankly reprehensible groups like NAMBLA and the KKK, are not silenced in my country.
For the same reason that rehabilitation rather than punishment should be the primary goal of prisons, our primary foreign policy should be aimed at trade and improving the economic viability and stability of the rest of the world for one simple reason: well fed, happy, comfortable people don't become suicide bombers. They don't take up guns and murder people. They don't rebel against the system.
If we took half the military budget and spent it on trade instead the US could single-handedly eliminate half of the poverty in the world. And I don't mean 'spend it on handouts'. I mean trade, where we receive goods for money. But use the taxes for trade incentives rather that disincentives like tariffs.
When entire populations of people are angry enough at my country to take up arms, then I consider that a failing of my country. We did something to deserve that anger. In the case of the middle east, we have spent decades meddling in their politics or actively waging war... no fucking shit they're angry. But silencing them doesn't remove the anger or repair the harm done. Instead, it just opens up the idea that controlling speech is effective. And that's antithetical to the entire foundation of our nation and the Internet.
WTF? (Score:3)
Western civilization has the greatest propagandists the world has ever seen. Armed with modern psychology and decades of experience, they do an excellent job of making us buy stuff and vote for people. How the hell are we losing this war? Are we failing to understand what's attractive about ISIS? Are we getting third-rate propagandists working against ISIS? We need to figure out what's going on and sell these people on something other than suicidal violence.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty simple really, we have propaganda aimed at our own citizens primarily and at the citizens of allied countries in second guard. Those are the people that we need to control because they can affect change and we need their tacit approval. We don't care what the people, who cannot affect anything, think. Terrorists kill so few people that their negative impact is negligible, but their positive impact on propaganda aimed at our own population is huge. If we actually wanted to sell the terrorists th
US propaganda should adopt this tactic..vote on FB (Score:1)
http://nypost.com/2016/03/29/y... [nypost.com]
So what? (Score:2)
Let them spew their shit. Nobody but their "supporters" give a rat's ass about it anyway.
Who gives a damn about what Daesh says?
ISIS BAD USA GOOD (Score:1)
ISIS BAD USA GOOD
ISIS BAD USA GOOD
ISIS BAD USA GOOD
There I just saved you the trouble of thinking about this or reading any of the posts here
DIfference (Score:1)
http://qz.com/649933/the-only-difference-between-a-christian-gunman-and-a-muslim-terrorist-is-racism/
Petrocurrency (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrocurrency
Petrocurrency is a global Pyramid scheme;
http://www.zerohedge.com/print/502779
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PsyOps (Score:5, Funny)
You might have that backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
You think they are stupid enough to be this obvious? Of course, we are talking about a government bureaucracy, so you may have a point....
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really easy explanation, but it doesn't make much sense. We're talking about relatively large groups of people here. We're also talking about a disorder that doesn't usually predispose one toward self sacrifice for some greater ideal.
Did Hitler manage to put together