In all fairness I did "get" what he was talking about. Your correction is a pretty good one.ReinWeisserRitter said:Not undermining and demoralizing the people exposed to it, genius; to do so to the extremists, by showing their potential recruits, and their existing ones, there may be another way.mfeff said:Since when did employing logic, humor, satire [and] religious arguments undermine and demoralize anyone? What an asshole.
Not saying it'd work, or that it's the right way to do it, just that you're reading it wrong.
That said, this isn't "trolling" in the slightest. I realize you want people to read your news by using the hip slang of the now to attract the drooling dullards who see any of the aforementioned slang and come running to tout it as if it were a freaking deity, but it's a hell of a stretch to refer to this by it regardless.
I knee-jerked considering the concept of asymmetrical warfare or full spectrum warfare includes disinformation and propaganda. His use of the term demoralize and undermine are, for better of for worse, shoplifted from a western military vernacular.
The implication is that the enemy/moral agent is "at present" quantified with high morale and high positional framing (psychologically hygienic).
I inferred that logic, humor, satire, and Islamic philosophy where being associated with "disinformation" and "propaganda".Amanullah wants to train young Muslims from across the Islamic world to use "logic, humor, satire, [and] religious arguments, not just to confront [extremists], but to undermine and demoralize them" on forums, Facebook, and Twitter.
That is coming from having of surmised the response of the core group, that some form of their system is illogical. Though it is perfectly rational "as agency" to hold to false beliefs, as with any dogma the extreme sides tend to bend contrary information through the use of persuasion and psychological intimidation to subvert the conflicting data. It's perhaps a form of cognitive dissonance.
A cursory examination of many cults have shown that break downs in information tend to enhance the fervor of the cult rather than subvert it. Coupled with a strong military presence in these countries, the notion that reason would engender passivity for a "freedom fighter" fighting for his very "soul" and that of his country is a long shot at best. The unfortunate aspect of this is that both sides in this contest have very strong elements of dichotomy in their respective approaches. I suspect it will simply cause a negative feedback loop.
I think my other problem is that this type of warfare is not anything new, and especially not anything new in this particular series of conflicts. Give it a couple days and Al Jazeera will be running a special on it, the web sites will have fancy graphics espousing about it... and bam... there ya go.
As an aside if peace is really what anyone wanted... the military presence would be removed, the corporate military would be removed, Guantanamo Bay would be emptied out... and a series of apologies and I'm Sorry would be forthcoming.
It's a tough sell to try to even suggest that people who have had dump truck loads of bombs delivered on top of them for years by the most sophisticated war machine ever conceived would be convinced at the "error" of their ways reflecting on the disproportionate response of said opponent. An emotionally vested opponent is, well... vested. I figure good or bad, right or wrong, rational or irrational... many of these young men and women are just looking for a little pay back. The war that never ends.