Slashdot Mirror
Why ISIS Is Winning The Online Propaganda War (dailydot.com)
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.
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
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.
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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?
For the same reason why Climate-change deniers, anit-GMO campaigners, vaccine truthers and other Conspiracy theories find such fertile ground on the internet. People don't go looking for impartial information, they go looking for material that affirms their already held beliefs. The internet offers them the opportunity to find and like-minded people and form communities even when members are separated by large geographical distances
I don't think the World Health Organization is funding ISIS, it seems very unlikely.
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 the propoganda war is being waged in the United States against the citizens of the United States. It is being waged to turn the USA in upon itself. White against black. Left against Right. In the meantime China and Mexico grow rich. I believe nothing of what I hear on the news. None of it makes any sense to me anymore. It is all a conspiracy made up by someone on high for their own agenda.
They are financed by Saudi Arabia, an "ally" of the United States and the Obama administration, who buys materials through the United States, which are smuggled through Turkey (another United States "ally") into Syria and ISIS territory. The reason the NSA is targeting the citizenry is because if they followed the money trail, then they would need to need to begin arresting other administration officials.
It is well-known that most domestic terrorists are well educated, middle class to wealthy individuals.
Most Domestic 'Jihadists' Are Educated, Well-Off
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
Whatâ(TM)s made the Islamic State one of the richest terrorist armies in history?
The World's Richest Terrorists
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.
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.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You might have that backwards.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Oil sales in Iraq and Syria from wells they've taken over. Here's a good link, wikipedia also has some info.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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 right. If you don't want an escalation of the conflict, you certainly don't want to create recruitment for those who'd like to fight fire with fire.
As for ISIS they're doing a pretty good job of marketing themselves as evil incarnate, so I don't see how you could or should balance out the coverage. Yes, it's propaganda but it's also the proof of why they need to be fought. Nobody can hide behind ignorance, if they were hiding it we'd call it exposing them. But now we know, so we're supposed to pretend we don't? The fucked up part is that this is apparently good propaganda to some, they're showing a total disregard for human life and dignity and so people join them. I hope every one of them meet a bullet with their name on it.
And I think you're vastly underestimating them, sure there are many backwards goatherders but also many highly educated, radicalized muslims who organize them. You don't cook up volatile high explosives and make bombs without blowing yourself up without a decent amount of skill. Don't confuse fanatics with being ignorant, like how you in the US have many otherwise highly functional people who believe in young earth creationism. Except where it directly conflicts with their beliefs some of these people could easily be engineers, doctors and lawyers.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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?"
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why? Do you think he cares if he stands a chance for reelection?
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.
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.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
The premise seems to be that the US government controls the Internet
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Ahhh, the Troll mod. Sorry if it hurts the Slashdot/ISIS crowd, but this phase of the war goes back to 1979.
"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. Qataris, and Saudis, and Turks! Oh my!
"And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that 'democratic.'"
Gee! Understatement?
But hey, theater.. Carry on
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
This assertion itself illustrates the the disconnect in culture and assumptions.
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.
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.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes