Few people, if any, would argue the existence of the ISIS
terrorists. Fewer still doubt the
origins and motivation of the group. Appearing
on CNN’s “State of the Union” Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said: “I think we have to understand first how
we got here,” ….."I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened
is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria." ISIS features prominently in every new outlet
around the world - but what’s with
the Twitter?
Curiously,
while the conflict in Syria has destroyed its infrastructure, amidst the
bombing, fleeing, starvation, power cuts and fuel shortages, mainstream media would have us believe
that ISIS has successfully set up shop in Syria to recruit “jihadist” using
Google Chat, Skype, and Twitter (CNN).
Clearly, these terrorists are tech-savvy and know how to use in Twitter
Digital Terrorism.
In their
study, Burson-Marsteller
concluded that Twitter was ‘a powerful channel for digital diplomacy’ - but
what of propaganda? To borrow from
President Eisenhower, surely, Twitter propaganda ‘has proved its right to a place of dignity in our military
arsenal.’
Let us recall
the role Twitter played in Iran’s 2009 presidential elections. While the
mainstream media in the US hailed the success of “Twitter Revolution” in Iran, Wired Magazine dispelled the
notion in an aptly titled
article “Iran: Before You Have That Twitter-Gasm…” pointing to the origins of the tweets (US) and their irregularity. Elsewhere, it
was revealed that much of the mischief behind the ‘newsfeed’ from Iran traced back to Israel.
Egypt was another
example. The Western media contributed
the success of the Egyptian revolution to social media, Facebook and Twitter, earning Google boy Wael Ghonim a glorious,
albeit fleeting moment in history. This
narrative obfuscated America’s role in the uprisings. Freedom House had provided
"advanced
training on civic mobilization, strategic thinking, new media, advocacy and outreach". In 2010, Freedom House boasted of teaching
new media tools to Egypt's "hope".
This much said,
what is the purpose behind tweeting gruesome images of mass killings in Iraq; proposing that Westerners are being
recruited, and in some cases, ‘ordered to go back to Britain’ to continue the
‘jihad’; prompting the British PM David Cameron to warn that ‘jihadist were
planning to attack Britain’ (The
Telegraph)? Regardless
of where these tweets are being originated, one must surely wonder Cui bono?
To understand to whose benefit, we must look at the
potential impact of these messages. Without
a doubt, the fear instilled by seeing images of these atrocities could break
down or weaken resistance. This is an
old tactic using modern technology. For
example, during the Persian Gulf War of 1991, PSYOP units dropped over 29
million leaflets to encourage Iraqi soldiers to surrender, usually by stressing
the inevitability of their defeat. Estimates show that "nearly 98% of all
Iraqi prisoners acknowledged having seen a leaflet; 88% said they believed the
message; and 70% said the leaflets affected their decision to surrender."
Of the estimated 100,000 soldiers who deserted or surrendered, many were found
carrying leaflets in their hands or carrying them in their clothes[i]. It is plausible that surrender is a motive
behind these tweets.
Additionally, both fear-induced surrender and revenge could
serve to draw in fighters to side with one group or another, lubricating the
killing machine. As importantly, if not
more so, the tweets promoted by mainstream media are intended not only for
Western audiences, but also as far and wide as the media’s reach takes it. Accompanied by propagandist commentaries and
language such as another
9/11 is upon us, the US (with help from some allies) has presented a
justification for intervention and occupation of sovereign lands – a plan in
the making for decades (see Terror in Iraq; Roots and Motivation).
In all this, there is another prize. The US-led countries that devastated Iraq,
Libya, and Syria in the last decade alone have been harshly criticized for
barring refugees from entering their country, even those Iraqi interpreters
who helped the allied forces. The ‘threat’ of “jihadists” going to Britain
(France, Germany, or elsewhere) ensures that that door is slammed shut in the
faces of those who escape from the mayhem created by the “free and civilized world”
(with help from local allies).
It may well be that these tactics are not without some
forethought. In 2006, Max Boot who was introduced to a gathering at the Milken
Institute as one of the top 500 most influential people in the making of US
foreign policy in America, addressed the matter of ‘homebound terrorists’. Using 21st century terminology
‘Jihadist’, he was referring to the 1859 invasion of Sudan by the British and
the ease with which the crazy ‘jihadist Mahdi’ and his followers were gunned
down without any fear of repercussion that the enemy – Sudanese who had been
terrorized, , would follow them back to England. In his view, these days, open borders posed a
problem which could open the door to ‘enemy Jihadists’ retaliating. Rest
easy Max. Twitter has solved the problem
for you.
[i] Smyczek, Peter J. The Air Force Law Review. Maxwell
AFB: 2005 Vol. 57 p. 209, 211-240 (31pp)
No comments:
Post a Comment