He claims to have read all or most issued of ISIS’s propaganda magazine, Dabiq and in this article, he tells what he think’s he’s learned about them. One thing he’s learned is:
#4. Violent Reprisals Are Exactly What They Want
He’s also gleaned ISIS’s self-perceived weaknesses:
#3. Here’s What Scares ISIS – Mainly, finances and the flood of refugees leaving their area.
And, finally, he argues:
#1. We Don’t Really Understand How ISIS Sees The World – Who is their most feared, hated, reviled dangerous enemy? Not France, Russia, America, Israel or Saudi Arabia. Their worst enemy is all the apostate blasphemous Muslims in the world who fail to drop everything and flock to the Caliphate to join them.
I’ve never seen a terrorist org talking about this. I’d like to see a source. It seems rather parochial. ObL made fun of Bush’s “they hate us for our freedoms” speech by pointing out if that were true they would attack Sweden, then listing all sorts of ways that America isn’t free and rather resembles some ME nations. He was particularly amused that Bush Sr.'s sons were both governors, likening them to princes.
A big angle I see in their propaganda is they want to demonstrate the West isn’t invincible and they can be hit. They want to show this to everyone in hopes it’ll inspire other Muslims to take up their banner and throw the infidels and their stooges out of the ME. Another one is causing economic damage, and the hope the West will fall into a quagmire and be humiliated and shown to be cowards, like Vietnam and Iraq.
Sometimes you hear people say things like “they only understand force” and “if we show them how strong we are with thus huge attack they’ll back down.” Terrorists think the exact same way. Seems to be a near human universal.
In a series of not-so-subtle digs at ISIS - whose method in Paris seems to have been “to kill everything that moves” - al-Qaida supporters praised the more careful and discerning Al-Qaeda team in Mali, who carefully separated Muslims from non-Muslims before the killings began:
The article calls it a kind of “lethal one-upmanship,” which seems about right. These people are jostling for place amongst themselves; their bitter struggle for the top spot is playing out on the world stage.
I think perhaps a flaw in the whole notion of asking “what do terrorists want?” is the assumption that they all want the same thing. Different terrorists have different wants and motivations, which may or may not be the same thing they claim to want in the media.
Some terrorists want to change the government they live under, some want to force out what they see as invaders, some want to change the world.
It’s possible to have all of the above in the same organization.
One way something like ISIS is different than, say, the Basque ETA or Irish groups behind “The Troubles” is that the latter two groups had strictly regional concerns - neither were ever going to bomb Bali. They were a strictly local problem. ISIS, however, is interested in world domination. Granted, they’re a long, long way from that, and they know it, it is an end goal for them. Their concerns are global, not local.
As for “understanding” - as noted, that will vary within the organization. Front-line grunts/suicide operatives probably have one level of understanding, and it may be pretty rudimentary. The guys running the show are probably more nuanced and comprehensive in what they know, think, and do.
Some terrorism has historically been trying to provoke an overreaction. This is more the IRA, Basque, Stern Gang, type of terrorism. A militant group is trying to make the rest of the population more militant by invoking a crackdown.
Islamic terrorism is not like this at all. According to Islamic terrorists there are two enemies to the caliphate the near enemy and the far enemy. The near enemy is the local government that refuses to hand them power and the reason they are stronger than the terrorists are the local governments are supported by the far enemy, the west. The template is Afghanistan or Somalia. In Afghanistan the USSR installed a puppet government. The mujaheddin killed so many Soviet troops that the pulled out, the puppet government fell, and eventually the radical muslims took over. Al Queda perpetrated 9-11 to get the US to stop supporting Saudi Arabia so the radical muslims could take over Saudi Arabia.
ISIS attacked France because they are backing anti-ISIS fighters in Syria. They want that support to stop so they can conquer the rest of Syria and set up the caliphate there. They also did it for recruitment purposes. Every potential Islamic terrorist wants to join the best group and by showing how much damage they can cause in decadent France they show all potential recruits that ISIS is the best group to join.
9/11 ended up costing the US several trillion dollars in between property damage, economic damage and increased military spending. So that worked for them. I’m pretty sure bin Laden even spoke of that being his goal, slowly economically bleed the US to death by encouraging overreaction on our part.
When I opened this thread I thought the theme would be do terrorists understand that going too far with human rights abuses turns the public against them.
Well… yeah, except the US is still here, despite all that spending and bleeding.
Hmm…
Yes and no. Some groups probably do understand that. Others… well, some of the current Jihadists think beheading and stoning people to death for religious violations is a good thing. In their world, certain of what we call “human rights abuses” are a positive good. So in those cases no, I don’t think they understand that those actions are turning people against them because they don’t see those actions as wrong.
Actually, ISIS is like that. They’ve explicitly said that they expect America and other countries will send troops to Syria. They have said that this will give them the opportunity to defeat the foreigners in direct combat and show how Allah favors them.
It’s one of the issues that divides ISIS and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda wants all non-Muslims to leave Muslim lands. ISIS wants non-Muslims to invade Muslim lands so they can be fought and defeated.
No cite – not going to search on the topic from a government computer, thanks – but for decades it’s been regarded as a truism that Communist revolutionary literature explicitly advocated stimulating an overreaction from governments of the status quo which would alienate the masses. By literature, I mean there were manuals explaining the technique. Che Guevara stuff.
Now, I can’t recall owning any copies, and as I mentioned, can’t search safely. But This sort of tactic is dog-eared and old, long-understood, and I have little doubt that anyone serious about overthrowing the status quo is familiar with it.
Communist doctrine has this in common with terrorist doctrine: there are very few universal beliefs.
Some communists believed the the advance of communism was inevitable; all people had to do was wait for it to arrive. Other communists said that it was possible to push communism along and achieve a communist society earlier than its natural arrival.
There were also differences in opinion about spreading communism. Some communists supported the “world revolution” doctrine that said existing communist societies had a duty to promote communism in non-communist societies. Other communists supported the “socialism in one country” doctrine that said that existing communist societies should focus on building up communism in their own country and acting as a example for non-communist societies to follow.
I think the only real motivation that terrorists have is growing the organization. And that means money and bodies. The attacks are recruiting tools. They could care less what effect they have on the targeted population, as long as it keeps their name in the news long enough to attract new recruits. They want to look stronger and more capable than Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab and all the other organizations that are competing for the same group of young, violent, fundamentalist men.
Economic impact is not as easy to measure as dollars spent. War can actually be a stimulant to an economy. Productivity and industrial potential are very different than dollars or numbers in a database.
The strategy worked on the USSR. Slowly bleeding the nation helped bring it to collapse.
The 9/11 acts may have cost 3 trillion so far.
So yeah we are still standing, but the bleeding process is working.
The terrorists seem pretty intelligent in the ways they attack the west. What they do domestically is generally stupid (abuse people until you turn the public against you) but they know how to manufacture as much terror in the west as possible to help sow discord, debt and discontentment in the west all with a few suicide terrorists.
Perhaps some individuals involved in attacks may have this view, but I don’t think it’s the organization’s aim.
Apparently some of the media coming from ISIS openly states that they want to provoke a great war in the middle east, and then when they miraculously win, that will finally show it is the true caliphate.
So it’s not that they’re so naive to think attacking us will make us leave them alone. They know the opposite is the case.
But before anyone says it, I’m not saying we’re playing into their hands and should withdraw.
The USSR is a bad example. There is good spending and bad spending and as long as productivity is increasing, which it is, it’s hard to say that the spending we are doing is bankrupting the country. For one thing, the dollar can be created at will. Spending dollars doesn’t make them disappear. You ought to look at money as a lubricant for productivity and as long as productivity is increasing the money is doing it’s job.
I am going to tepidly partially agree with you. If you just look at “assets” burned up during a war, you total up an insane amount of expensive equipment and human assets damaged or destroyed. (you know, 10k men who are dead and can no longer produce anything else, something like 100k to 250k people permanently injured for life with PTSD or missing limbs)
But of course, if the population of a country works harder on a national scale in response to the crisis of a war, the increase in economic output can be so large it negates the losses. This is basically what happened in the United States, WW2.
Three trillion is alot of money but total US GDP in that time is around 189 trillion. The terrorist have caused us to spend an extra 1.5% of GDP. That is sustainable literally forever.