Hacker News Reader

Your comment doesn't appear to have anything to do with the article. Apparently you skipped the part where the author actually makes his point (understandable, since it's one paragraph in a sea of crap.)

Current U.S. public diplomacy centers on selling America to the Muslim world, but we should also work to undermine some of the myths built up around our enemies by highlighting their incompetence, their moral failings, and their embarrassing antics. Beyond changing how the Muslim world perceives terrorists, we can help ourselves make smarter counterterrorism choices by being more realistic about the profile and aptitude of would-be attackers...Even small investments in training for police and airport-security personnel can make a big difference, as these are the people most likely to encounter—and have a chance to disrupt—an unskilled attacker.

You're completely missing the point. Terrorism is about spreading terror, killing people is just a technique. Finding reasons to laugh at these jackasses makes them a lot less terrifying.

The best way to fight their ideas is to avoid buying into their romantic self-image as heroic martyrs, and reveal them as the sad losers they really are.

and yet, humiliation is the best way to make an enemy

I think its much better to have nothing to do with these people. we need to stop trying to create the centralized states our DC politicians are in love with and that are necessarily more fragile, requiring life support from the west.

I think many people feel very threatened by the west, its technology and its overpowering media. the more we keep pushing it in their face, the more they will keep looking for a way to make us regret we ever did

and yet, humiliation is the best way to make an enemy

Mockery and humiliation are not equivalent. Humiliation implies some degradation of people under our control. We should of course avoid such behavior, but public mockery need not entail humiliation.

I'm pretty sure that folks willing to commit acts of terrorism are already enemies. But I do agree that this sort of messaging has to be careful to differentiate the nitwit terrorists and the larger community from which they might draw support. Mock the former, not the latter.

I think its much better to have nothing to do with these people.

Alas, this does not seem politically feasible. Governments that fail to communicate anything to the public about terrorists are at risk of falling victim to demagogues in other parties.

I was referring to our foreign policy, not whether or not we should communicate with our citizens about threats

I'm not missing the point.

I don't disagree with the perspective (as i said), but mock their ideology. What's the point in attacking their devotion to their cause or the efficacy of their pursuit? The are literally, deadly serious about their cause, regardless of how stupid it is.

Suicide bombing isn't about killing people; it's about scaring people. Right now, the US government portrays terrorists as scary, which probably increases their ability to scare people. Portraying them as inept would most likely reduce their ability to scare people, regardless of their ability to kill people.

Absolutely. Of course, those in government often find that it's in their interests to have citizens scared.

I think that the point of the article was to rally the audience behind the goal of piercing the image that the suicide bombers have in the Muslim world to make it much less glamorous. The author wants us to attack the terrorist organizations' ability to find new recruits as well as attack our own fears about suicide bombing (i.e. it's no longer terrorism if we don't allow ourselves to be terrified).

The author went on at length with various anecdotes about how terrorists are dumb, but I think that I missed the call to action that you are so upset about. Care to point it out to me?

Right, i get that the article is about making the appeal of being a terrorist less glamorous. However, i think that this list of anecdotes not only doesn't achieve his goal, but is actually counter-productive, because the post doesn't get to the root of what should be mocked. The notion that blowing yourself up is dumb. The idea that individual suicide bombers aren't too bright is totally pointless. Like they care what you think?

Point out their hypocrisy, point out how stupid it is for them to go blow themselves up. But calling them stupid is both trite and ineffective.

Calling them 'stupid' for blowing themselves up will not detract from the glamour. They will just claim that you don't 'get it' because you are not a Muslim.

At the very least, you should be quoting the Quran to prove to them that they shouldn't be suicide bombers. Save that, proving that suicide bombers are not devout religious soldiers will destroy the persona they the bombers feel that they will have with the rest of the Muslim world after they are dead and gone.

Who cares how smart your enemy is? You don't need to be intelligent to be dangerous.

You do need to be intelligent to kill many many people. Dumb terrorists can't increase the death rate because they can't kill very many people, so it doesn't make sense to worry about them or spend much money dealing with them. Their effects are like traffic accidents or accidental bathtub drownings: sad, but not worth reshaping our society over.

This is my point about asymmetric warfare:

You have to outlast your enemy, and make it clear that they have not won, and can not win.

They don't have to be effective and kill a lot of people to wage a campaign of terror. Eta in Spain is a good example. And even so, all you need is one or two effective suicide bombers, and then just keep reminding people that you have people willing to die for your cause to carry out a moderately effective campaign of terror.

Remember what Timothy McVeigh though. His POV was that you could kill him, do whatever to him, and he's still up 168 to 1.

Remember what Timothy McVeigh though. His POV was that you could kill him, do whatever to him, and he's still up 168 to 1.

Timothy McVeigh was a failure, in every sense of the word. He accomplished none of his political goals. He had hoped to start a revolution. Which didn't happen. Because even people who were sympathetic with his goals were repulsed at the barbarity of murdering small children. McVeigh was far more effective at annihilating public support for his preferred policies than the government could ever be.

You have to outlast your enemy, and make it clear that they have not won, and can not win.

What do you mean when you say "win"? How does a terrorist "win" exactly? It seems like you're describing the politics of spite and I don't see how this analysis allows you to make any useful predictions.

They don't have to be effective and kill a lot of people to wage a campaign of terror.

I'm not sure why we should care about terrorists that only manage to kill a few people every year. Those terrorists are about as dangerous as bathtub drownings or golf course lightning strikes: they kill a tiny number of random people. So what? What if you threw a terror campaign and nobody cared?

What does "effective" mean anyway? Do you really think that Al Queda will achieve its policy goals if it continues small scale terrorist attacks for the next few years? Really?

Al Qaeda's policy goals are the bankruptcy and disruption of western civilization.

The Taliban on the other hand is waging a fairly standard insurgency to try and get what they view as their occupiers to leave.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are actually, by and large, succeeding at their goals. NATO can't ensure peace in Afghanistan, and regardless of what is built, the political establishment in Afghanistan must contend with the Taliban. Al Qaeda at this point is an exemplar to aspire to for the incompetent schlubs trying to set their underwear on fire.

It doesn't matter if the likelihood that you're going to be blown up by a terrorist is extremely unlikely. It's that someone out there means you harm, and will strike when you do not expect it. There was an earlier post to hacker news which had an interesting discussion of the Assassins' tactics which fall into this general modus, although their motivations were totally distinct: http://www.historynet.com/holy-terror-the-rise-of-the-order-...

It doesn't matter if the likelihood that you're going to be blown up by a terrorist is extremely unlikely. It's that someone out there means you harm, and will strike when you do not expect it.

But that's a lie. No terrorist is ever going to kill me. Or you. Statistically speaking, that statement is as true as saying "you are not going to drown in a bathtub".

Look, I can die by accident in any of a billion ways. An accidental death is much much more likely than being killed by terrorists. So again, why should I care about people who are far far less dangerous to me than traffic accidents?

Al Qaeda's policy goals are the bankruptcy and disruption of western civilization....Al Qaeda and the Taliban are actually, by and large, succeeding at their goals.

I see a contradiction here. Also, I don't think you're correct in describing Al Queda's goals at all; do you have a source?

Also, I'm still unclear on what point you were trying to make about McVeigh....

Why do you think it's ideological? I was in agreement with you on the asymmetric warfare part, but I don't think there's anything irrational about using suicide bombers in an asymmetric campaign, nor do I think that Al Qaida is motivated by some sort of mental illness.

Indeed. These people aren't motivated by some lofty promise of virgins in heaven; suicide bombing isn't a Muslim thing.

I don't think that suicide bombing is ineffective (so in that sense yeah it could be considered rational from the planning perspective), however i don't think the campaigns that are waged today are consistent with the values that people claim to espouse.

The absurdity of suicide bombing lay in the ideology, and the goals one seeks to achieve by blowing oneself up.

It is important to remember that suicide bombers only appear under certain conditions, they only come from people that are, or believe themselves to be, occupied by a superior power, such they think they have absolutely nothing to lose. They're making the rational choice that since their own lives are worthless, if they can kill any of the occupying force by dying, then they've gained something for the people still behind.

If you only think of suicide bombers as "stupid" or "absurd" or "ideologically motivated", then you'll never get rid of them because you don't really understand what makes them tick.

If we have to make a choice between attacking their ideology and attacking their absurdity then I agree with you. But whats wrong with doing both?

Even if someone is ideologically driven, they might think twice about joining an organization where they are more likely to kill themselves and fellow believers rather than the infidels.

Point is, its not one or the other. All approaches can be used in unison to decrease recruitments. Not to mention that its hard to sow terror when you're being laughed at.

However, I do agree with your point below. Getting this message out will be difficult because you need to make sure you target terrorists and not Muslims (which, as you say, will create more enemies).

Edit: There is also the point in the article about how to use resources to defend the people. If you know the competence level of your enemies, you can defend their likely targets. This doesn't remove the need to protect high profile targets, but we might be able to change the distribution of defense to take into account likely targets.