The Islamic state

[Pickman's model]

their actions weren't presented as war crimes or anything of the sort- napalm was presented as being as normal as doughnuts.

i am not persuaded this is in fact true: from the times, 30/3/1964 (p. 11)

 

[newbie]

are you sure? i was under the impression that there was a vigorous anti-war movement ready to highlight things like that.

yes. of course there was a strong anti-war movement but the night after night presentation of the normality of using napalm on the news, yes I'm sure.

 

[Pickman's model]

times letters 26/8/1964

 

[butchersapron]

I'm fucked if I'm going to watch the beheading vids, but from what I've been reading ISIS have taken it to the next level by revelling in the obscenity of their crimes.

Did the previous Jihadist groups try to stick to the old recruiting sergeant's trick of portraying war as noble, or were they dealers in obscenity as well? (genuine question)

Have a look back at GIA in algeria for similar approach.

 

[Spymaster]

i am not persuaded this is in fact true: from the times, 30/3/1964 (p. 11)
View attachment 67320

Lol @ 'take extreme care when bombing or strafing villages'.

 

[Pickman's model]

times 30/9/1965

 

[Pickman's model]

times 5/2/1968



etc etc etc

 

[newbie]

i am not persuaded this is in fact true: from the times, 30/3/1964 (p. 11)
View attachment 67320

Can you clarify the point you're making? The war ended in 1975, a decade after your clippings.

 

[Pickman's model]

yes. of course there was a strong anti-war movement but the night after night presentation of the normality of using napalm on the news, yes I'm sure.

strange it's not reflected in the reporting of the war, at least in the times. there's loads of articles, not to mention the occasional letter, on the subject, and it's continued reporting suggests that it was not in fact seen as a normal thing. tv news of course different and much harder for i (or you) to verify. although i'll have a quick go.

 

[Pickman's model]

Can you clarify the point you're making? The war ended in 1975, a decade after your clippings.

oh dear. the americans withdrew combat forces in 1973, which is when the war ended for them. i don't want to post up loads and loads of articles hence the etc etc etc in post 3727. the point i'm making is you're talking bollocks and i think it's been made.

 

[Pickman's model]

a

 

[Pickman's model]

Aye, but they didn't make it on to the telly that much.

not so, apparently

Unlike many wars before when the brutality of napalm was censored by the government, in Vietnam, it was exposed massively by the media. Thousands of pictures and videos about napalm’s devastation were reported daily in the press. One of the most indelible pictures about the cruelty of napalm was the “Napalm Girl” –a photograph of a nine-year-old girl and a group of children are running down the road after a South Vietnamese napalm attack on her village. The girl was naked and screaming because napalm was burning her body.

The more the media emphasized on the pain caused by napalm, the more it helped to strengthen antiwar movement. In October 1966, the first demonstration against the use of napalm was conducted at the Berkeley campus of the University of California and Wayne State University in Michigan. In the following year, hundreds of protests continued in larger scale. The Dow Chemical Company who manufactured napalm for the U.S. government from 1965 to 1969 and its products were boycotted all over the country. Dow recruiters also faced a storm of protests by college students, who called them as “baby killers”.

http://thevietnamwar.info/napalm-vietnam-war/

 

[agricola]

Did the previous Jihadist groups try to stick to the old recruiting sergeant's trick of portraying war as noble, or were they dealers in obscenity as well? (genuine question)

It was all pretty horrible stuff, the main difference with IS being the quality of the production (though even there the advances in technology over the past ten years and a more widespread appreciation of filming and graphics in the population (which is sort of the same point as you made earlier) might be responsible more than any kind of organization) and the willingness of the media in the West to publicize its existence (and of course easy access to it via Twitter etc).

 

[phildwyer]

Pickman's have you finally lost the plot or what? What's your point man?

 

[Pickman's model]

Pickman's have you finally lost the plot or what? What's your point man?

have you ever thought of reading the thread?

 

[newbie]

I don't think he has a point. Napalm bombing was all over the TV news for a decade. A good chunk of both British and US opinion recoiled from the horror of it.

 

[phildwyer]

It isnt unprecedented, though - there is a long history of jihadi groups filming attacks, the aftermath of attacks and disseminating horrifying images of victims (either of theirs or the people who they are fighting) all over the internet.

Have they ever shown the deliberate, ritualistic burning to death of a prisoner before?

Has that ever even been done, let alone filmed, since the seventeenth century?

 

[phildwyer]

I don't think he has a point.

That is my impression too.

 

[agricola]

Have they ever shown the deliberate, ritualistic burning to death of a prisoner before?

Has that ever even been done, let alone filmed, since the seventeenth century?

Not sure that it has (by jihadi groups at least probably because of the clear prohibition on such things in hadith) - but as we all know ritual self-immolation has been done, announced to the press beforehand, filmed, broadcast around the world and political points made on several occasions.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't think he has a point. Napalm bombing was all over the TV news for a decade. A good chunk of both British and US opinion recoiled from the horror of it.

so was it a) shown as being normal as doughnuts or was it b) being shown as horrific? it would be nice if you kept to the same tune, btw.

 

[Patteran]

Depends on the group, but nothing quite like this, the most prominent example is probably the Daniel Pearl execution video.

I think that the closest comparison to ISIS' use of media as a tool of recruitment and intimidation through savagery is the very similar use of media by Mexican drug cartels. ISIS videos really remind me of Mexican drug cartel produced videos - the swagger, the self-denunciations of victims before execution and so on. ISIS' production values are generally much better though.

You're right - I'd not thought of that - the chainsaw execution videos display similarities. Cartels 'creating & managing savagery' when the state has retreated and/or been corrupted, in an enviroment created in part by the War on Drugs rather than The War on Terror (that's probably not a helpful parallel).

 

[Pickman's model]

Have they ever shown the deliberate, ritualistic burning to death of a prisoner before?

Has that ever even been done, let alone filmed, since the seventeenth century?

it was done in the 19th century, in 1804, near eisenach in germany

20,000 people gathered to watch - although in this case death from sulphuric acid smoke rather than fire

1813: berlin - two men sentenced to be burned alive but apparently strangled beforehand.

 

[newbie]

so was it a) shown as being normal as doughnuts or was it b) being shown as horrific? it would be nice if you kept to the same tune, btw.

do keep up. it was shown as being normal, just like, say, the need for austerity, but do you know what, not everyone believes everything they're fed.

I have no idea why you've wandered off on this strange tangent.

 

[Pickman's model]

do keep up. it was shown as being normal, just like, say, the need for austerity, but do you know what, not everyone believes everything they're fed.

I have no idea why you've wandered off on this strange tangent.

yes. but as i have said my point is it was not presented as being normal. i have made an effort to demonstrate that. you have by contrast only assertion to back you up. if it was presented as being normal but more and more people were concerned by the use of napalm, why did its use continue to be shown on tv, if the media were so in on the entire thing surely they'd have chopped it. so, if it was presented as normal then go off and find something to substantiate your point (there are a range of news reports on youtube, fyi), otherwise let's move on.

 

[peterkro]

Have they ever shown the deliberate, ritualistic burning to death of a prisoner before?

Has that ever even been done, let alone filmed, since the seventeenth century?

It is certainly medieval although there are worse things,for instance the Mujahideen (supported by the US at the time) slicing around the abdomen of Russian captives and then pulling the skin up and over their arms,if there is film I've never seen it nor want to but the reports are so numerous to deny it happened is crazy.

 

[Flavour]

You know who I blame for all this? No, not the West. That's too easy. I'm going to go one step further and blame the Ottoman Empire, specifically the earliest Sultans who made it what it was by finally conquering the Byzantines: yeah that's you lot - Murad II, Mehmed II and Bayezid II. If these fucking bastards hadn't consolidated the Ottoman Empire's grip over the Middle East, well, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. And, well, if you want to look a little bit closer to the present, then blame Abdul Hamid II, who proper fucked the empire all up and made their defeat in WWI inevitable, thus making the drawing up of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc by the Entente powers inevitable, thus making the socio-ethnic tensions of the following century inevitable, thus making Islamic fundamentalism in the M.E. inevitable, thus making 9/11 inevitable, thus making the Iraq War inevitable, thus making ISIS inevitable. Don't blame Bush for invading Iraq any more than you blame Jihadi John for beheading Kenji Goto. Their actions were just natural reactions to historical circumstances.

Am I right?

 

[Pickman's model]

You know who I blame for all this? No, not the West. That's too easy. I'm going to go one step further and blame the Ottoman Empire, specifically the earliest Sultans who made it what it was by finally conquering the Byzantines: yeah that's you lot - Murad II, Mehmed II and Bayezid II. If these fucking bastards hadn't consolidated the Ottoman Empire's grip over the Middle East, well, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. And, well, if you want to look a little bit closer to the present, then blame Abdul Hamid II, who proper fucked the empire all up and made their defeat in WWI inevitable, thus making the drawing up of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc by the Entente powers inevitable, thus making the tense socio-ethnic tensions of the following century inevitable, thus making Islamic fundamentalism in the M.E. inevitable, thus making 9/11 inevitable, thus making the Iraq War inevitable, thus making ISIS inevitable. Don't blame Bush for invading Iraq any more than you blame Jihadi John for beheading Kenji Goto. Their actions were just natural reactions to historical circumstances.

Am I right?

it makes sense.

 

[phildwyer]

You know who I blame for all this?

Quickly Nurse, the screens!

 

[Flavour]

no response though, have you? ISIS is all Bush's fault... but beyond that, nothing? Bush, forger of his own destiny, ISIS, just reacting to the wicked west. that's pretty much exactly how you've said you see it.

 

[Geri]

Parliamentary report came out today analysing Britain's response to the threat of Daesh (which is piss poor).

British parliamentary report sharpens debate on how to tackle ISIS

The above is an article about the report, containing a link to the full report (which I have not yet read). They were discussing it on Radio 5 this morning when I came out of the shower, and I have to say that is the first time I've ever heard an (alleged) quote from Trotsky on British radio:

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.