Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG3
Yes they're gross, they also aren't quite as effective as you claim. Despite similar campaigns in my state, from what I've heard things have if anything gotten worse. Of course, in this case you can't bring something so blatantly obvious to the table one cannot logically deny it like that. You think the irhabi can't launch a counter-propaganda campaign and use that material you would have us putting out there, Shek?
|
Actually, meth use is way down in Montana since the campaign launched. You can't contribute all of the decline in usage to the ad campaign, since there are other reasons as well, such as cutting in to home cooked meth by banning OTC sales of some cold medicines. However, since this was a national ban, you'd expect that the relative ranking of meth use wouldn't change. There are other supply factors, but the sheer magnitude of decline along with the change in relative ranking provides a motivation for the success of the ad campaign. You can then find some support for causality through the attitudes survey that can be found on the same site.
Quote:
Montana Meth Project
MONTANA METH PROJECT SUMMARY RESULTS
The Problem
As of September 2005 Montana was overwhelmed by methamphetamine abuse:
Montana ranked #5 in the nation for Meth abuse
50% of inmates were incarcerated for Meth
50% of foster-care admissions were Meth-related
THE CAMPAIGN
From September 2005 through September 2007, the Meth Project sustained a large-scale, statewide prevention campaign spanning TV, radio, billboards, newspapers, and the Internet. This campaign included:
45,000 TV ads
35,000 radio ads
10,000 print impressions
1,000 billboards
IMPACT
Montana Market Results: 2005-2008
As of April 2008:
Montana ranks #39 in the nation for Meth abuse
Teen Meth use has declined by 45%
Adult Meth use has declined by 72%
62% decrease in Meth-related crime
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FOG3
The fundamental problem is you have a bunch of males that:
-Are unhappy with their current environment
-More or less directionless
This makes this group historically easy to manipulate and organize into a force, by those with decent capability by providing them with a sense of purpose and at least an illusion of being able to help change their environment. Whether they be political movements, gangs, or otherwise.
The thing you seem to utterly fail to appreciate is that need is there whether the irhabi existed or not. If the irhabi are marketing something to fill that need, and you're just defaming the irhabi you're not gonna win.
It's like the Greens lecturing people about their choice in vehicles. It doesn't matter how many "experts" or converts they drag on up, for the most part no one is going to listen to them, because they don't serve their interests. Basic capitalism Shek. Unless we market a better product to fill demand, the only shop in town fills the demand. There's a need in this case and it has to be filled. This isn't swaying people in a naturally stable neutral position, because those people aren't the problem.
|
The problem is that Salafism isn't the only game in town. It is a competitive market. Why do you join a movement? To feel a part of something is some of it. However, there is also a component of pride and feeling proud of what you will do. Many of these younger males find what they believe is the "true" Islam, and so they can be proud of what they will do. However, the contradictions of the extreme Salafists with Islamic doctrine isn't that difficult to point out. If you drive the wedge between this, then the thought that you are joining something divine is lost.
Which brings us back to how do we drive this wedge? If we don't fight on the ideological battlefield, then we simply cede this to our opponents. Your implication seems to be that a counter-message by AQ et al will simply and completely counteract anything we do at a minimum, and maybe put us in a worse position. Counter-propaganda and effective counter-propaganda are two distinct entities.
If you are a meth "terrorist", how do you counter this:
The way things work is that the first effective message out there becomes the baseline. If a message is credible, then the burden of the proof falls on the counter-message to change the baseline. If you don't want to play the drugs game that you brought up, then sell me your counter-message to this image of a girl that was injured by an AQI suicide car bomb and eventually died. A huge propaganda victory for the US Army in Mosul (and a corresponding defeat for AQI's image).
Or we can use the Jordan wedding bombing in 2005:
The
video of the would be female suicide bomber in the same attack isn't effective? What's your counter-message?
The opportunity to delegitimize AQ et al and their ideology exists. If we don't take advantage of this, then we cede the initiative.