I'm not sure how I feel about the tone of this article - it's a particularly unsympathetic portrait of two american "losers" that ended up joining al-Shabaab and ISIS. However, it's worth reading if only because it perfectly matches what I know about the recruitment methods of Hamas.
Al Qaeda has more in common with Rastafarianism than it does with the Irish Republican Army. A sense of belonging counts more than a sense of mission; a philosophy more than a battle plan. I don't know how many young Americans are likely to rush to Kurdistan for Allah but I do know that every terrorist you've ever seen on TV grew up disaffected on the fringes of Western culture.
kleinbl00 just to be clear, this is an apology for not approaching the topic with a less confrontational tone. We have clearly misinterpreted each other, but rest assured my aim wasn't to come and pick fights with people. Hopefully this will be a lesson learned.
Okay. Thanks. Make you a deal - I'll remember that we had this discussion and you remember that I don't take kindly to assumptions, fair enough? So the original question: The original question rephrased in a less inflammatory way: "There's clearly a difference between comfortable Americans and Palestinian militants, however." (not really a question anymore, is it?) Right. Clearly. But it's a matter of degree. It all starts with disaffected youth and ends with insurgency - And while there are far more Palestinians in Hamas than there are white kids in al Qaeda, there's still John Walker Lindh. And yeah - if you're a happy white kid in Minnesota it's a lot harder to find a Jihadi message. But the Internet is the Internet and the 9/11 bombers? Disaffected middle-class Saudis. The 2005 London bombings? Disaffected middle-class Britons. But that's obvious stuff. Public knowledge. It's the perspective - that it's a matter of degree - that is the controversial opinion here. That's the drive of the article, that's the point of my statement. So maybe it's my turn to be shocked - how do you think someone ends up strapping on a bomb and walking into a crowd? 'cuz the way you phrased your response - and the way you've phrased your responses since - indicate a high degree of skepticism about known facts. Dude never once saw an Iron Dome. Still flew a 767 into the World Trade Center. Reza Aslan makes a point in How to Win A Cosmic War that Islam recognizes the near enemy, the far enemy and the cosmic enemy. Local battles involve people whose lives are fucked up by the near enemy - your tribe keeps stealing my goats. Tribal battles involve people whose lives are indirectly fucked up by the far enemy - Saddam gassed the Kurds and I like Kurds. Cosmic battles involve people who are pissed off by ideology - Fuck Israel because they're Jewish. Death to America because they're capitalist swine. It's Maszlow's Heirarchy, basically. If you're dealing with the near enemy, you have no time for the far enemy. If you're dealing with the far enemy, you have no time for the cosmic enemy. The only people who can really pick idealogical battles are the ones that don't have anything better to do. That's why Pashtun tribesmen don't put Semtex in their underwear and board flights to New York... that's a job left to:So you don't believe that there may be a slight difference in these guys coming from relatively comfortable American lives to someone who may or may not have lost multiple family members and or a home at the hands of the forces surrounding them?
Born in 1968 in a small town in Egypt's Nile Delta, Atta moved with his family to the Abdeen section of Cairo at the age of 10. Atta studied architecture at Cairo University, graduating in 1990, and continued his studies in Hamburg, Germany at the Technical University of Hamburg.
Upon his release from prison in 1996,[8] he joined the Brixton Mosque.[9][11] He later began attending the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London headed at that time by the anti-American cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and described as "the heart of the extremist Islamic culture" in Britain.[3][9] By 1998 Reid was voicing extremist views,[3] and may have fallen under the sway of "terrorist talent spotters and handlers" allied with Al Qaeda.[9]
So you've identified a hierarchy that makes a lot of sense. What I'm saying is if that hierarchy is at the centre of Hamas recruitment would the methodology be consistent? With vastly different drivers between an angry young man in Gaza who has seen his home razed and a kid in Minnesota who's only gripe would be with the "cosmic enemy" of which he is actually a part surely the process of indoctrination would be different too.
When I've taken pedagogy class, I've always been told - to be a successful teacher, you need to have 100 different ways to teach a topic to someone, and always be looking for more. In a way, indoctrination is just a highly controlled level of teaching - Teaching without critical thought. With that comparison in mind, it make a lot of sense that there would be many different ways for Clerics preaching extremist ideology to approach and convince any person of any background. So of course the methodology would be different, just like it is for visual learners vs tactile learners, only on an expanded scale. Does the methodology used to convert make a difference, really? A the end of they day they are playing on peoples dreams and fears no matter their socioeconomic background, faith, or race.
As McCain and Kastigar and too many others have shown, all the bad guys need to do is offer a way to stop feeling like a loser.
Yeah, I'm gonna catch shit for this, for sure, but how is that different from much of our own recruiting methods? My cousin got busted with a bunch of LSD on him and could either go to jail or the marines. He chose the marines. I'm proud of his accomplishments, the guy went from 120lb's wet to like 200lbs of pure muscle. He's now a very hard working fella and it seems the discipline and knowledge he acquired will serve him well in life. But still, they took a guy at what was his lowest point and recruited him. Happens ALL THE TIME.
This is how a lot of organizations work. Take people who feel weak or powerless, and give them an illusion of power, or even an illusion of making a difference (See Slacktivism, most egregiously things like Kony2012). This has been a viable strategy for centuries.As McCain and Kastigar and too many others have shown, all the bad guys need to do is offer a way to stop feeling like a loser.
In some ways, you're totally right. Of course the places you mention also offer you the opportunity to better yourself and study what interests you, but some people might argue the same for an extremist religious organization.
If you could share, what do you know about the recruiting methods of Hamas?
1) Find the loser 2) Give him a family 3) Provide him resources 4) Isolate him 5) restrict the operational arm to those that have passed a lot of tests
I don't think you can say "gangs" and see unity. The Crips are not the Zetas are not Murder Inc. I mean, right now the Mexican cartels are the kings of meth. Back in the '90s it was Tom Arnold's sister. I'm no expert on gangs, nor am I on Hamas. But I've read more books about Hamas than I have about gangs.
This just arrived in the mail, along with a few other recommendations you've made. I can't wait to start. I would love to be able to visit one day, though American citizens are only allowed under chaperone I think.
So you don't believe that there may be a slight difference in these guys coming from relatively comfortable American lives to someone who may or may not have lost multiple family members and or a home at the hands of the forces surrounding them? They're simply losers with no real grievance?
I am being civil. I can only go on your words on how Hamas goes about recruiting. I simply find it hard to believe that the majority of Hamas recruits in Gaza are merely disaffected losers rather than a besieged young populace.
For the record, our first discourse was you summarizing what you want me to believe with sarcasm and hyperbole after I was the one who suggested a book written by a Rhodes Scholar who went to party with Hezbollah in Palestine in order to write a book about disaffected youth in the modern Middle East. That's not civil. You're not going on my words. Meanwhile, you're summing up by saying that this straw man you've constructed out of statements I didn't make you "simply find it hard to believe." Once more, with feeling: would you like to try putting words in my mouth again? Or would you like to apologize for painting me as thoughtless and inconsiderate and try again? Because I can have this discussion. But I won't have it with somebody looking to take potshots at me. Do you understand?
Jesus, you're an irascible one aren't you? No one is trying to put words in your mouth. Lets try context. We can't all read your suggested literature, we can only read the link you posted, a article you describe as "particularly unsympathetic" which paints a picture of two no hopers seeking refuge and purpose in a futile war of idealism. You then said that the article, which only briefly touches on some propaganda DVDs and Twitter as any sort of description of the recruitment process utilised "perfectly matches what I know about the recruitment methods of Hamas". So what am I supposed to take from that? Am I supposed to instantly recall a book I've never read or the bloody article you linked to for my examples of what this process is and who it affects?
With all due respect man I feel like you came into Hubski with the wrong attitude. There's no reason to challenge anyone, take anything personally or shout names at anyone, even kleinbl00. This site may not be what you're used to but as an example we're not really the community that has to be "Militant" anything. If you want to say something, I can virtually guarantee you'll find an audience here, eventually. You don't have to invade or attack anyone and then be in the situation of defending yourself. even from kleinbl00. Joking about kb of course but from other posts it seems like you joined Hubski to carry out an invasion, not an exploration. Just chill out and look around first, it's all good here.
If you want to say something, I can virtually guarantee you'll find an audience here, eventually.
What...what did I just read??! Tell me everything is going to be okay.
No one is being attacked. But kleinbl00 seems to have flown off the handle rather than say "that's not what I meant- here is my actual position" instead I get the accusation I'm putting words in they're mouth. But I'm the one being defensive? I remained civil, there was no "name calling" unless pointing out someone being irascible was being irascible is an insult.
I read the thread, I like reaaaaally don't care about your argument, just wanted to let you know it's a waste of your time to escalate past discourse on Hubski, and argue aimlessly. Hang out make jokes, or get in the most grueling and complex of discussions but if people see you fighting randomly we're all just gonna mute you, you'll be gone in days. e- whether you are or not doesn't matter, I'm not accusing you of anything. Just a warning, really. I don't run this place and I hold no authority, I just really enjoy it and it's annoying having to run away from people who fuck it up.
Okay that's fair enough. But can I point out that both myself and Kleinbl00 are basically coming from the same place? Each as seemingly misinterpreted the other intentions, I have explained mine, but now I'm being accused of putting words in people's mouth and even more serious invading people's space, something that if you did indeed read why some of us came here, is reason we left where we were. If I wanted nothing more than fighting and arguing I'd have stayed where I was, no? So again, if you're looking at this objectively, isn't your warning the exact same thing I'm being warned about? I came in peace man, don't take anything from the username.
I got you. S'all good then man, welcome to Hubski.
I'm really taken aback that everyone seems to think I was fixing for a fight. But I'll have to concede that clearly that's the tone I put out. Lesson learned.
A simple "no, I don't understand" would have sufficed. Let me put this as simply as I can: Your statement offended me. When I informed you that your statement was offensive, you countered by stating you weren't being offensive. I then affirmed that I was offended and further gave you examples of how not just I, but anybody would find your statement offensive. You're now arguing that I'm offended. CORRECT. I didn't post that link to demonstrate that I know more than you, I posted it to demonstrate that I can and have had extremely in-depth, extremely nuanced discussions about this very subject. But I won't have it with YOU unless you make an effort not to offend me. You can be as militant as you want. What you're supposed to take from our discussion, however, is that I'm under no obligation to have a discussion with someone who goes out of their way to offend me. You didn't start our discussion with "It sounds like you're saying X" or "Are you saying X." You started it with sarcasm and straw men. That you don't start discussions here with antagonism. I don't know where you came from (that's a lie). I'll reckon things are different there. Around here? We start civil discussions with civility. And if you'd like to take a step back, apologize and rephrase your questions in a form largely devoid of scorn and sarcasm, we can have that civil discussion.So what am I supposed to take from that?
I wasn't being sarcastic, I genuinely wanted to know if you didn't believe there was a difference. If you felt offended, which your reply doesn't actually say, rather just an accusation I was putting words in your mouth, I apologise, that wasn't the intent, but I was expecting you'd clear up your position when asked. Seeing confrontation where there wasn't one was on you, not me. Your initial reaction was to simply fly off the handle even after I attempted to clear up the reasoning behind my question twice, yet you still dismiss it as sarcasm or a fabricated reading of your intent. If you write something that someone interprets in a way you didn't intend surely you explain what you did intend not get angry at the interpretation ...that's what I did, look above. I gave you a break down of my thought process so I'm still shocked you're interpreting it as a confrontation of nothing. You yourself in the link you posted say the situation in Israel/Palestine is one where you have to form your own opinion. You clearly have one on the people of Palestine as do I. Mine is that they have valid concerns and grievances. This is no comment on their methodology or actions. I don't believe firing rockets or blowing up buses is a worthwhile endeavour, but I don't believe they're bored or disaffected kids looking for fraternal bonding or purpose to an otherwise hopeless life. So with that context when I see a story about two Americans seeking out Jihad after watching a few DVDs and listening to some indoctrination at their local Mosque I would only disagree that their path and the methods used to turn them would look anything like it would in Palestine. I can't see how the methods would be the same. The things I have read of Hamas are their masked legitimate programs, schools, healthcare, youth programs where they then feed of the very real anger felt by those on the ground and turn that to their advantage. They're there in the shit, as it were, with their recruits and actually offer them something at first. This can't be compared to a couple of disaffected kids from America. What anger is being used and redirected? For them they went seeking brotherhood and the people they found say "hey, we're your brothers, and this bully is picking on us, lets go fight" and they foster a sense of purpose for probably the first time in their lives. My point is if the motivations of the recruit are vastly different there's simply no way the recruitment methods can be anything alike.