Napoleoni claims that – as the Marxist ideology did in the past with the “word-of-mouth” or, better, “word-of-book” – ISIS’s propaganda gets its power from a new “ideology-spreading-tool”: the Internet, and thank to the Internet will last, no matter what:
Even though, hypothetically, we should succeed in taking out all of ISIS’s warriors by bombing them and killing al Baghdadi, the ideology that these people have created and their universal message will last on the Internet. 1
I don’t have enough authority to challenge the curious association Napoleoni did between Karl Marx philosophy and ISIS’s vision of the Islamic religion, but I find grossly superficial and offensive for the victims of (every) war to compare “the Web” to a nuclear bomb.
As I wrote in a post, war is made of bullets, and bullets hurt as do (nuclear) bombs. Bombs make carnage, slaughters, shred a human being in pieces, burn, annihilate, vaporize, wipe communities, blindly kill innocents, pollute lands for centuries or millennia (ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors for additional info, just in case.) E-mail, newsgroups, chats, FTP (yes, Napoleoni, the Internet is not only made by HTTP) are tool of freedom designed by free people to give humans a free chance to communicate with no physical and social barrier.
Those like Napoleoni – and her cultural associates, member of the “Internet-as-a-threat Club” – should simply accept the fact that ideas are countered (and sometimes, fought) with ideas and that the worst way to challenge a disturbing statement is to censor it.
The idea that a sole statement might change somebody’s personal philosophy up to turning him into a human bomb carrier is simply wrong. Change of mind happens by way of tragedies, loneliness, apartheid and injustice and not because of a tweet.
As per the “Internet Patrolling” advocated (not only) by Napoleoni – though sadly labelled by her as ineffective – again, let’s go back to basics: as the East Germany, Russian and Italian political police history show, to fight an enemy and prevent attacks there is no substitute for an actual, massive, ruthless and pervasive physical control. But t this is disturbing and, rightly so, nobody in the Western world is available to give a government so much power.
And here comes the brilliant solution: let’s fall back on the Internet and blame “the Web” as a radicalization tool.
No, Napoleoni, ideologies will not last because of a blog. They will stand until there will be inequality in world, it means until the end of time.
- Orginal text in Italian: Anche se, ipoteticamente, riuscissimo a stanare con le bombe tutti i guerrieri dello Stato Islamico e a far fuori al Baghdadi, l’ideologia che costoro hanno creato ed il loro messaggio universale in rete rimarrà ↩
True, the monumental unscrupulousness of the ICT business (which sells systems
without concerns for the security side), and the naïveté of its clients (trusting hardware instead of good practice and appropriate security processes) built today’s western digital infrastructure as a Colossus with feet of clay.
True, this made the Western World a soft target for computer-related criminals and terrorists.
True, a lot of damage can be done in a short time by a committed digital strike.
But don’t forget that war is fought with bullets, real bullets.
And bullets do hurt.
Undersecretary Marco Minniti, superseeding the Italian Intelligence activities on behalf of the Government, gave out his two cents about the war on terrorism – the Italian Way, announcing a private-public project to fight cyberterrorism and claiming that Europe hosts the Légion étrangère of Terror.
Here is the screen-shot of his statement:
Well, I don’t want to talk about the merit of the cyberterrorism response of his announcement. It is too early to actually assess a proposal that ranges from catastrophically ineffective to functional.
Let’s wait and see, but in the meantime I’ve found grossly misinformed and misleading the association Mr. Minniti did between the terrorist forces and the French Légion étrangère. It is a fact that people from many different countries are joining the terrorist camp, but in no way this can be compared to what (like it or not) the Légion is.
What I find rather disappointing is that to obtain a rhetorical stunt in front of the Press, a politician that is supposed to know better just let slip easy and wrong messages. I can imagine a newspaper’s title when the next attack will strike: “Terror Foreign Legion vs France’s Foreign Legion!” Awful sounding isn’t it?
This is what happened so far with the word “Kamikaze” whose meaning has been turned upside down by the Italian media.
Kamikaze was (and still is) the name for a desperate military tactic (BTW, not so different from the one Winston Churchill thought of fighting German panzers in case of invasion of the British soil) conceived by an army against another army, and has nothing to do with the exploitation of an individual as human bomb carrier targeting people with non combatants status.
Words’meaning grip loss leads to confused ideas, and cloudy thoughts produce wrong decision.
According to Andrea Orlando, Italian Minister of Justice, Italy plans to fight the war on terrorism on Playstations.
In a press conference, Mr. Orlando said that new technologies are exploited by terrorists, and it is imperative to keep pace with the innovation, by allowing the capability to wiretap chat (whatever this means) and Playstations.
Apart from the merit of the issue (we might either agree or not about the strategy, but this is a horse of different colour) what matters is the clear uneasiness of the Minister in talking about topics he’s clearly not knowledgeable in.
I really wander how the law enforcement agencies will be able to extract something useful by wiretapping network games that deal with assaults, terrorist actions, covert operation and so on.
Will they be able to sort the truth from the game?
Are we on the verge of a new Steve Jackson Games scandal?
The usual approximation showed by a politician in charge of taking the lead on technology-related issues shows that key decision on such a sensitive matters are made elsewhere, by someone else not at all well versed in the matter. And it would be interesting to know who this “Mr. Someoneelse” actually is.