Osama bin Laden’s death is a moral victory, but it may turn out to be nothing more than that.
Over the past decade, he has been isolated and the capabilities of al Qaeda degraded, but it’s evolved into a social movement that continues to attract new groups and new recruits.
Studies of social networks of al Qaeda and its Southeast Asian arm, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), show they continue to spread violent jihadi ideology like a virus.
How does it spread?
Aside from the crucible of the Afghan training camps in the late 1980s, the constant propaganda pumped out by al Qaeda’s media arm and the real and perceived injustice against Muslims used by radicals to recruit moderates, there are other, more imperceptible influences.
Social network theory offers the Three Degrees of Influence Rule defined in numerous academic studies. Everything we say or do ripples through our social network, creating an impact on our friends (one degree), our friends’ friends (two degrees), and even our friends’ friends’ friends (three degrees).
For example, if you’re feeling lonely, there’s a 54% chance your friend will feel lonely; a 25% chance your friend’s friend will feel lonely; and a 15% chance your friend’s friend’s friend will feel lonely. Emotions like happiness and hope, as well as smoking and even obesity can be traced and spread through social networks.
If these can spread through social networks, why not the volatile mix that leads to terrorism — anger, fear, hatred, religious fervor? Mapping the social networks of al Qaeda and JI show it does
You know ever since it had happened I don't see any reason at all why it should have ended in that gruesome way. He sure should be given fair trial in a way.
I have to agree with Taylor. Bin Ladin is not only one of the most powerful terrorist existed but there are also other terrorists at present that hasn't been know yet which would be fatal to the community.
Social networks increase the speed that all messages are spread, all ideas are shared, and all actions promoted, good and bad. Yes, there is the negative issues related to social medias intended assist to terrorism, but I have believe that there are other more powerful and more positive outcomes from increased social communication that balance the scales overall.
I definitely agree!
I think it has already been proven that things like terrorism can spread through social networks and degrees of relationships. This is how many of the world's revolutions have started — most radical ideas start from just one person. No, the killing of Osama won't put an end to terrorism. It simply puts an end to one chapter and opens up another.
If terror is to be the viral anomaly, then the science of knowing why become essentially the acceptable premise. OBL is dead, and then the rest should therefore follow would be an ideal closure, however we know this can't be easily done given the set of yet hard to discern facts about Southeast Asia. We host the biggest number of Muslims, Malaysia, Indonesia and Mindanao. We have had turmoil in these areas much much earlier long before Al Qaedah, and at least ours in Mindanao started to fester in 1968 triggered by the Jabidah killings. If I may, Jabidah was I think the Marcos ploy to secretly invade the Sabah State of Malaysia, both claimed by the Philippines and Indonesia. Outside of the Jabidah fiasco, Indonesia and Malaysia also have had their share of turmoil too if I remember rightly was the 'Konfrontasi', and this was about the territorial claims similarly as had the Philippines, some territories that ominously also include the Sabah State of Malaysia, if you know about this issues. Al Qaedah should consist no particular surprise because we still continue to experience warring in Mindanao because of this issues that triggered them. People are radicalized because they have reasons for it, and this has been more of government's folly more than what pervading belief that because we are Muslims and are warlike therefore we are terrorists, and then be connected to terrorist organizations which is unfair.
We therefore think that governments in the region of Southeast Asia work things out end warring by conscripting themselves in proactive dissection of the true nature why war continue and why war criminals are walking free from prosecution, I think this to be within reasons if the intent is end terrorism altogether.
If terror is to be the viral anomaly, then the science of knowing why become essentially the acceptable premise. OBL is dead, and then the rest should therefore follow would be an ideal closure, however we know this can't be easily done given the set of yet hard to discern facts about Southeast Asia. We host the biggest number of Muslims, Malaysia, Indonesia and Mindanao. We have had turmoil in these areas much much earlier long before Al Qaedah, and at least ours in Mindanao started to fester in 1968 triggered by the Jabidah killings. If I may, Jabidah was I think the Marcos ploy to secretly invade the Sabah State of Malaysia, both claimed by the Philippines and Indonesia. Outside of the Jabidah fiasco, Indonesia and Malaysia also have had their share of turmoil too if I remember rightly was the 'Konfrontasi', and this was about the territorial claims similarly as had the Philippines, some territories that ominously also include the Sabah State of Malaysia, if you know about this issues, Al Qaedah should consist no particular surprise because we still continue to experience warring in Mindanao because of this issues that triggered them. People are radicalized because they have reasons for it, and this has been more of government's folly more than what pervading belief that because we are Muslims and are warlike therefore we are terrorists, and then be connected to terrorist organizations which is unfair.
We therefore think that governments in the region of Southeast Asia work things out end warring by conscripting themselves in proactive dissection of the true nature why war continue and war criminals walking free from prosecution, I think this to be within reasons if the intent is end terrorism altogether.