Why do Americans consistently frame their enemies as unthinking, single minded fanatics with no common sense or instinct of self-preservation?
This stretches all the way from the Nazis through the Soviets, Korea, Vietnam, Soviets and up to the War on Terror today.
Since deliberately misunderstanding your enemy like this surely leads to strategic errors and missed opportunities, what is the advantage of framing you enemy in this way?
>Why do Americans consistently frame their enemies as unthinking, single minded fanatics with no common sense or instinct of self-preservation?
>Frames Americans as unthinking and single minded
How we portray our enemies is different than how we actually fight them. That's why we'll call them retarded goat fuckers but sit down with different small tribes to try to understand what they want out of a ruling government and how we can help them achieve their goals and ours.
>implying only the U.S. does this
>implying it's not standard for mid nations at war throughout history
>le America is so bad and dum meme
Come on, sempai
Its easier to get people to kill other people and be fine with it if you get them to think that they aren't killing people.
It should be obvious.
You mean why do American news and gov't statements do this? To simplify the narrative for their own purposes.
But other than that... da fuck you talking about? Sounds like your idea of "American discourse" is cable news.
It's called propaganda. Everyone does it.
Yes, because in a twisted way it is the perfect anti-colonial state. They exist across the boundaries put in place after WW1 and provide rule of law to regions that have been lawless for awhile. That and they actually pay the populace for the resources extracted on their land. All they have to put up with is that some people that they didn't like anyway get pillaged and they have to follow extreme versions of the beliefs that they already held. To a lot of the people under their control this is a good trade.
Americans can still mantain the illusion that they are a force of good, and a righteous nation etc.
We euros can't since we massacred each other for centuries with mixed results. So we are more sceptical on war matters.
Because America fights offensive wars far away from homeland so they need all the propaganda advantage they can get to keep the fight going on. The more vile and godless your opponent is the better. They've been able to keep going at it by getting rid of the draft but the system still subsists on Americans being dumbfucks who believe all the shit they're told in media.
Debates are just political pony shows, they largely exist for the favored candidate to get their soundbytes out and for lesser known politicians to up their profile.
Our mass media is an embarassment, to be quite frank about it. I'm not going to say that there's an unspoken mass of genius Americans out there, but it is fair to say that plenty of us hold more nuanced views that simply don't fit so well between commercial breaks.
Even people who don't really follow news or think about it much take a glance at the headlines and say "that's fucking bizarre".
As far as the tripe that comes out over the news, it's not literally what people believe but it does provide a baseline. Middle Eastern terrorists, for example, aren't the cardboard baddies they are made out to be but they are understood to be baddies of some sort regardless of why or how. That's basically propaganda doing its job, it provides the foundation that nuance is then built upon.
Who doesn't do this?
>Germans are THE HUNS! Overly militaristic arrogant fanatics with an ordnung fetish!
>Russians are SUBHUMANS! Human cattle led by evil communist Jews!
>NATO countries are literally Satan, media drones ruled by the western banking elite, thinking 24/7 about destroying Russia and robbing her of resources
>Since deliberately misunderstanding your enemy like this surely leads to strategic errors and missed opportunities
It's a facade that resonates with the public so it's parroted by politicians.
The military is more academic than you think and they understand what they're dealing with
>It isn't achievable but that doesn't make the goal itself irrational
>How can you treat fundamentalist religious fanatics as "rational actors?"
kek, this is literally the narrative in action. Fanaticism and fundamentalism are not barriers to rationalism. You think so because "fanatic" probably conjures up in your mind baying lynch-mobs and "fundamentalism" probably brings up ritual stonings or banning the internet or other such fuckery whereas both are clearly defined political and philosophical ideologies
Really this. How an enemy is pitched to the public and how they are actively combated are two different things.
That said, Americans aren't the only ones to do this. Every nation does and has for centuries. As far as the general public is concerned, they don't need to know anything about their enemy other than they stand for everything you don't.
>"fundamentalism" probably brings up ritual stonings or banning the internet or other such fuckery
Nah, not really. I said fundamental, not even to emphasize my point. They are just fundamentalist.
>"fanatic" probably conjures up in your mind baying lynch-mobs and...
blowing themselves up? Flying planes into buildings? Drowning women who go out of their homes without a man attending them? Yeah... It does, doesn't it?
it's not based on reason, it's based on emotion. When that woman was killed in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago it was all started by a rumor she burned a quaran... mob forms and people act like animals. Nothing about it was reasoned.
>blowing themselves up? Flying planes into buildings?
Yep, precisely this. Most people will dismiss terrorist as "psychopaths" - who are medically characterised by a complete lack of emotion and empathy which is instead replaced by hyper-rationality and an extreme degree of self-centeredness
suicide terrorism goes against all the instincts of self-preservation that characterises people with antisocial behavioural disorders
Seriously there's been so much work done on this since 9/11 it's absolutely the mainstream scholarly view that most terrorists are absolutely rational actors rather than gibbering lunatics
>actually responding to that fucking post
you took it.
>Why do Americans
Aaaand the threads shit before it even started.
If you asked:
>Why is propaganda used by governments
You'd get the answer that I makes people easier to dehumanize, and thus easier to kill than they otherwise would be. Vietnam was actually a poor example of American propagandizing, and because of that many soldiers didn't want to fight in said war.
A rational actor would reason their way through the situation, and realize that what they were doing was hysterical, and made no sense.
To be fair, of course, no matter how rational you are, it's difficult to break with years of tradition and religious momentum. However, that doesn't make it the "rational" decision.
Of course it's a rational goal. They want to build a state in a defined geogrsphic region ruled by a particular ideology.
An irrational goal would be something like starting a cataclysmic war in order to induce the apocolypse and end times.
I think anon ypu proved your post.
You made a logical point and got jumped as some kind of ridiculous weirdo, when in reality you're pointing out ISIL has real political ambitions and an actual strategy. Just because it involves barbarism doesn't mean that that same barbarism isn't carefully planned and calculated to elicit the reactions and effects they desire in order to further their goals.
>But you are claiming that the afghans were acting rationally
In a way... obviously I would not view it as rational nor expect anyone to, it's fucking barbaric.
All I'm saying is there is some kind of social logic to those kind of actions - even though it's totally alien to us (thank fuck) - which is close enough to our own definition of "rationality" for it to be worth mentioning imho
It's basically a semantic argument but welcome to philosophy
You didn't get the memo? Russian propaganda essentially views the eastern enlargement of NATO as a plan towards military invasion of Russia. Completely with horseshit mythology about backstabbing, like Russians claiming they signed a treaty with the west about no NATO expansion (no such treaty ever existed, as you'd imagine).
I'm sorry but emotional behaviour isn't rational in any context. You're changing the definition of the word. This isn't an issue of perspective.
You can argue they were acting in their self-interest if you want.
>Stoning people as a method of social control is perfectly rational for a totalitarian islamic state.
what does a mob have to do with that? it sprang up unplanned. It was the anti-thesis of strategy or control.
something can be expedient politically without being rational. the imams or whatever may be masterminds controlling their people (which a few of you assert), but the actions of the people are not based on reason, therefor, not rational. This isn't a moral or value assessment, just that the word rationality has a specific meaning.
You could argue that their actions were rational.
This woman burned a koran, thus angering god and putting the entire community in danger.
Publicly punishing such people is a rational action in the context of the belief matrix of rural Afghan farmers.
you've set a low bar for a behavior to be determined as rational. I leave this discussion unless you want to propose your definition of rational, i've laid out mine. Absent that this is not a real discussion.
But based on your process, is a crazy homeless person rational? In their belief matrix their actions make sense.
Different Anon here.
>Woman burns Koran
>This upsets the Allah
>Upset Allah equals disaster
>Stone the woman
>This makes Allah happy
>Our community is saved
It's all based on flawed premises which are not rational themselves, but there is definitely reasoning based upon those premises.
the problem is that people with genuine motives to resisting maerican intervention inevitably get swept up into the camps of fundamentalist nut jobs because they're the ones with the money resources manpower experience and motivation to wage an offensive against the united states but they're so filled with fundamentalism that those who join eventually end up as this
Because every country is backwards savages compared to the United States. A better question is why respect something like the Ba'athists or Khmer Rouge when they were shit at 90% of the things they did? It's literally free natural resources with some spearchucker sitting on the pile.
I'm the anon you're talking to:
Rational: the action that is most advantageous in the context of your situation, knowledge, and belief system.
Hence why I argue that it is rational for totalitarian islamic regimes to stone feminists, liberals, and democrats; because such people are subversive towards the totalitarian islamic worldview.
This. I've heard of anti-occupation militias in Iraq being literally described as 'terrorists' and 'murderers' by Americans.
You cannot 'murder' an active duty soldier occupying your own country
Nah, they bombed the shit out of them and supplied weapons to the previous regime. Right up until the Khmer Rouge won and the whole world just rolled with it, including the US. Then Vietnam removed them.
I don't think you understand what the rational actor model is or how it is applied.
If you did, you would understand why this statement is absolutely irrelevant
>Fanaticism and fundamentalism are not barriers to rationalism.
and would not have made it because it's embarrassing.
bunch of fuggin gommi propaganda
>US massivly butthurt about vietnam and USSR
>Khmer Rogue likes neither of them
>Support them to get rid of Soviet and Vietnamese influence in SE asia
You do realize that's literally what Isis does right?
I have watched their videos. That's the only propaganda I need. These people are devoid of rationality. A rational minded person can be reasoned with. Isis will continue until we exterminate them. What I don't understand is why we can't pull what we did in ww2 and not just physically destroy Isis but kill the ideology as well. End the idea of jihad like we ended the possibility of fascism from rising up again.
Because they are and if you say otherwise you're an upatriotic dipshit. Seriously, how can the world call America such an warmongering nation when there's always basically nothing to do? Just look at Iraq, 2 UNSC resolutions broken a year on average during Hussein's rule and nobody was willing to do shit until America came in and liberated Iraq which today is a free democratic nation that even has its own miss competition as the result came recently. Then hippies started pushing the >muh warmongering narrative and what did the US did? Stop warmongering just sanction anyone who is against freedom like with Cuba or Russia and this is where we at right now. Most American military interdictions are completely justifiable troughout history.
>inb4 "muh oil"
Idiots do'nt even know half the American oil comes from texas and alaska the other half comes from saudi arabia and venezuela, literally two countries never invaded by the US so fuck off hippies
>we ended the possibility of fascism from rising up again
"We" didn't kill any ideologies in WW2. We just displaced a state that was putting them into practice. Go and read >>>/pol/ to see Nazi ideas alive and kicking
>A rational minded person can be reasoned with
That is not a definition or measure of rationality, it's a dated Enlightenment meme
This is done by literally Every country
The reason why Americans seem unique is purely because They are the only ones in the west who still do it, MORDERN Europeans stopped doing it in around 1960 when they no longer had any colony and their interests became confined in Europe, Even Then They still use Propaganda such as all of the "Europe will go back to war of the EU is dissolved" propaganda.
We most certainly put an end to fascism. The only nation that comes close to what Germany was is North Korea. North Korea doesn't have a quarter of the power nazi Germany did. /pol/ represents such a small number of people in the world that even if they were serious about the glorification of nazis they'd still be irrelevant. Isis is a relevant threat