For those of you just tuning in, see
• Making Jihobbyists our New Secret Weapon in Combating Jihobbyism
• My problem with "jihobbyist"
and
• The Pros and Cons with "Jihobbyism"
[The term jihobbyist is] potentially useful in that it introduces shades of grey into the discussion: it acknowledges that people can support al-Qaida and wish death upon Americans without ever ‘joining up’ officially. In fact, it is the this recent convergence of ideology and technology that has helped give rise to this curious situation where utter dolts in their mommy’s basement are now ‘part of the movement.’
The Internet provides many opportunities for people to participate in the jihad in a meaningful way. Online jihadi activism is enabling, it is a chance for the aspiring jihadi to actually do something and see how it feels. No matter how illegal that online activism might be, he will at least think he has gotten away with something - because the wheels of justice turn slowly even on a good day. So while we are belittling them, they are getting stronger. Jarret actually makes this same point later in his post:
The term, “Jihobbyism,” also runs the risk of creating a false dichotomy between those who “do” and those who “talk.” The premise is flawed because “talking” is a form of “doing.” It may be less immediate in its consequences, but as we’ve learned, talking can actually be more dangerous than blowing stuff up: talking can serve as a force multiplier (See Abu Musab al-Suri’s influence on Western jihadis).
Moving along...
The bigger point underlying the term “Jihobbyism” is, I believe, is helpful for law enforcement and security professionals, whose resources and time are stretched thin and they are constantly trying to find metrics for prioritizing cases and problem-children like these guys.
Metrics are good, but what is the metric implied by "jihobbyist"? Some people take their hobby very seriously. Some are even able to turn their hobby into a profession - I'm a case in point. Other people dabble in this and dabble in that and in the end have not much to show for it except a bunch of junk in the attic. The latter are what many think of when they hear the term "hobbyist" and perceptions are important.
A few more thoughts on metrics: we can easily identify activities that the aspiring jihadi can engage in online, either on his own or with others. Can we rank those activities, such that a person who does X is at the cool end of the spectrum, while a person who does Y is red hot and in need of incarceration (or at least some not-so-voluntary therapy)? Perhaps, and particularly if we view that data in the larger context within which the jihadi in question is operating - who they know, where they live, and what they do in the real world. Since the jihadis themselves will be reading this I'm disinclined to say much more on the subject here.
It’s potentially counterproductive, however, in that it can lead some to believe that those who yack about loving al-Qaida online are not a “real” threat, or at least as much of one. This conclusion would be patently false, and thereby damaging to our overall counterterrorism efforts. Mocking as a way to delegitimize these guys (see the Freakonomics section on the KKK comic book) is useful as long as people don’t think that because I’m mocking them, I don’t find them to be a security threat. Funny and stupid does not equal innocuous. Indeed, it often equals unpredictable and rabid.
Yes, my point exactly.
The mere presence of an individual in the context of a community such as the Ansar al-Mujahideen forum is a warning sign. What that person says online may or may not accurately represent the degree of threat that person represents either now or in the future.
Degree of threat is a phrase deliberately chosen. Everyone we encounter in the course of counter-terrorism investigations will be found along various continuums, sliding scales that balance the presence or absence of various factors, factors which will either enable or discourage the target's involvement in terrorism. We can analyze what we know about an individual in light of these factors, but we need to remember that as time passes the balance of these factors may change, and change in ways that make the individual suddenly much more likely to act on their terrorist intentions. The death of a close family member is one such event that may trigger an adverse reaction - there are many others.
Another problem that I have with my own term is that it runs the risk of “reifying” a disparate ‘bunch of guys’ into something more concrete. “Reify” simply means that something potentially superimposes a coherence on phenomena that are not necessarily linked or coherent – in other words, making something that’s not “a thing” into “a thing.”
See: Labeling Theory - but keep in mind that along with labeling there is self-labeling. These aspiring "guerillas" are not so accidental. They go to great lengths to construct an identity for themselves and feast on hate and violence. It's as though they suffer from PTSD, only it's a self-inflicted wound.
See also: Social Constructionism - just because the theory tends to be mired in leftist politics doesn't mean it's completely wrong. If ever there was a place where constructionism can be applied to good effect it is in cyberspace - itself a social construct. The global jihad is real and global in the minds of the jihadis and on the Internet.
Despite all these potential problems with the concept, however, I’m still hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater. One reason is that I think it has further encouraged the broader community (non-specialists) to recognize that there is a broad and diverse spectrum of activities that fall under the jihadi rubric. In other words, I think it has increased the overall nuance in public discussions about what constitutes support for al-Qaida.
One can hope, but to the extent that the broader community's access to your efforts is mediated by the popular press I'm afraid in the end it will be all bathwater and no baby.
Posted on 08 December 2009 @ 02:12