Studies on radicalization & comments

[davidbfpo]

Following the vents in Boston it appears that those academics, analysts and pundits are in full flow. Here is a short commentary by J.M. Berger, via his blog-site Intelwire on 'The Myths of Radicalisation':http://news.intelwire.com/2013/05/my...rce=feedly&m=1

Myth One: Radicalization leads to terrorism; Myth Two: Counterradicalization equals counterterrorism; Myth Three: Radicalization is an issue best addressed by law enforcement; Myth Four: Radicalization is always bad and Myth Five: Because Myths One Through Four Are Myths, Radicalization Doesn't Matter

Myth Four is well pungent:

Martin Luther King Jr. was investigated as a dangerous radical in his day because he advocated racial equality against the social norms of his time. Few people today would defend the law enforcement tactics used against King. In the context of his era, King was radical, but he was also right. Radicals and radicalization can take on many forms, and much of what we consider radical today is also repugnant and regressive. But sometimes radicalism arises to address real problems that are entrenched in society. The verdict of history doesn't always track with the present view. Sometimes societies require radical change, but advocating for such change -- even loudly -- is by no means the same as advocating for violence or terrorism.

A riposte by Jamie Bartlett, of the UK think tank Demos:http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/decoupli...onandterrorism