Studies on radicalization & comments

[davidbfpo]

A notice on this conference in Oslo that has started. Added here as most of the talks have a summary added, which could act as a pointer to expertise available. I noted that The Norwegian Security Police and a former senior Danish Intelligence Service officer are speaking too. Scanning the experts most are from Scandinavia, one from the UK. Thanks to a "lurker" for this.
Link:https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/...ule/index.html

[davidbfpo]

From the Dutch think tank ICCT an excellent, short article and here is most of the second paragraph:

what most P/CVE strategies fail to demonstrate is that effective messaging is just one part of a holistic influence campaign where offline actions reinforce online messaging. The messages of extremist groups reach their intended audiences, resonate with them, and then – most importantly – offer them a pathway for action. If the movement speaks to you then you can, for instance, help spread their message online or offline, recruit and proselyte others, facilitate terrorist attacks or material flows, provide infrastructural support, or even become a local or foreign fighter. The appeal of the recruitment messaging is that these are action-oriented groups that can be supported or joined. Instead of solely offering online counter-narratives, P/CVE strategists should consider shifting their focus to offering what I call counter-engagement. Instead of offering alternative messages only, these efforts should shift towards offering alternatives things to do as well.

Link:https://icct.nl/publication/dont-jus...ounter-engage/

[davidbfpo]

A curious article from a previously unheard of organization, Orbmedia, and the key theme is:

New research suggests that relationships, like the friendships that drew Harmanto into Jemaah Islamiyah, may be among the most important factors in determining who joins these groups and who stays out of them.

Link:https://orbmedia.org/stories/fighting-blind/multimedia

[davidbfpo]

This paper is by Emily Winterbotham (RUSI) and is published by the Tony Blair Institute. It appears on a quick read to dispute that mothers can help and taken from the summary:

The rationale is that woman are inherently more peaceful than men and that, if empowered to do so, they can stop radicalisation to violence. Many schemes have focused on mothers. The assumption is that mothers are better able to detect signs of a move to extremism in their children. Critics of this approach point to the lack of publicly available evidence that supports it. There is (so far) no definitive evidence showing that mothers can spot and address increased radicalisation to violence in their children. This paper explores the thinking and assumptions behind this myth about women, and specifically mothers, in CVE programming.

Link:https://institute.global/insight/co-existence/do-mothers-know-best-how-assumptions-harm-cve?

[davidbfpo]

The first, short article is 'Mass Radicalization in the USA: We are more radical than before. Why?' and appears on a previously unknown magazine website. Link:http://https://www.psychologytoday.c...ion-in-the-usa

The second concerns 'Strategies for Rehabilitating Terrorists in U.S. Prisons' and the actual report's title is 'When Terrorists Come Home: The Need for Rehabilitating and Reintegrating America’s Convicted Jihadists'. Not read beyond the summary.
Link:https://www.counterextremism.com/pre...cted-islamists