Studies on radicalization & comments

[davidbfpo]

This thread has posts on the official Saudi programme to de-radicalise and a clearly PR article by AFP appeared today:http://english.alarabiya.net/en/pers...militants.html

Three key facts given:

Just under 3,000 [Islamist prisoners] will have to go through one of these centers before they can be released....a total of 2,336 Al-Qaeda prisoners have now been through Saudi rehabilitation schemes....The percentage of those who rejoin the deviant minority does not exceed 10%.

[davidbfpo]

The effectiveness of official, state sponsored de-radicalization schemes is rarely in the public domain and even more so when it is Singapore, which has had a comprehensive scheme in place for the individuals, with family support:

Susan Sim, noted security analyst from Singapore recently quoted the case of Yazid Sufaat, originally arrested and sentenced for harbouring two 9/11 hijackers in Malaysia prior to the actual attack. He was again arrested in February this year for recruiting Malayans for suicide missions in Syria although he was considered "rehabilitated" after his prison term.

Link:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analy...-hinder-terror

[davidbfpo]

One of the better comments on the, assumed, radicalization of the two suspects by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross:http://thewasat.wordpress.com/2013/0...adicalization/

Why this was written:

I wanted to introduce these radicalization models because they will help us to think about the points that follow. But my goal in this entry is not to discuss the merits or shortcomings of existing radicalization models. Rather, I want to outline some aspects of this case that strike me as significant.

This point is often lost in post-attack discussions:

.. it is worth noting that there is a difference between someone holding extremist views and someone being likely to undertake violence.

The author's own website:http://www.daveedgr.com/ and on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daveed_Gartenstein-Ross

[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

[davidbfpo]

Somehow I missed this report being published in January 2012, it is worth a scan as there is a broad range of opinions on radicalization - with a British focus - in the report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee 'Roots of violent radicalisation':http://www.publications.parliament.u.../1446/1446.pdf

[davidbfpo]

A short commentary on the flow of those radicalised / radicalized to overseas training camps, which touches upon the special category status of white converts:http://raffaellopantucci.com/2011/05...te-mans-jihad/

[davidbfpo]

I rediscovered this 2002 article at the weekend and it is a good illustration of how violent extremists can be unknown to their families. The Greek terrorist group, November 17th, eluded capture for twenty-seven years and were unravelled after one bomber was unlucky.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-company.html

[davidbfpo]

An ICSR paper and from the flyer:

ICSR’s latest paper – ‘De-Radicalising Islamists: Programmes and Their Impact in Muslim Majority States’ – identifies key factors that make de-radicalisation and counter-radicalisation programmes more effective.

Written by Professor Hamed El Said, it examines the approaches of eight Muslim-majority states that have developed ‘soft’ strategies to counter and prevent jihadist radicalisation.

The study has found that the factors which contribute to the effectiveness of such programmes include:

• National consensus – Lack of popular and political support has denied Jordanian de-radicalisation efforts the social underpinning that contributes to their relative success in Saudi Arabia. In Yemen, initial support for de-radicalisation has ebbed away, while in Algeria it has remained relatively strong.

• Committed national leadership – Enthusiastic leadership by national governments can provide ‘soft’ counterterrorism policies with impetus; inject them with confidence; build trust in their purpose; and – in doing so – create and maintain the needed national consensus.

• Civil society – The engagement of civil society can provide new ideas and reinforce the state’s actions by empowering local communities and associations, especially those that are vulnerable and hard to reach for the government.

• Non-religious programming – Religious dialogue alone will not eliminate violent extremism. Programmes must not ignore the social, economic and political factors that contribute to radicalisation and consider them in their mix of programming.

• Cultural awareness – De-radicalisation programmes must be consistent with, and derive from, each country’s mores, culture, rules and regulations, and take account of what is acceptable and not acceptable in their societies.
El Said shows that each programme has different approaches and objectives – often depending on the nature of a particular society and the terrorist threat with which it has been faced:

• Countries like Morocco and Bangladesh, for example, have focused on countering and preventing further radicalisation, whereas Saudi-Arabia and Yemen have emphasised rehabilitating and counselling those who have become radicalised.

• Saudi Arabia has developed well-structured official programmes, while many others, including Jordan, have relied on individual and civil society based initiatives.

• Some countries, such as Egypt and Algeria, have gone through processes of collective de-radicalisation (whereby an entire group denounces violence), whereas others deal with individuals on a case by case basis.

This diversity in approaches, El Said argues, is one of the various programmes’ greatest sources of strength. However, this also makes it difficult to measure success and produce valid comparisons. One size, he concludes, does not fit all.

Link:http://icsr.info/paper/de-radicalisi...ajority-states

I wonder how well Western countries would fare if the key factors were applied?

[davidbfpo]

An excellent short article 'How al Qaeda Dupes Its Followers' by Malcolm Nance (SWC member) from FP:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._its_followers

Osama bin Laden's terror network has perfected the art of masking its unpopular agenda with a recruitment pitch that can hook just about anyone.

Last sentence:

What's really at work here is not any one man's disposition; it's an ideology packaged to kill.

[davidbfpo]

A new USMA CTC report, headlined 'Al-Qaeda killing mostly Muslims' : http://www.nationalpost.com/news/sto...#ixzz0ZtIXrpss

The study, by the academy's Combatting Terrorism Center and based on Arabic media sources to avoid accusations of pro-Western bias, concludes (my bold)85% of the casualties from all al-Qaeda attacks in 2004-08 were Muslims, compared with 15% Westerners....The trend appears to have intensified toward the end of the period studied. In 2006-08, 96% of the victims were inhabitants of countries with Muslim majorities and only 2% were westerners.

The actual CTC report: http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Deadly%20Van...Complete_L.pdf

[omarali50]

A news item was published in the Urdu press (unfortunately no web link, I have a pdf) which I have translated below:
It describes the indoctrination of a suicide bomber (as revealed by a failed bomber). He says they were kept isolated and constantly bombarded with references from the quran and hadith that support the notion that when you die for Islam, you will receive endless rewards. One reward of course being the hoories of paradise. The business of hoors was taken to the extent that in the dark he was brought very close to a woman and allowed to feel her up and then told this is nothing compared to what awaits in paradise (he is 17 and has probably never seen any woman other than his close relatives). When he was being driven to his target, the driver kept zigging and zagging on an empty road and when he asked why, he was told that thousands of hoories are so desperate to get him that they are crowding the road, fighting with each other about who gets this martyr...
I cannot vouch for the truth of this particular story (the urdu press is notorious for making up stories) but other than the bit about feeling up an actual woman (something i have never heard of) the rest sounds plausible and should be familiar to anyone who has heard the more lurid preachers who populate fringe mosques in Pakistan. Researchers have looked at Palestinian suicide bombers who come from a much more developed culture. Similar research has not yet been done on the suicide bombers being trained in the tribal areas of Pakistan. But when such research is done, it may surprise some people to learn how crudely literal and "corporeal" the rewards and promises can be....

[davidbfpo]

The first episode of a three-part BBC TV series called the 'Jihad Generation' by Peter Taylor, a respected reporter - notably for his work in Northern Ireland, was shown on Monday and gives an insight into the emergence in the UK of this 'generation'.

The programme is available on the BBC as an Ipod for nineteen days:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._Episode_1/and a summary is on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8500782.stm

An alternative and hopefully works for those overseas, yes in the USA: http://watch-tv-episodes-online.com/...part-1-online/ alas registration required - well I tried.

The BBC summary:

Peter Taylor investigates the terrorist threat from young Muslim extremists radicalised on the internet.

Following the attempt to bomb an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day, this landmark series looks at the angry young men of Generation Jihad who have turned their backs on the country where they were born.

In the first episode, Peter hears from those convicted under Britain's newest anti-terror laws and investigates how some of the most notorious terrorists came to be radicalised. He finds a generation that has shed the moderate Islam their parents brought to this country, and instead have adopted a faith that they believe compels them to stand apart from Britain and its values.

The next programme:

How young, radicalised Muslims plotted major attacks in Europe and America.

The Kings ICSR blogsite has one comment on the programme by Dr John Bew:http://icsr.info/blog/Generation-Jihad

[SWJ Blog]

The Process of Islamic Radicalization in Intra-State Conflict

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

War on Terror: Radicalization and Expansion of the Threats

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

The Process of Radicalization

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

In an open letter to IS jihadists Maajid Nawaz, a former radical Muslim, speaks to them in their own language. Whether the desired audience reads The Daily Beast I think unlikely, so maybe SM will reach out.

A brave move, timely as today one UK paper reported a hundred former fighters had exited, planning to go the countries of their parents origin or stuck in limbo unable to return to the UK.

Link:http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...e-you-can.html

There are three current threads on foreign fighters, but his letter deserves a read. You never know his message might come in useful to understand their faith, fanaticism and fears now of the Islamic State jihadis.

Nawaz is hardly unknown to many of them I expect, he has been a prominient counter-radical voice, although often criticised for his associations and views by fellow, non-radical Muslims. He is the chair of the Quilliam Foundation:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/

[davidbfpo]

This is a far better, shorter question for aspiring jihadists, my emphasis:

We have to disassociate from the two words Islamic and State...There is nothing Islamic about these individuals, nor is it a state. My question to these young people [who might be sympathetic to Isis] is simple: who is living closer to the message of the Qur'an? Is it Isis, or is it somebody like Alan Henning?

The speaker is a well known Muslim civic leader from Leicester:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...lim-community?

[AdamG]

So compared to the glory of combat (shrouded in the tapestry of Jihad) that applies to youts' worldwide, the sense of fulfillment to a higher calling (see also Jihad) and the monthly stipends (thanks to a currently-unnamed Gulf State or two), what exactly is he offering as an alternative?

[OldyButGoodie]

Religious Fundamentalism is not explainable. It is a failure of reason. It is also distinct from faith which is a triumph of reason. ISIS cannot be understood or reasoned with. They are not curable. When fundamentalists choose to proselytize they should have full freedom to do so. On the other hand, proselytizing with a gun or very long knife should quickly result in the use of prevailing violence to those so armed.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Religious Fundamentalism is not explainable. It is a failure of reason. It is also distinct from faith which is a triumph of reason. ISIS cannot be understood or reasoned with. They are not curable. When fundamentalists choose to proselytize they should have full freedom to do so. On the other hand, proselytizing with a gun or very long knife should quickly result in the use of prevailing violence to those so armed.

I am curious how you see faith as the "triumph of reason"?

All religions of every religious strip rely on faith, and not reason, to justify their beliefs. Fundamentalist, regardless of religion, take that faith to the level of addiction. It replaces reason in their lives. But it is not the religion that is the problem. It is the deep seeded need. It is a desire for a purpose to life.

So while I agree that you cannot reason with a religious zealot, I do believe that they can come to their senses on their own, once they realize that that level of fundamentalism does not fill the void either, if they ever come to that realization.