SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Adversary / Threat

Adversary / Threat One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Talk about (or with?) them.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2013   #141
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default

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:
Quote:
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

Last edited by davidbfpo; 04-28-2013 at 12:32 PM. Reason: Copied here from Saudi Arabia thread
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013   #142
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default De-rad doesn't always work

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:
Quote:
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
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013   #143
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default It takes more than a beard

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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
.. 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

Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-09-2013 at 10:25 AM. Reason: Copied from the Boston bombings thread.
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013   #144
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default Myths of Radicalisation - with some US history too

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

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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

Last edited by davidbfpo; 05-09-2013 at 02:03 PM. Reason: Add Demos link
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013   #145
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default UK Parliament Report: 'Roots of violent radicalisation'

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
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013   #146
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default ICSR resources

Link to:
Quote:
This Insight outlines the work that the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) has undertaken since 2008 which is directly relevant to the government's newly-formed tackling extremism and radicalisation task force.
Link:http://icsr.info/2013/06/icsr-insigh...adicalisation/
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2013   #147
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default De-radicalization “a bid of a fad”?

A real tour de force by Professor John Horgan, which starts with:
Quote:
Terrorist deradicalization. What an intriguing idea for a quick fix if ever there was one. Yet never in the history of counter-terrorism has any short-term solution ultimately proven to be more than a naïve pipedream. That is not to suggest that what is commonly called “deradicalization programs” would see themselves as representing a quick fix. But the allure surrounding these creative approaches to counterterrorism has been so powerful that a seeming failure to deliver on the implicit (and vague) promise of “revers[ing] radicalism” has apparently led to a loss of popularity. That may not be a bad thing, but a critical question lingers around whether or not these programs are effective.
Link:http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/29/full...tion-programs/

Effectiveness and value for money he writes cannot be judged as so little independent, academic evaluation has actually happened.
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2013   #148
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default Qatar IASS & Soufan Group on CVE narrative

In mid September 2013 the Qatar Institute Applied Security Studies (QIASS) and the Soufan Group published 'Countering Violent Extremism: The Counter-Narrative Study', it is a lengthy report, 200 pgs, although double-spaced. It was only identified thanks to an Indian contact, who also had a working link:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...Sep%202013.pdf

I have only read the sections on the UK, Northern Ireland and Singapore which is described as:
Quote:
..the gold standard in counter-radicalization...
Considering the role played today by Qatari state in Syria, providing ample funding to Jihadist groups I do wonder if Admiral Nelson was involved in writing the report.
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2013   #149
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default

Just as the UK government advocates filtering extremist on-line content up pops Jamie Bartlett of the London-based think tank Demos, in a blog on The Daily Telegraph and mentions how hard this will be:
Quote:
...there is a bigger problem that no one wants to mention: we still don’t really know whether watching extremist material online actually radicalises people. In my experience, it is not sermons by frothing fundamentalists that radicalise, but mainstream BBC reports about Syria or Palestine.
At the end he writes:
Quote:
Dealing with extremism is difficult, and on the whole, we’re doing a remarkably good job. The internet is making this a little harder. But in the age of ever-increasing information and openness, reaching for the block button is not the answer.
Link:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technol...dea-heres-why/

Within is a reference and link to a RAND report, based on research in the UK, 'Radicalisation in the digital era: The use of the internet in 15 cases of terrorism and extremism'.

Link:http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_RR453.pdf
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2013   #150
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default Review of Programs to Counter Narratives of Violent Extremism

Published yesterday by the London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue: 'Review of Programs to Counter Narratives of Violent Extremism: What works and what are the implications for government'. Their explanation:
Quote:
..it provides an overview of the efforts made to push back on extremist content online, or ‘counter-narratives’. It involved background research and interviews with former violent extremists, policy-makers and civil society activists.
The work was funded by Public Safety Canada. The report is 49 pgs, cases studies amount to half. Link:http://www.strategicdialogue.org/Cou...ivesFN2011.pdf

After years of national and international counter-terrorist action it is remarkable that the report's summary states:
Quote:
It is important to stress that counter-narrative work as an area of public policy is in it's infancy.
Short of time? There is a short article by Rachel Briggs (co-author) here:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seba...b_4397982.html
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2013   #151
Bob's World
Council Member
 
Bob's World's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
A real tour de force by Professor John Horgan, which starts with:

Link:http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/29/full...tion-programs/

Effectiveness and value for money he writes cannot be judged as so little independent, academic evaluation has actually happened.
David,

I would offer that "de-radicalization" is not a successful solution to terrorism simply because "radicalization" is not the cause of terrorism.

Terrorism is a political weapon that is employed when legal political methods are either unavailable or ineffective. We need to focus on the politics that energize the systems, not the methodologies employed to recruit from energized populations, or the tactics employed by "politicians" (terrorists) denied effective, legal means to relieve negative political energy that has developed within some population.

We also need to stop being so distracted by the "solutions" offered by the groups that emerge to tap into this political energy. We are too quick to think of those proposed, and often "radical" solutions as the problem. They rarely are the problem at all. But they do distract us from the problem of politics that is energizing the population to provide a source of sanctuary, support, personnel, etc to such movements that promise change.
__________________
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Bob's World is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2013   #152
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
David,

I would offer that "de-radicalization" is not a successful solution to terrorism simply because "radicalization" is not the cause of terrorism.

Terrorism is a political weapon that is employed when legal political methods are either unavailable or ineffective. We need to focus on the politics that energize the systems, not the methodologies employed to recruit from energized populations, or the tactics employed by "politicians" (terrorists) denied effective, legal means to relieve negative political energy that has developed within some population.

We also need to stop being so distracted by the "solutions" offered by the groups that emerge to tap into this political energy. We are too quick to think of those proposed, and often "radical" solutions as the problem. They rarely are the problem at all. But they do distract us from the problem of politics that is energizing the population to provide a source of sanctuary, support, personnel, etc to such movements that promise change.
Bob,

You raise fundamental issues around how Western liberal democracies respond to terrorist campaigns. My main focus has been the UK, with some knowledge of a few other, mainly Western countries. I now you take a wider viewpoint.

Maybe there is a distinct difference between 'de' and 'counter' radicalization, for my purposes here today there is none. To be fair the UK has always referred to counter-radicalization.

When the UK state designed its national CT strategy, known as 'Operation Contest', the standard themes of Pursue, Plan and Prepare had a fourth 'p' Prevent - into which counter-radicalization dropped. The main author, Sir David Omand, has stated Prevent was very much an after-thought.

Prevent, with 'counter' action, was seen IMHO as a method of responding to the national government's perception that a significant minority were or had been radicalised to accept, if not use terrorism within the UK primarily. It was and is seen as legitimating the other 'P's.

I do differ from you that:
Quote:
Terrorism is a political weapon that is employed when legal political methods are either unavailable or ineffective.
Terrorism is a political weapon and tactic used by determined minorities, who rarely wish to engage in legal politics when violence starts to be used. It is not - in the West - that political methods are unavailable or ineffective. Such minorities know their cause has very limited appeal and they will not get political power via the ballot box. They expect terror will lead to fear and their aims will - one day - be achieved.

Western Europe in the 1970-80's had a succession of such minority groups choosing terrorism; 'The Angry Brigade' here, the RAF or Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany and the 'Red Brigades' in Italy come to mind. Both the IRA and ETA eventually opted for the "Armalite and the ballot box", in the knowledge their cause(s) resonated within part of the nation-state.

From my perspective the jihadists, as seen with AQ plus, have not considered - where there is a political option - using 'legal politics'. They believe such politics is not for them, for a variety of reasons, including their interpretation of Islam.

In the UK context the jihadist cause resonates within a tiny minority. Now whether 'Prevent' has worked is a very moot point, I would argue it has done more damage than good. It is a quirk of modern British demography that "new" communities, not exclusively Muslim, were found in polling recently to be more loyal to our institutions and ways than the "old" nation.
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #153
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7,307
Default One-stop shop

More of a bibliography than a review article, but useful enough and appears to be very up to date on CVE:https://medium.com/p/5696616d8f0c
__________________
davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
law enforcement, prisons, radicalisation, radicalization, terrorism

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comments on Marc T's article in Vol 7 John T. Fishel Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious 47 05-17-2007 08:13 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7. ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation