Here's an interesting article that comments on radicalization as a social phenomena, not unique to a specific ideology.

When Mr. Obama recently said that violence as experienced recently from certain Muslim groups is "not unique to one group or one religion" there is data from S.T.A.R.T to back him up:

This is a particularly interesting result of the analysis, in that it shows what commonalities exist between an Islamic extremist motivated by religion and a far right extremist motivated, for example, by gun rights, or a far left perpetrator for, say, environmental motivations. “Radicalization appears to be a very social phenomenon, regardless of ideology,” reads the report. A group of people with strong beliefs and feelings on any topic can push each other to violent acts with or without religious motivation.

“Approximately half of the individuals in the dataset belonged to a clique,” stated START, and “there was little significant difference among ideologies in the prevalence of psychological issues, loners, and a loss of standing. However, all of these elements were more common among violent individuals.” According to the report, this means that “individuals that demonstrate these risk factors are equally predisposed to violence regardless of their ideological background.” It often takes a certain type of person with a certain background to commit violent extremist acts, not simply a religious motivation. So when President Obama said that violence, like that seen from Muslim extremists, “is not unique to one group or one religion,” but is “a tendency in us” as human beings, there’s data to back it up. Of course, there are also distinct differences between groups. For example, Islamist extremists are more likely to have been recruited into isolated extremist groups.

More here, including this very interesting exhibit:

wallstcheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads ... amp;602796


http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/wh ... ?a=viewall


I've been participating in a Coursera class on Terrorism hosted by the University of Maryland.
It is purely data driven and offers significant insight regarding radicalization, group dynamics, "loan wolves" social psychological factors, strategies, and operational terrorism.

Highly recommended.

Just what actions get people the label 'radical extremist'? Are there any criteria given in your Coursera? I was wondering whether the revolutionary generation in the colonies were radical extremists in some sense. To the British they probably were, but in our time it seems necessary to attack non-combatants in order to be labeled extreme, so our old patriots wouldn't qualify.

Declared wars seem to legitimize actions of extreme terror, such as the WW II firebombing of Dresden. And there are many other examples. No doubt the beholder has something to do with whether the group is going to be called terrorist or some more positive name.

Just what actions get people the label 'radical extremist'? Are there any criteria given in your Coursera? I was wondering whether the revolutionary generation in the colonies were radical extremists in some sense. To the British they probably were, but in our time it seems necessary to attack non-combatants in order to be labeled extreme, so our old patriots wouldn't qualify.

That's actually a very good question and is touched on at the start of Module Two in the course.

Regarding Terrorism;

Interestingly, and you may not know this (I certainly didn't), NATO has yet to define the word "terrorism." From what I recall, the difficultly in defining terrorism lies in the political nature of it.
I think most of us are familiar with the saying "one country's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

The reality is that it's inconvenient for some governments to label a group terrorists because many gain independence through terrorism, or come into power by it.
Also, many governments support terrorism as a means of ousting invaders (AKA "occupying forces")

There also are empathetic reasons why terrorism would not be defined as such.
A perfect example (I handn't a clue about this) was the tacit support for the IRA by Americans.


For the purpose of its research and data collecttion project, the Consortium S.T.A.R.T gets its definition of terrorism from the DTA.
The DTA defines terrorism as;

“Acts by non-state actors involving the threatened or actual use of illegal force or violence to obtain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation”

Radicalization is a process (of course. what isn't?). After one has become "radicalized" it does not necessarily follow s/he will engage in extreme behavior that is illegal or lethal. Acceptance of extreme (radicalized) beliefs does not equal acceptance of violence to advance those beliefs.

Radicalization begins with a grievance - mostly a political grievance.
It creates a "cognitive opening" (love that term) that is filled with an ideology of some kind, be it political, religious, social, etc. Terrorism is a tool for the politically weak.

Mobilization to act is when the line is crossed into taking some form of action that will effect an outcome in the real world.

Here is an interesting summary by START titled "Individual Radicalization."
It touches on two models of individual radicalization - Opinion and Action, outlining mechanisms of radicalization.

https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/u ... cture3.pdf

Declared wars seem to legitimize actions of extreme terror, such as the WW II firebombing of Dresden. And there are many other examples. No doubt the beholder has something to do with whether the group is going to be called terrorist or some more positive name.

I have to agree with you. In certain contexts.

I really appreciate your posting that, ant. It seems like a fascinating course. Amazing how much education we can get for free nowadays. I've only done one Coursera class, on the Age of Jefferson, a good one.

On balance, I have to applaud Pres. Obama on his public stance on Islamic terrorism. This is so even though I thought he erred badly at the recent National Prayer Breakfast. Voices on the right have wanted him to make a statement that there is now inherent harm in Islam. This goes under the name of identifying the enemy. Without arguing about whether such a statement is in any sense true, saying that to the world would a huge geostrategic blunder.

Doesn't it seem that terrorism has gained such a foothold because the world now exists as one connected nervous system? Terrorism must have been more or less local before mass media and the internet. Now radicals and terrorists can rely on their actions reverberating around the world, producing fear and attracting more recruits to the cause.

Courersa has really caught on. It's great to see people from all walks of life participating and sharing their unique perspectives. Having access to the work of experts in multiple fields of study is invaluable.

I saw The Age of Jefferson. I was tempted to sign up but thought I had enough to focus on with this course.

Voices on the right have wanted him to make a statement that there is now inherent harm in Islam. This goes under the name of identifying the enemy. Without arguing about whether such a statement is in any sense true, saying that to the world would a huge geostrategic blunder.

I've been having a conversation about this with a long time friend of mine who identifies with Christianity (not fundamental Christianity) and is fairly politically conservative. He said something similar to the statement that there's a pernicious element inherent in Islam and when individuals proclaim violence "in the name of Islam" it is perhaps proof of that.

I opined by saying a declaration "in the name of Islam" by a radicalized individual is not representative of Islamic culture. And, as I've previously stated in another post, factors that lead to the mobilization of terrorist activities are multifaceted.

START's review of materials documenting the experiences of individuals, groups, and "mass publics" that have undergone a radicalization process, coupled with an exploration of social science literature, have identified 12 mechanisms of radicalization.
Their conclusions are that it is very unlikely there is one single pathway, one "conveyor belt", to terrorism.
Their conclusions are well founded, I think.

Also something to consider is how beliefs about terrorism are created by the media.
When the news frame terrorist incidents by highlighting only the religious components, it becomes all too easy for an audience to frame the issue as entirely about "the problems with religion."

The catastrophic 911 attacks, a "black swan"event (terrorist attacks are rarely that catastrophic), are a perfect example of how myths about terrorism are created.
The 911 attacks, coordinated to hit western symbols of capitalism and government, were more about the particulars of those symbolism than a promotion of Sharia law, or any of its doctrines. It was largely a political grievance. The motive was much more political than it was religious.

Doesn't it seem that terrorism has gained such a foothold because the world now exists as one connected nervous system? Terrorism must have been more or less local before mass media and the internet. Now radicals and terrorists can rely on their actions reverberating around the world, producing fear and attracting more recruits to the cause.

From the beginning of the 1970's (at the start of the gathering of terrorist data) up to the present, the data indicates there is an ebb and flow to terrorism. Also, geographic trends indicate terrorist attacks are highly concentrated in very specific locations, with regional distributions of terrorism changing over time.
South America, Central America, Western Europe, South East Asia, and the Middle East have all experienced their share of heightened terrorist activities which are predominantly local to the region.

Here is an interesting research summary from START regarding Geographical Trends:

https://d396qusza40orc.cloudfront.net/u ... _FINAL.pdf

Social media is definitely having a significant impact. Not only is it an effective propaganda channel, it is also a means to both recruit and coordinate future attacks and attacks in real time.

Thanks

Perhaps related to the topic of terrorism is this developing story:

http://news.sky.com/story/1426941/fbi-i ... m-students

Briefly mentioned in the course are hate crimes and whether or not they should be classified as terrorism.
For example, should crimes committed by the KKK be considered terrorism?

If any elements of the definition of terrorism as defined by the GTD are involved, I would say yes, hate crimes are terrorism.
The KKK is listed in the GTD.

ant wrote:Perhaps related to the topic of terrorism is this developing story:

http://news.sky.com/story/1426941/fbi-i ... m-students

Briefly mentioned in the course are hate crimes and whether or not they should be classified as terrorism.
For example, should crimes committed by the KKK be considered terrorism?

If any elements of the definition of terrorism as defined by the GTD are involved, I would say yes, hate crimes are terrorism.
The KKK is listed in the GTD.

Erdogan's thought would apparently be that the U.S. is hypocritical in expecting moderate Muslim leaders to denounce "their" terrorists, while in this instance we say nothing about one of our own. The reason we haven't done so is that we don't know the killer's motive. It's a commentary on the morality of our society that triple murders aren't big news in themselves, while possibly they would be in Turkey, I don't know. One of the things you've said about foreign terrorism is that we oversimplify the motives. Maybe in the NC case the hesitation is caused by our not wanting to do that when the problem is with us.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/ ... index.html

I have to say that I support how Obama is verbally addressing the issue of terrorism, particularly as it relates to what I've recently learned in the Coursera class.

Terrorism is unquestionably an emotional topic that is the cause of knee-jerk reactions.
It's all too easy to oversimplify and use it as a platform to promote a worldview (eg Dawkins, Harris)

Not just heavy-duty intellectuals like Dawkins and Harris, but most on the right and many evangelicals. There's a lot of alarm being spread about "Islamization" of the West and even of the U.S. I think we need to look at such views critically. If what is meant is that we don't want to have more visible Muslim presence, we should reject that thinking. It's freedom of religion, something our country is based on. Muslims just happen to be devout believers, as a whole, which means they're going to be more conspicuous in following their religion than what we're used to.

On their part, Muslims will have to accept that we have a secular government, so no sharia law. Muslims will also need to accept some level of scrutiny of Muslim organizations without yelling "discrimination" so readily. Muslims themselves say that the violent radicals have used the cover of the faith to conduct their business, so some scrutiny naturally follows.

Obama is charting a wise course through this whole thing. It would be easy for him to fall prey to the temptation to repeat a G.W. Bush "bring it on" macho challenge.

DWill wrote:If what is meant is that we don't want to have more visible Muslim presence, we should reject that thinking.

that depends entirely on the Muslim presence surely

for example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoiCYwoJKrE

and speaking of Obama

Of the total killed since Obama took his oath of office on January 20 2009, at least 314 have been civilians, while the number of confirmed strikes under his administration now stands at 456.

Research by the Bureau also shows there have now been nearly nine times more strikes under Obama in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than there were under his predecessor, George W Bush.

And the covert Obama strikes, the first of which hit Pakistan just three days after his inauguration, have killed almost six times more people and twice as many civilians than those ordered in the Bush years, the data shows.

The figures have been compiled as part of the Bureau’s monthly report into covert US drone attacks, which are run in two separate missions – one by the CIA and one for the Pentagon by its secretive special forces outfit, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

The research centres on countries outside the US’s declared war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDDbTaWpwoc