I know nothing about the procedures of de-radicalising but politicians recently here in the UK have been mouthing this as though there is a 'proven method' and we need to set-up 'de-radicalising centres' (in the light of recent nutcase Muslim extremist attacks).

If the Muslim holy book decrees that non-Muslims should be killed, what chance is there that such a procedure can be successful?

The thought crossed my mind that it would be like trying to de-radicalise the Pope to be an atheist...

The Protestants and Catholics had a go at each other a couple of hundred years or so ago. Killing each other off without much success - they still exist.

Suggestions?

Yes, it's worked in many countries, including the UK. There's no one size fits all, but it's pretty convincingly the best answer a liberal democratic nation that values human rights has to countering ideological extremism.

The Qur'an - like the Bible - is internally contradictory, saying one thing in one place and one context, and saying something quite contrary in another. Just as with Christians, the way this is resolved depends entirely on the suite of beliefs of the believer; the exegesis. Unlike Christianity, a lot of interpretation for lay folk in Islam is left up to individual imams, and as such their congregation can differ wildly from other groups in the same nation and other nations. Even stripping away a radicalizing member from a radical imam can result in a lot of change.

Deradicalization doesn't turn people into atheists: radical behavior isn't 'belief in gods', it's expressly meant to indicate a willingness to take extreme readings of scripture - i.e. anti-social - and act upon them.

I called into LBC and told the screener my point, if I were put on air, was that it'd be far easier to turn the Islamist terrorists into atheists than definitively prove to them using Koranic passages that violent Jihad was objectively wrong. He pretty much hung up on me.

Alan B wrote:The thought crossed my mind that it would be like trying to de-radicalise the Pope to be an atheist...

The difference is that the Pope actually knows a little bit about his religion. You find that these Jihadis are frequently ignorant about their own religion and are therefore easily manipulated.

It's also worth mentioning the psychology of being a young man. I watched a fascinating video on this recently:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/DytBlcScGNk[/youtube]

Based on this book:



He points out the need to build status in young men causes some of them to commit violent acts, be more likely to join causes that will have them, and so on. There need to be valid paths for young men to build status in their communities that don't involve violence. That's something that goes far beyond just terrorists, but in reality they're not a special case.

Having said all that, we could start by cutting off the funding of extremist mosques and schools. I find it incredible that Saudi money, for example, is allowed to be invested in religious and educational institutions in the UK after numerous studies have linked their money to terrorism. You can have as many de-radicalisation initiatives as you want, but perhaps a better strategy would be to prevent radicalisation in the first place. As much as these young men (generally) are manipulated, I do wonder how much of the ground work is done in these Wahhabi mosques and their derivatives.

He points out the need to build status in young men causes some of them to commit violent acts, be more likely to join causes that will have them, and so on. There need to be valid paths for young men to build status in their communities that don't involve violence. That's something that goes far beyond just terrorists, but in reality they're not a special case.

Yes, there's a commonality found among all societies in that the 18-28 male cohort is the group committing the most violence and crime; narratives can help fuel or restrict this, and wider education can counteract it.

You can have as many de-radicalisation initiatives as you want, but perhaps a better strategy would be to prevent radicalisation in the first place.

Or at least to 'try' to prevent it in the first place, although that then runs up against logistical & freedom issues with respect to the government needing to closely monitor the interactions between imams and their congregations in mosques around the nation.

Alan B wrote:I know nothing about the procedures of de-radicalising but politicians recently here in the UK have been mouthing this as though there is a 'proven method' and we need to set-up 'de-radicalising centres' (in the light of recent nutcase Muslim extremist attacks).

Let's just say...

If you are a politician, and your job is to maintain peace and stability, then you have to do whatever it takes, say whatever you have to say, to calm the masses.

quas wrote:

Alan B wrote:I know nothing about the procedures of de-radicalising but politicians recently here in the UK have been mouthing this as though there is a 'proven method' and we need to set-up 'de-radicalising centres' (in the light of recent nutcase Muslim extremist attacks).

Let's just say...

If you are a politician, and your job is to maintain peace and stability, then you have to do whatever it takes, say whatever you have to say, to calm the masses.

Oh the religious salve approach. Well done.

or bread and circuses.

Yes, there's a commonality found among all societies in that the 18-28 male cohort is the group committing the most violence and crime; narratives can help fuel or restrict this, and wider education can counteract it.

Jobs needed as well.

I'd say that in the UK at least, the ongoing problems with radicalisation not being addressed in prisons is just one area where rehabilitation of offenders is seriously lacking. Look at our recidivism rates compared to Norway, then compare and contrast the level of staffing, training, salaries, inmate to staff ratios, availability of education, vocational training etc etc. Norway decided to invest in their prison population and what do you know? Actually spending to implement good practice works...whodathunk it. They actually aim to release people you wouldn't mind being your neighbour, trained, employable, if not already employed etc rather than people essentially crippled from gaining worthwhile employment and expecting those people to be model citizens.

Also of note, violence rates within Norwegian prisons are virtually non existent, even in their max security prisons. Who knew? Treat people with some dignity, invest some effort in them and they actually appreciate it and engage because they are being equipped to join society on a level pegging, rather than punished for life.
I wish I had the ability to compare the benefits to policing costs from investment in the people who commit the crime, and the focus on reducing repeat offending.

Yeah the barriers for an ex-con in the US are criminal.

With background checks ubiquitous for jobs, schools, mortgage applications and more, even one conviction — and sometimes even just one arrest — can dog people for years, critics say, relegating them to permanent second-class status.

"No one should underestimate how much even the most minor of misdemeanor convictions — including marijuana or trespassing or any kind of conviction — can affect someone's ability to get a job, to get housing and to function fully in society," says Roberts, who also co-directs the Criminal Justice Clinic at American University in Washington, D.C.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/69232273 ... ond-chance

...not as bad in Canada but still challenging.....you can end up with it expunged ....tho that is not recognised by the US
https://www.ontariotraffictickets.com/c ... l-records/

Recipe for radicalization to ostracize people...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-12/ ... s/11956424

Indonesia has sealed the fate of hundreds of its citizens and former nationals drawn to fight for the Islamic State group, in a Presidential decision blocking a return to their homeland.

Immediately after his two-day state visit to Canberra, Joko Widodo settled on a decision that had vexed his Government for months.

Most of the estimated 689 men, women and children who joined the fight for the Islamic caliphate in Syria and Iraq will be left stranded in the Middle East because of the ban.

At the end of a cabinet discussion at the Presidential Palace in Bogor, Indonesia's Coordinating Minister for Security Affairs, Mohammad Mahfud MD, said the safety of 267 million citizens had to be protected from what he called the ideological "terrorist virus" of the foreign fighters.

"The Government has no plan to return, or will never return, the foreign terrorist fighters back to Indonesia," Mr Mahfud said.

Cabinet's deliberations had been based on advice from the anti-terrorism agency BNPT and police.

The world's most populous Muslim-majority country has declared that it has no idea on how to deradicalize its citizens who have left the country to join ISIS. Indonesia has decided that all the best and brightest Islamic preachers and scholars in the country will not be able to convince these radicals that Islam is a religion of peace. Thus, it is very arrogant and foolish for any other country to attempt deradicalisation programs, thinking that they have better-quality Islamic preachers and scholars than Indonesia.

Alan B wrote:I know nothing about the procedures of de-radicalising but politicians recently here in the UK have been mouthing this as though there is a 'proven method' and we need to set-up 'de-radicalising centres' (in the light of recent nutcase Muslim extremist attacks).

If the Muslim holy book decrees that non-Muslims should be killed, what chance is there that such a procedure can be successful?

The thought crossed my mind that it would be like trying to de-radicalise the Pope to be an atheist...

I don't buy that. It seems to me that convincing a religious believer that the most fundamental tenet of the religion, that God exists, is wrong - is very different from saying that some particular piece of scripture has been misinterpreted and that there is another way to understand it that still faithfully abides by God's intentions.

I also don't think de-radicalization is JUST about religious interpretation only. I think we should stop thinking so 1-dimensionally. People have many social and cultural factors influencing their feelings, views, opinions, and beliefs. In-group loyalties, family and romantic relationships, cultural traditions, having a stimulating and intellectually rewarding job, and so on. It is rarely the case that any one of these things can completely change one person from a normal productive member of society into a suicidal religious lunatic. That is a caricature of how people actually work and think.

I don't think it is an accident that many of the people attracted to ISIS (at least among those who live in western societies) are often very young people, barely out of puberty, looking for some way to make sense of their lives. Normal every day lives with the boring daily grind of staring mindlessly at your smartphone while handing over groceries to angry old alcoholics at the local ghetto supermarket, are having a hard time competing with the absurd James-Bond-Freedomfighter-for-God fairytales they get from the very carefully designed religious propaganda ISIS is outputting. It generally takes a young and impressionable mind looking for a place to stand and make sense of it all to fall for shit like that.

AFAIK there have been relatively few examples of men and women in their 50's(say) suddenly going haywire and joining the caliphate. It's mostly young men in their 20's to early 30's.

Keep It Real wrote:I called into LBC and told the screener my point, if I were put on air, was that it'd be far easier to turn the Islamist terrorists into atheists than definitively prove to them using Koranic passages that violent Jihad was objectively wrong. He pretty much hung up on me.

Yeah no wonder why, what you said was stupid on it's face.

Of course it's going to be easier to convince someone that there is another legitimate reading of a scriptural passage, than it is to convince them that the whole religion is false to it's core. How fucking dumb can you even get?

Rumraket wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I called into LBC and told the screener my point, if I were put on air, was that it'd be far easier to turn the Islamist terrorists into atheists than definitively prove to them using Koranic passages that violent Jihad was objectively wrong. He pretty much hung up on me.

Yeah no wonder why, what you said was stupid on it's face.

Of course it's going to be easier to convince someone that there is another legitimate reading of a scriptural passage, than it is to convince them that the whole religion is false to it's core. How fucking dumb can you even get?

Convince who? Those already convinced?

quas wrote:The world's most populous Muslim-majority country has declared that it has no idea on how to deradicalize its citizens who have left the country to join ISIS.

Where have they said this? That sounds like a remarkable declaration to make. Where can I read it?

quas wrote:
Indonesia has decided that all the best and brightest Islamic preachers and scholars in the country will not be able to convince these radicals that Islam is a religion of peace.

You mean to say that this is your personal interpretation of the fact that they don't accept them back.

It couldn't be motivated by something more mundane like that they just don't care about them, consider them traitors who have forfeited their rights, and don't want to spend any time or money on it? No no, it has to be taken as a sort of implicit concession that deradicalization has been demed impossible by "allt he best and brightest islamic preachers and scholars in teh country".

Where's your evidence for that interpretation?

quas wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-12/indonesia-rejects-return-of-is-fighters/11956424

Immediately after his two-day state visit to Canberra, Joko Widodo settled on a decision that had vexed his Government for months.

The world's most populous Muslim-majority country has declared that it has no idea on how to deradicalize its citizens who have left the country to join ISIS.

Alternative explanation: Indonesia is working on closer relations with Australia, and Australia said they don't want those fuckers anywhere near its borders, and gave Widodo some tips on how Australia itself sees/justifies immigration and citizenship issues for ISIS militants (hint: our current shit government is always keen to pass it off as someone else's problem, even if that means avoiding our international obligations, and has relevant experience in weaseling out of them that it may have been able to pass on).

Indonesia has sealed the fate of hundreds of its citizens and former nationals drawn to fight for the Islamic State group, in a Presidential decision blocking a return to their homeland.

Immediately after his two-day state visit to Canberra, Joko Widodo settled on a decision that had vexed his Government for months.

Most of the estimated 689 men, women and children who joined the fight for the Islamic caliphate in Syria and Iraq will be left stranded in the Middle East because of the ban.

At the end of a cabinet discussion at the Presidential Palace in Bogor, Indonesia's Coordinating Minister for Security Affairs, Mohammad Mahfud MD, said the safety of 267 million citizens had to be protected from what he called the ideological "terrorist virus" of the foreign fighters.

"The Government has no plan to return, or will never return, the foreign terrorist fighters back to Indonesia," Mr Mahfud said.

Cabinet's deliberations had been based on advice from the anti-terrorism agency BNPT and police.

This has nothing to do with Indonesia being afraid that these returned terrorists will make their way to Australia. Indonesia fears for the safety of its own citizens. It has calculated that the odds of these terrorists spreading their ideological virus to others citizens as far more likely than the country's chance of deradicalising them.

It couldn't be motivated by something more mundane like that they just don't care about them, consider them traitors who have forfeited their rights, and don't want to spend any time or money on it?

Traitors according to who? The laws are unclear on this. You are considered a traitor, if you have committed treason against the state- which they haven't, they are fighting foreigners on foreign land. Or if you have sworn allegiance to a foreign country, especially demonstrated by joining and fighting for the military of that country - which they have not done, technically speaking. International laws do not recognise ISIS as a sovereign state. If Indonesia forfeits their citizenship, claiming that these ISIS terrorists have sworn allegiance to another country and fought for the military of that country, then Indonesia will be the first country in the world to recognise ISIS as a sovereign state. The right thing to do is to bring these terrorists home and possibly persecute them for engaging in terrorism, but since these terrorist acts are committed overseas, Indonesian laws has no jurisdiction to persecute them.

Earlier on, the president has released a public statement denouncing them as "ISIS ex-citizens [of Indonesia]" as opposed to "ex-ISIS citizens". This is an illegal move, since according to the aforementioned reasons, these citizens have not sufficiently breached the laws to effectively render themselves stateless. So even more recently, Mahfud (Coordinating Minister for Security Affairs) had to correct the president's statement and publicly said that Indonesia is not taking away their citizenships.

Does this mean Indonesia will accept their return after all? If that's the case, it won't be the first time that Indonesia's finest politicians pussyfooted around terrorism issues. Back in 2019, in a shameless bid to win the re-election, the president flirted with pandering to the Muslim hardliner voters and attempted to have a terrorist mastermind released from prison. Public outrage ensued. A sophisticated Twitter bot, gathering and analysing social media posts, revealed that the chance of the president losing votes from his most ardent supporters is far more likely than him gaining the votes of Muslim hardliners. Faced with the prospect of losing the election, the president verbally moonwalked all over himself, publicly declaring that the terrorist mastermind will not be released after all.

The fate of these terrorist foreign fighters rests on public opinion, and at the present moment, the public majority are against Indonesia returning these terrorists. Even if the same public also hypocritically believes that Islam is a religion of peace and thus terrorists -in theory- could be effectively deradicalised through the proper teaching of peaceful Islam by the nation's best and brightest Islamic preachers and scholars. But, alas, like all theories related to religion, this is just another theory that will forever remain in theory sugarcandyland.

Anarchists were seen as a real and current threat to civilization between 1880 and 1910 but burnt out on the demographic to give way to real ideology, lasting longer and still with us doing the slow death. Religion is like anarchy, fluff that can't be well defined. It'll do the same I figure. Nothing worse than naive folks believing they have reached the pinacle of human evil. Not yet my cherubs, not yet. My prediction is utter new religions, Jedi and the Sith and Crowleymas are it's precursors. Unconstrained by tradition with mass followings east and west, it'll be the devil to deal with on the day...

Yes he did, sir.