John Knefel at Rolling Stone dispels the widespread belief in the security apparat that young Muslims are being "radicalized" into violence through exposure to extremist through a "funnel" of manipulation by media and mosque. Knefel writes:
"That theory was set out in a 2007 NYPD report called Radicalization in the West, which focuses exclusively on Muslims, and describes a four-stage progression -- a 'funnel,' the report says -- in which each step towards violence is intrinsically linked with increased religiosity. ... There's only one problem, according to critics: It's reductive and simplistic at best, and at worst is a thin justification for racial profiling of Muslims.
"'Nobody watches YouTube or reads Inspire and becomes a terrorist. It's absurd to think so,' says John Horgan, director of the International Center for the Study of Terrorism at Pennsylvania State University. 'YouTube videos and reading Al Qaeda magazines tends to be far more relevant for sustaining commitment than inspiring it.'"The mistaken belief that the earliest stages of terrorism can be seen at 'radicalization incubators' -- Muslim bookstores, hookah bars, mosques, virtually anywhere Muslims congregate in person or online -- has resulted in a focus on so-called 'preventive policing,' a policy whose stated aim is to prevent a terrorist attack before one happens. Since the theory says adopting radical ideas is the first step toward someone becoming violent, officials say they're justified in surveilling places where 'radical' ideas might take hold.
"According to Horgan, though, that's just not how it works. 'The idea that radicalization causes terrorism is perhaps the greatest myth alive today in terrorism research,' he says. '[First], the overwhelming majority of people who hold radical beliefs do not engage in violence. And second, there is increasing evidence that people who engage in terrorism don't necessarily hold radical beliefs.'
"Despite all this, law enforcement organizations have used the flawed logic of 'radicalization' to justify investigating innocent Muslims in almost every part of their daily lives. Under 'preventive policing,' critics say cops and FBI agents aren't focusing on actual crime, but on protected first amendment activities -- like the NYPD's surveillance of student and political groups, or reports 'that the FBI has infiltrated mosques simply to learn about what was being said by the imam leading prayers and by those attending' -- without a clear reason to suspect criminality."
The whole piece makes for interesting reading. But here's one further thought on the "counterterrorism" efforts of the ever-watchful Guardians Of Our Nation (GOONs).
If they really are so concerned about the "radicalization" of young Muslims, then why do all the undercover agents they send into Muslim communities pose as extremists, sowing the most radical ideas possible, preying on any vulnerable or troubled soul they come across, egging them on to violence and hatred and often even arranging terrorists plots for them to take part in? If their real concern was to quell "radicalization," shouldn't they be sending in people to talk up peace, tolerance, non-violence, etc.? (Leaving aside the quaint, barnacle-encrusted notion that the state should not be infiltrating any groups at all; I mean, get with the 21st century already, grandpa!)
Indeed, it's almost as if they want to foment scarifying plots, keeping the public scared, obedient -- even slavishly grateful -- to their GOONs and (coincidentally, of course!) justifying an never-ending stream of loot and power flowing to their own noble selves and their institutions of domination, which have killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world in the last decade and stripped away the last vestiges of personal liberty (and prosperity) from those they are meant to be "guarding."
I wonder who radicalized them into such violent extremism?
1
1
