Exposure to violence, not religious ideology, is the real cause of extremism

[rug]

A large majority of the perpetrators had a known criminal background and had spent time in prison. Terrorism is a transition from one form of violence to another; from ordinary crime to political crime



Mohammed Emwazi, the terrorist known as Jihadi John, was a British convert to Isis

Manni Crone
Manni Crone is a Senior Researcher in International Security at the Danish Institute of International Studies. Her research recently appeared in Chatham House’s journal International Affairs
10 hours ago

With the government calling on police officers, intelligence agents, community workers and even teachers to voice ‘early signs’ of radicalisation, it is crucial to understand what radicalisation really is – and what causes it.

Theology remains the prevalent scapegoat for extremism, but my recent research reveals that experience with violence is more significant as a precondition for terrorist attacks. This shift in understanding should change the way governments develop policies aimed at countering terror.

Since the 2005 London bombings, many government programmes have touted that Islamist ideology – today reframed as ‘extremist ideology’ – is the trigger behind these attacks. More recently this view has morphed into the mantra of ‘online radicalisation’, but the core idea is still the same: the introduction of extremist theology kicks off the process of radicalisation.

No one has put this more succinctly than Prime Minister David Cameron. In his 2015 extremism speech, he emphasised, “The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself. The extremist worldview is the gateway, and violence is the ultimate destination”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/exposure-to-violence-not-religious-ideology-is-the-real-cause-of-extremism-a7049746.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12604/epdf

[braddy]

1. When Mohammed created Islam, why did he change from a 40 something rich merchant into a War Lord?

Islam was a religion of conquest and war and violence, from it's creation.

[rug]

2. What do you know of the politics and economy of Medina circa 600 CE?

[braddy]

3. Did you have something that you wanted to say?

[rug]

4. I said it. Obviously you have nothing at all to say.

[braddy]

5. You didn't say anything, nor did you this time.

[rug]

6. I see. I have no interest in idiocy.

[braddy]

7. You read my original post and I have no idea why you are posting these nothings to me.

[rug]

8. If you can't answer the question, say so.

[braddy]

9. LOL, I made my statement of fact and history, evidently you have no response to it.

[rug]

10. You stated an uninformed, and surely borrowed, opinion and demonstrated only ignorance of history.

[braddy]

11. You have a strange posting style, you say nothing, but seem hostile and attack people, and it

seems, relentlessly.

There seems to be a harsh penalty for posting on your thread, being badgered over and over, and over.

[rug]

12. Extraordinary bullshit demands extraordinary evidence.

You were asked one question.

Inanity ensues.

[Promethean]

13. Rug has a genuine hatred for the non-religious.

I don't mean like some teenager saying "I hate broccoli" as a synonym for dislike. I mean he hates us in the old school meaning of the word. That is why he doesn't respect you enough to have a real conversation and is immediately hostile. I know its something of an assumption that you aren't religious but you did counter the message of his posting so that is good enough for him.

[rug]

15. Oh. bullshit.

I have a genuine disgust for assholes. Particularly for smug, uninformed assholes who do not let their ignorance get in the way of promoting smug, uninformed bigotry.

Next time you want to make a personal attack, do it directly.

[merrily]

21. Jury results

Rug has a genuine hatred for the non-religious.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=229575

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

" Rug has a genuine hatred for the non-religious."

A pure personal (and incorrect) attack that has nothing to do with the actual topic.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 27, 2016, 05:13 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, dude. You're both doing it. Maybe if you had alerted before you turned around and called him an asshole, it might've been different.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I think the writer is naive or disingenuous

It is precisely this intellectualist approach to radicalization that this article sets out to challenge. In order to do so, I will narrow the focus and consider only violent/behavioural forms of radicalization or pathways leading to political forms of violence. The phenomenon that I strive to understand is terrorism; not whether people endorse opinions that a majority consider extremist. In a liberal society, where freedom of speech and opinion—within specific limits defined by the law—is a fundamental right, ideological radicalization is not in itself a problem, but on the contrary a right. The problem we are facing is not—I would argue—the radical views, but the violent acts. Ideological radicalization is a problem only to the extent that it leads to violence, and this causation is exactly the presumption that we tend to take for granted—and that this article sets out to examine. Hence, I do not ask whether extremist ideology feeds into ideological radicalization, which, obviously, it does. The focus here is on terrorist acts, and I therefore ask whether and to what extent extremist ideology feeds into behavioural radicalization. In this respect, I am not interested in people who merely accept violence or express that they are ready to perpetrate it. I am interested in understanding cases where someone has committed or actively prepared an act that in the current setting is designated as ‘terrorism’.

I think that people who 'merely' accept violence or express that they are ready to perpetrate it are also a problem. I think that extremism that spreads hatred or bigotry is a problem. People may have a right to express misogynist views that are encouraged by their religion, but those views are still a problem, and any religion which incubates them. It's not only when they are expressed as terroristic violence that we need to counter them.

[rug]

16. I don't think so.

She knows her stuff.

http://www.diis.dk/en/experts/manni-crone

While you clearly disagree with her, it can't be based on her naivete or disingenousness.

The violence and terrorism that's evident is far more complex and far more dangerous to be reduced to "Religion poisons everything".

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. If she's not naive, then she's disingenuous

She's bullshitting us, basically. Extremism is far more complex than "only active plans for violence are a problem". She's an apologist for bigotry. IF she knows her stuff, then that's even more inexcusable.

Not, of course, that people were saying "religion poisons everything" on this; but that religious extremism is a vital part of the beliefs of the people carrying out these attacks. And some did not have a history of violence; for example, the 4 London 7/7 bombers, or most of the 9/11 hijackers.

[rug]

18. Which is it? Is she naive, disingenous or, now, an apologist?

She's drawing a distinction between thought and practice, something Islamophobes have difficulty seeing. There are objectively vast, observable and distinctive differences between Muslims and terrorists.

The notion that the root of terrorism is religion is prevalent, particularly on this board. The denial of that is itself naivete.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I gave the choice of 'naive' or 'disingenuous'

You make a reasonable case that she knows too much to be called 'naive'. So she's disingenuous. And she's an apologist.

"She's drawing a distinction between thought and practice, something Islamophobes have difficulty seeing."
Just about everyone knows there's a difference between thought and practice, for everything. But she tries to excuse those who just say they'd be violent.

"There are objectively vast, observable and distinctive differences between Muslims and terrorists."

Strawman. The quote I gave from her wasn't about "Muslims"; it was about "people who merely accept violence or express that they are ready to perpetrate it", who she was trying to paint as not worth bothering about, because they are just exercising their 'right' to do so. By changing the subject of the argument from "extremists and terrorists" to "Muslims and terrorists", you have ended up attacking Muslims in general, though your purpose was to pretend that others, including I suppose me, were making that attack.

[rug]

20. She's an apologist for what?

[Igel]

22. She finds reasons to justify her thesis.

But her hypothesis lacks any predictive value.

"Many extremists result from people exposed to violence."

"A very small number of people exposed to violence become extremists."

However, a fair number of extremists are also not exposed to violence but turn to it.

It's a nice way of exculpating something that seems to be necessary, and a method that is usually not applied to, say, political extremists.

[rug]

23. A fair point.

But I suspect more predictive than reading the Quran and attending a mosque.

[daleo]

24. Religious extremism is a form of sanctioned violence, within a non-trivial subgroup of people

I think some people who are inclined to violence are drawn to it, the way that some people who are drawn to violence join the army or police, in the broader society. That being said, their religious viewpoints wouldn't necessarily be insincere. A propensity for violence and a propensity for religious thinking can obviously exist within the same personality. Religious thinking is a big tent. There is space all the way from "love your enemy" to "kill the heathen or apostate".

[rug]

25. The military is the ultimate form of sanctioned violence.

[daleo]

26. It's hard to argue with that

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Abroad.

Locally, it's the police.

[rug]

29. Max Weber argued the state can be defined by its monopoly on violence.

https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/05/15/webers-monopoly-on-violence/

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Even if that's the case, religious doctrine provides plenty of targeting and triangulation data.