Homegrown Muslim Radicalization And Terrorism

It is nearly impossible to go an entire day in the United States without hearing of some act of terrorism. Whether it be a shooting in a public place or threats against a group of people, this violent form of conflict is prevalent in every American’s life. These ruthless acts of cold-blooded murder demonstrate evil in its purest form, and leave death and mourning in their wake. The article “Homegrown Terrorism: Is There an Islamic Wave?” gives an overview of the rise of domestic terrorism since the tragedy of 9/11. Though it was written in 2011, the core message is the same today: terrorism in the United States still continues to grow at a sickening pace, with each new attack seeming more barbaric than the last.

Religious extremism may be the kind of terror threat most familiar to contemporary Americans, considering the religious extremism that fuels groups like al-Qaeda and its affiliates. However, while these groups are based outside of the United States and often coordinate across borders, there are domestic religious groups that have developed within the United States. In addition to any "homegrown" terrorists who may identify

The following is a brief explanation of the motivation of the Islamic Jihad Group. Included is a response to how the knowledge of the Islamic Jihad Group’s motivation might assist in planning counter terrorist strategy. Included are explanations as to how the motivations of terrorists differ from the motivations of other violent criminals and how cultural, socioeconomic, or political factors could lead a person to become a terrorist or criminal.

Counter-terrorism expert Steve Emerson, senior advisor to the RAND Corporation Brian Jenkins, Ryan Mauro and the Clarion Project have documented and exposed the reality of radical Islam in the United States. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1, English Standard Version). Since the attacks on 9/11, the American public has settled into a false sense of security while the internet has enabled homegrown radicalization and enlarged the footprint of radical Islam inside the United States. “Many law enforcement officials fear that a new style of jihadist group is appearing, a hybrid of foreign and homegrown terrorists” (White,

Radicalization have various sources, from reactionary hatred of the freedom world, involvement in antigovernment militia movements in the U.S, to even mental illnesses. The main focus in this paper is to focus on Jihad-based radicalization in the prison system because according the FBI these groups are the biggest potential threats to American security. It is important to recognize all of the factors of why Americans are radicalizing in the prison system. First off, in prison, individuals associate themselves with other individuals or groups to protect themselves. They also tend to associate with those that are similar to them; share background similarities, family, ethnicity, religion, etc. Ever since 911, the government has increased its economic spending to combat and prevent domestic terrorism. In October 2003, the U.S Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, technology, and homeland security held a hearing, that warned the threats of Islamic radicalization in the U.S prisons. The subcommittee concluded that radicalization in prisons is a real threat and “prisons are producing a formidable enemy within. Eight years later, in June 2011, the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security held another series of hearings on the issue. In his opening remarks, Committee Chairman Peter King claimed that prisons have created "an assembly line of radicalization," which poses a major threat to the safety and security of the

Terrorism has become a key topic in light of the Paris attack and just recently the Brussels attack. Listening to Yvan Mayeur, the mayor of Brussels speaks on CNN, on the issue of how do people born in Europe and educated in Europe become radicalistic, he mentioned that, that is something that cannot be solved. Looking at the religious

say whether the students relative willingness to kill non-Muslims is resultant from their perception of non-Muslims as less like them or if it has been drawn directly from the teachings they have received. It should be noted that another finding of social psychology is that attitudes and behaviour are generally not strongly correlated (Eibach, 2012) and that when taken alone the interviews do not show a direct correlation with violent actions. However, other references that are made both in the book and within Atran's research does lead to a more conclusive link. Ultimately despite the weakness of its small sample size and the fact that it only shows an explicit attitude rather than behaviours that might be resultant from that attitude, the research is persuasive in that it shows a clear link between the degree to which outsiders are seen as being unlike the students and the degree to which they display hostile attitudes towards outsiders. In addition, this has been shown in a way that is highly relevant to ideas and facts presented in Talking to the Enemy, in that the students from the JI affiliated madrasa were far more likely than the others to endorse violence, and in fact within the same study it is stated that “JI-linked madrasa attendance rates of the jihadists that took part in... (a number of prolific bombings) are 19 times greater than the highest estimated rates of the general population.”

Any policy concerning homegrown radicalization needs to be consistent with America’s unique set of constitutional, political, and social laws. The search for policies and solutions concerning domestic radicalization and terrorism has been ongoing for nearly two decades. Constitutional freedom to express radical or extremist views creates unintended consequences in homeland security policies. One policy passed into law weeks after 9/11 was the 2001 Patriot Act. Policy makers believed that the act would be use to break barriers created between terrorist and counterterrorism, and law enforcement provisions. However, it created several unintended consequences.

Terrorism is a difficult issue to understand and grasp for many people. What is even more difficult to understand is what drives an individual to become radicalized to the point of joining a terrorist organization and committing terrorist acts. While there is not specific criteria or a “cookie cutter” approach to understanding what motivates and radicalizes an individual to participate in such atrocities, there are however, several psychological and behavioral factors that have been common among these individuals. The following paper will outline some of the psychological and behavioral factors that attribute to an individual’s radicalization and eventual willingness and even perhaps

Although each case is different and there is a combination of different factors involved in each case, some of the main factors that play a role in those U.S. citizens or U.S. residents who become radicalized and carry out extremist violence are crisis and depravation. In king an Taylor’s article, the factors of crisis or depravation are mentioned in almost all the theories that seek to explain the process of radicalization (King & Taylor, 2013). To understand why would someone commit such acts, it is important to understand what is radicalization and what is homegrown terrorism. Radicalization is when someone of any nation adopts new beliefs in which using violence will be the only way to resolve the problems that the individual or the group that the individual belongs to is facing; and homegrown terrorism is when someone becomes radicalized to exclusively commit terrorist attacks in the terrorist’s own nation (King & Taylor, 2013, pg. 603)(Miller, 2007). Most of the homegrown terrorists, particularly the ones in the U.S., tend to become radicalized when they are going through a major life crisis such as when they lose a job; when they have family issues; when they are going through a transition or drastic change in their life; or when they have been treated unfairly by a particular group (King & Taylor, 2013, pg. 607).

Radicalization by definition is not political, religious, or ideological group. However, the term radicalization in its current form is most often used to describe a phenomenon that leads to home-grown terrorism. Al-Qaeda is one of the known groups that is responsible for homegrown attacks in the United States. Another group known today is called ISIS, and have the same interests of recruiting young individuals for possible attacks on our own soil. These individuals share certain commonalities, such as hobbies, religion, and specific ideologies. Terrorist organizations provide a specific ideology that caters to a very specific type of individual. Young individuals are targeted by terrorist recruiters in order to manipulate them at a young age

The recruiting of an American jihad radical begins by focusing on a certain person with either a socio, economic or political dissatisfaction that is typically shared with a personal problem of some sort. Just as most young people are searching for the answer to life, successful recruitment occurs because of ignorance or minimum exposure to mainstream religions. “Most of the terrorists have some occupational skills. Three-fourths are either professional (physicians, lawyers, architects, engineers, or teachers) or semi-professionals (businessmen, craftsmen, or computer specialists). They are solidly anchored in family responsibilities. Three-fourths are married and the majorities have children” (Sageman). It seems that the ties to terrorism

Group interactions have significant influences on individual attitudes, commitment and belief towards certain actions. In a seminal paper by Mark Sageman, the influence of social dynamics on the radicalization process was highlighted. He noted the social elements that may influence Middle Eastern Muslims who study abroad in Europe. The main issue was the fact that these individuals felt homesick and alienated in their host countries. Due to the social alienation, these individuals sought companionship at the local mosque and form small cliques with peers. The social cliques are mostly focused on keeping the dietary restrictions of Islam but the social interactions taking place push the individuals closer to the radicalized state. The networks of relatives and friends have been highlighted as significant in the radicalization

Radicalization is a multifaceted question with no right answer, but what if radicalization was treatable? What if we treated radicalization as a social disease, rather than a social problem? Studies in psychology and neuroscience have revealed bits and pieces on the “who” and “how” of radicalization, but until now, the “why” remained a mystery and eluded the scientific community for decades. By understanding the “why” factors of radicalization, the legal community can transcend purely correlative work or case studies and focus on hard numbers and statistics.

There are mainly three vulnerable places where radicalisation occurring, radicalised mosques, establishments (notably universities) and prisons. All three have a couple of peculiarities in common, namely large groups of people, new peoples getting together and meet on special occasions.