Radicalization Controversy

Tactics to induce terror in pursuit of a political goal have been utilized by a multitude of organizations across the globe. This method of power control is known as terrorism, and due to its impact and unpredictability, it is highly feared and monitored today in the 21st century. Attacks of this nature stem from radical beliefs of religion, ethics, or other politics, and have been carried out globally, ranging from the 9/11 attack in New York City to the 2015 shooting in Paris, France. Terrorism over recent years has grown despite an abundance of efforts by many nations and international organisations to stop development of such groups. This growth is partially attributed to advances in digital technology and the furtherment of communication techniques, such as social media and web-based content, which has allowed for the spread of these radical ideas across the planet making it difficult to control the advancement of these beliefs (Council on Foreign Relations, 2009). Terrorism will never be able to be fully stopped due to the abstract nature and ideology from which terrorism originates.

“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Belanger, J. J., Gelfand, M. J., Gunaratna, R., Hetiarachchi, M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sheveland, A. (2014). The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization: How significance quest impacts violent extremism. Political Psychology, 35, 69-93. Retrieved from

Radical Islamic leaders like Osama Bin Laden have made it clear that religion is at the heart of their terrorism and hate towards the West and particularly the American way of life. The internet is not the only place where disenfranchised and vulnerable individuals are exposed to radical ideology. The troubling reality is that clerics and mosques around the country allow their houses of worship to be used as training grounds for radicalization. “The common thread among these organizations is their ideology of Political Islam which aspires to implement sharia governance and to establish a global Islamic caliphate” (Clarion Project, 2017). Within the Criminal Justice System, radicalization and its threat to corrections and national security has resulted in creating a balance between prevention and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The balance is created through “greater supervision by prison officials of chapel services, control of religious materials in prison, enhanced staff training regarding Islam as a religion, increased screening of chaplains and religious service” (Popeo, 2006). The FBI’s “Don’t Be A Puppet” campaign attempts to establish awareness of violent extremists groups in the youth population, which is most suitable to radical ideological influences. Ultimately, the threats from radical Islam and its potential attacks will be thwarted if more citizens immediately say something, when they see

The second Part of Jonathan R. White’s ninth edition Terrorism and Homeland Security deals with the national and ethnic movements of international terrorism, their emergence as well as well as motifs. Ideological terrorist and ethnic separatists are hard to differentiate since they use the same procedures and tactics to get their demands. Although both fall under the definition of terrorism, there is a difference in the definition of their goals and demands. While separatists have defined, achievable goal, religious terrorists have a nihilistic ideology that are from a rational point of view not feasible. Therefore, it is impossible for satisfactorily negotiation

inflict a heavy cost. The authors continue by positing a dilemma that sounds nearly identical to Adler’. They assert that terrorists use a strategy of provocation that is designed to induce a violent response, which will in turn radicalize population and lead to them supporting the terrorists.

The research assessment on various study reports identified the distinct phases of radicalization process, which include, pre-radicalization, self-identification, indoctrination, and ‘Jihadization’ (Silber, M. D., & Bhatt, A., 2001). According to the research study, passing through the entire process sequence, makes an individual likely to get involved in implementation or planning of terrorist act. The researcher noted that Al-Qaeda has provided motivation for homegrown

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.

“Stairs narrow toward the top. It becomes harder to turn back with each step” (Kershaw, 2010). As said before, there is not a “cookie cutter” definition of what creates a terrorist. One thing is very evident, the radicalization process of an individual is complex, diverse, and is often comprised of idiosyncratic characteristics.

I want to start out by explaining my title, Learning to Live Lightly: Confessions of Radicalization in Response to a Hurting Earth. ‘Radicalization’ and ‘radical’ are words heavily laden with negative meaning, and

Just as there is no uniform consensus regarding the definition of terrorism, the same issue also applies to the statistics regarding de-radicalization and disengaging of terrorists from their groups. In the case of the home-grown terrorist, unless it was an incarcerated terrorist, how could this information even be tracked? Although similarities to other types of group-based crime have been attempted, the difference lies within the motivations of terror groups. Other types of criminal groups arise from the issues of low socio-economic capital; in contrast, terror groups are based upon an ideology. Of course, poverty and low opportunities may encourage the formation of a terrorist mentality but it is not the driving force. Extremism in religion is usually the root cause of

Domestic radicalized individuals are self-centered, impulsive, opportunistic individuals who seek opportunities to change the lives of individuals within society through acts of violence (Kamien, 2012). In the criminal justice lens, all levels of law enforcement agencies share an important role in national security. The idea of incorporating criminal justice departments from all levels of government offers a variety of counter-radicalization strategies to deter, prevent, and respond to acts of terrorism (Kamien, 2012). However, the increase in homegrown radicalization and terrorist attacks require all agencies to be more proactive than reactive in preventing and detecting acts of radicalization and terrorism. The goal for the criminal justice

Radicalization is a complex social phenomenon yet a perceptual clarity of the process is necessary in order to understand why some counter measures works and others do not. Radicalization does not occur in a vacuum; it entails people and originates from their regular interaction with social and political world they inhabit. Nevertheless, radicalization in itself is not treated as ‘evil’ because many of the world’s leading thinkers, politicians and scientists were radicals in their own domains. The process starts having an idea – a different albeit, nurturing conviction and finally gathering all the means to materialize the idea. However, all the radicals eventually reach a ‘bifurcation point’ wherefrom some decides to adopt violence and other

Terrorism is the act of using violence in order to evoke fear, especially for political purposes. This meaning developed in the nineteenth century to include violence outside the boundaries of state such as the assignation of political leaders by anarchists (Tosini, 2007). Over the year’s sociologist have tried to understand, interpret and analyse this phenomena in many different perspectives and theories. This essay will look at two particular sociological perspectives of terrorism; by Mathew Deflem and Gabe Mythen and Sandra, to critically analyse the content of their articles, their perspective on the understanding of terrorism, and the limitation in respect to their theories.