Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Think you can spot a terrorist? MI5 bets you can't
August 21, 2008 | Posted by Londonstani - 7:37am | 27 Comments
Londonstani was shocked to find out this morning that his local newsagents had sold out of the Guardian. Not the Waltham Forest Guardian, but the real deal, the one with inside political jokes and a media section that only a couple of thousand people living in poncy bits of London read.
After dodging wheezing overweight east enders with faded tattoos, and Punjabi mothers with errant toddlers, Londonstani finally found a copy, and thinks he understands why: Today's main frontpage story in the Guardian is "Terror: secret MI5 report challenges views on extremists". And Londonstani strongly suggests you have a good read.
The Guardian has managed to get its hands on an internal MI5 document based on a study of several hundred people involved in violent extremist activity. The main finding is that "there is no single pathway to extremism". In more specific terms the study found that extremists are often "religious novices", some come from criminal backgrounds and carry on activities such as drug taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. Agewise, they can range from single loners in their 20s to married men with children in their 30s - so the idea that they are all sexually frustrated saddos dreaming about doe-eyed virgins doesn't stand. Also, they come from varying educational and racial backgrounds - with converts overrepresented compared to their numbers in the community as a whole.
All of this along with the observation that preachers are no longer key actors in the radicalisation process presents the government with a clearer idea of the problem it faces. Which probably feels in Whitehall like climbing Everest and assuming you only have 500 metres to go until a big cloud moves out of the way and you realise you're only half way up.
Blaming radical preachers was always the easy option. It allowed the government to avoid worrying about wider societal problems. Terrorism was a Muslim problem and not a British one. Of course, the government also used it to avoid any link to the decision to go to war in Iraq. Self appointed British Muslim leaders backed the government's "few bad apples" outlook partly because they didn't know what was happening in Muslim communities and partly because they wanted to avoid the blame too. But at the same time, they could hammer on about the Iraq war.
Londonstani sees wider British problems in the report. It talks of extremist groups being accepting of ostracised individuals. It also talks of disgruntled individuals with the slimmest of stakes in the society around them.
"Members of a terrorist group can provide a sense of meaning and purpose. It can lead to enhanced self-esteem, and the individual can feel a sense of control and influence over their lives," MI5 says in the report.
This sounds identical to the parallel discussion in the UK about gang violence and teenage crime. In fact, the Guardian has an op-ed a few pages on where the writer talks about "excluded teenagers". The difference is that extremism comes with a pre-packaged ideology that scares people around you and so serves a key purpose if you are properly p***ed off with the world around you.
Londonstani has seen violence and extremism in various countries and is firmly of the view that eventhough it might be called "Islamist" in many, the label hides a multitude of far more local factors. In Britain, we have plenty of our own. The local London newspapers are keeping score of how many teenagers have been killed in gang related or knife and gun crime this year; the tally stands at 22 so far. The total for 2007 was 26.
The answer, says the report, is to build on its observation that "individuals in fact make active choices to become and remain in extremist activity" and that "the birth of a child, a new relationship or job could take priority over terrorism". So, once people are invested in the society around them, they aren't so interested in destroying it.
Paraphrasing, the Guardian says; "It could include providing fulfilling jobs for young people, better integration for immigrants, effective reintegration of ex-prisoners and the provision of alternatives to the extremist pathway out of "ordinary" criminality.
Sounds to Londonstani like that's what a government is supposed to do anyway.
After dodging wheezing overweight east enders with faded tattoos, and Punjabi mothers with errant toddlers, Londonstani finally found a copy, and thinks he understands why: Today's main frontpage story in the Guardian is "Terror: secret MI5 report challenges views on extremists". And Londonstani strongly suggests you have a good read.
The Guardian has managed to get its hands on an internal MI5 document based on a study of several hundred people involved in violent extremist activity. The main finding is that "there is no single pathway to extremism". In more specific terms the study found that extremists are often "religious novices", some come from criminal backgrounds and carry on activities such as drug taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. Agewise, they can range from single loners in their 20s to married men with children in their 30s - so the idea that they are all sexually frustrated saddos dreaming about doe-eyed virgins doesn't stand. Also, they come from varying educational and racial backgrounds - with converts overrepresented compared to their numbers in the community as a whole.
All of this along with the observation that preachers are no longer key actors in the radicalisation process presents the government with a clearer idea of the problem it faces. Which probably feels in Whitehall like climbing Everest and assuming you only have 500 metres to go until a big cloud moves out of the way and you realise you're only half way up.
Blaming radical preachers was always the easy option. It allowed the government to avoid worrying about wider societal problems. Terrorism was a Muslim problem and not a British one. Of course, the government also used it to avoid any link to the decision to go to war in Iraq. Self appointed British Muslim leaders backed the government's "few bad apples" outlook partly because they didn't know what was happening in Muslim communities and partly because they wanted to avoid the blame too. But at the same time, they could hammer on about the Iraq war.
Londonstani sees wider British problems in the report. It talks of extremist groups being accepting of ostracised individuals. It also talks of disgruntled individuals with the slimmest of stakes in the society around them.
"Members of a terrorist group can provide a sense of meaning and purpose. It can lead to enhanced self-esteem, and the individual can feel a sense of control and influence over their lives," MI5 says in the report.
This sounds identical to the parallel discussion in the UK about gang violence and teenage crime. In fact, the Guardian has an op-ed a few pages on where the writer talks about "excluded teenagers". The difference is that extremism comes with a pre-packaged ideology that scares people around you and so serves a key purpose if you are properly p***ed off with the world around you.
Londonstani has seen violence and extremism in various countries and is firmly of the view that eventhough it might be called "Islamist" in many, the label hides a multitude of far more local factors. In Britain, we have plenty of our own. The local London newspapers are keeping score of how many teenagers have been killed in gang related or knife and gun crime this year; the tally stands at 22 so far. The total for 2007 was 26.
The answer, says the report, is to build on its observation that "individuals in fact make active choices to become and remain in extremist activity" and that "the birth of a child, a new relationship or job could take priority over terrorism". So, once people are invested in the society around them, they aren't so interested in destroying it.
Paraphrasing, the Guardian says; "It could include providing fulfilling jobs for young people, better integration for immigrants, effective reintegration of ex-prisoners and the provision of alternatives to the extremist pathway out of "ordinary" criminality.
Sounds to Londonstani like that's what a government is supposed to do anyway.
Add your comment