SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Are you, your family, or your community at risk of turning to violent extremism? Now you can find out as The Intercept reports that a rating system devised by the National Counterterrorism Center titled "Countering Violent Extremism: A Guide for Practitioners and Analysts,” lets police, social workers and educators rate individuals on a scale of one to five in categories such as: “Expressions of Hopelessness, Futility,” “Talk of Harming Self or Others,” and “Connection to Group Identity (Race, Nationality, Religion, Ethnicity).” The ranking system is supposed to alert government officials to individuals at risk of turning to radical violence, and to families or communities at risk of incubating extremist ideologies. Families are judged on factors such as “Aware[ness] of Each Other’s Activities,” as well as levels of “Parent-Child Bonding,” (PDF) and communities are rated by access to health care and social services, in addition to “presence of ideologues or recruiters” as potential risk factors. A low score in any of these categories would indicate a high risk of “susceptibility to engage in violent extremism,” according to the document. Users of the guide are encouraged to plot the scores on a graph to determine what “interventions” could halt the process of radicalization before it happens.
Experts have suggested that intervention by law enforcement or other branches of the government in individuals’ lives, particularly young people, based solely based on the views they express, can potentially criminalize constitutionally protected behavior. “The idea that the federal government would encourage local police, teachers, medical and social service employees to rate the communities, individuals and families they serve for their potential to become terrorists is abhorrent on its face,” says former FBI agent Mike German calling the criteria used for the ratings “subjective and specious.” Arun Kundnani questions the science behind the rating system. “There’s no evidence to support the idea that terrorism can be substantively correlated with such factors to do with family, identity, and emotional well-being," says Kundnani. "“It is obvious that, in practice, [this] would mostly only be applied to Muslim communities."
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:27AM
I'm rather sure that he meant it would only be used against Muslims at first .
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:22AM
Therein lies the problem. The muslims are making the world a worse place with their actions. One way or the other. Which is worse? A world ruled by islam or 1984 world?
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:51AM
No - a very small number of Muslims are turning to violence and radicalism. 'Terrorists' have been bred by many nationalities, religions and ethnic groups throughout the ages. You are in danger, accidentally or otherwise, of making the situation worse yourself, and then people will be able to say 'Anonymous Cowards are making the world a worse place with their actions'.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:45AM
Bill Warner sums up the results of a Pew Research poll in regards to percentages of Muslims that support Sharia law [youtube.com]. It's true that a minority of Islam's followers polled did not support the extremism that is contained within Sharia law... but the actual percentage of supporters does not reflect a "very small number".
It's not socially acceptable for a "first-worlder" to criticize Islam... but then few "first-worlders" have bothered to examine Islam's own source code [youtube.com] (the Koran as well as the Hadith/Traditions). It is true there are peaceful Muslims, but one needs to look to Islam's source code [prophetofdoom.net] to determine just who the "good Muslims" are.
It is also worthwhile to note that "being Muslim" has nothing to do with a person's genetic composition. Islam is either a religion or a political system - it is not a race.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:23AM
Summed up very well on the first page in one paragraph.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:51PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:30PM
After scratching my head for a while, I believe the AC may be referring to the "Letter to the Reader" at the beginning of Craig Winn's book, Prophet of Doom, which I linked to. (The website is in a shabby state, currently. It used to contain the entire book in multiple formats, but now hosts just PDFs.) Here's the first three paragraphs for reference:
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:01PM
Thanks - that makes the GP clearer, although I don't agree with his point of view.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:23PM
If you're referring to disagreement with the content of Fauxlosopher's reference to Prophet of Doom, then may I ask about what you've found to disagree with?
The Koran as it sits on my shelf has each Surah/chapter organized by its length. It is not assembled in chronological order. The history of each piece of the text is important according to the Koran itself, in Surah 2:106 [quran.com]. Newer Surahs that come into conflict with older ones replace, abrogate older Surahs.
Why this is important becomes clear when you examine the history of Islam's origins. Mohummad started Islam in Mecca as a peaceful religion, and the Koran reflects this in the earlier Surahs that read "there is no compulsion in Islam". As far as numbers of followers go, early Islam was a failure with only a handful of adherents. Mohummad then went to Medina and took an entirely different approach, that of the warrior/bandit-king. The Koran records Surahs from this time period with text such as "strike the necks of the kafir until all religion is for Allah". This later flavor of Islam was a resounding success, and as it reflects the last direction given from Mohammad, it has abrogated all the peaceful-sounding parts of early Islam.
Prophet of Doom is heavy with citations from Islam's own source code, as well as parallel history to put all the pieces in their historical order.
Now, you're free to hold a different opinion of Islam, but when someone disagrees that while early Islam was proclaimed peacefully, the peaceful coexistence aspects were abrogated to a literal call for world war, that someone isn't disagreeing with an AC on the internets. That someone is disagreeing with the Hadiths and the Koran, which is what Islam is.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 16 2015, @06:37PM
poll in regards to percenteges of Evangelicals who support Biblical law. [pewforum.org]
six-in-ten (60%) white evangelical Protestants say that the Bible should be the guiding principle in making laws when it conflicts with the will of the people...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:38AM
What? What about the people who are actually implementing these unconstitutional and freedom-violating policies? They are not being forced to do so. There needs to be some personal responsibility.
As for which is worse, that's a false dichotomy. I want neither of those things, so it doesn't really matter which is worse. But if we're going to go down, I'd rather go down fighting than surrender our liberties in the name of safety.