Signs that someone may be being radicalized/planning to engage in terroism.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5065612/new- ... the-signs/

Before the terrorist attack at two New Zealand mosques, the alleged gunman radicalized, acquired firearms and ammunition, practised at a shooting range and wrote a manifesto.
How did it all go unnoticed?
Researchers have found it rarely does: those preparing to engage in violent extremism tend to follow a sequence of steps that take about a year and signal to bystanders they are up to something.
WATCH: Family of Christchurch suspect ‘gobsmacked’


The stereotype of the self-radicalized lone wolf who suddenly turns violent without anyone knowing is not backed by recent studies by security agencies and academics.
Although the speed has increased, “the majority of individuals still take close to a year to mobilize to violence and demonstrate … behavioral indicators during the mobilization process,” said a declassified Canadian Security Intelligence Service study.

The study, part of a project launched by CSIS after the deadly October 2014 terrorist attacks in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., and Ottawa, also found extremists almost always give themselves away as they get ready.
READ MORE: When criminals become terrorists: declassified CSIS report lays out how Canadians move to terrorism
“Individuals mobilizing to violence — i.e. extremist travel, domestic or foreign attack plotting, or facilitation activities — often inadvertently leak information to other individuals about their intent, capability and preparations,” one of the CSIS studies found.
In a majority of cases, the plotters “engaged in specific, highly incriminating discussion months before mobilization.”
The research underscores the importance of picking up on what officials call “leakage” — the things people say and do that betray to those around them that they are on the path to extremist violence.
WATCH: New Zealand shooting: Man who lost his wife says he forgives suspected shooter


Fifty people were fatally shot at two New Zealand mosques last week. An Australian who had allegedly penned a manifesto espousing far-right, racist beliefs has been arrested.
Quoting unnamed security sources, The Independent reported this weekend the suspect, Brenton Tarrant, was believed to have met with extreme right-wing groups in Europe two years ago.
“How did we miss this,” a New Zealand Times writer asked. Meanwhile, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has asked agencies to look into whether there were any cues on social media that should have raised flags.
WATCH: Christchurch prepares for burials as victims’ friends, families wait for release of bodies


“Today as we grieve, we are seeking answers,” Ardern said in a speech in which she said the suspect “had not come to the attention of the intelligence community, nor the police, for extremism.”
The manifesto, posted online and sent to dozens of recipients minutes before the attack, said planning had started two years ago, although it’s uncertain how much of the document is truthful.
But CSIS reports obtained under the Access to Information Act by terrorism researcher Prof. Amarnath Amarasingam, as well as other studies, suggest it would be unusual if nobody noticed.
The FBI has also determined that most U.S. active shooters “leaked” their intentions, and each exhibited four to five “concerning behaviors,” although they didn’t necessarily report them to police.
READ MORE: Christchurch shootings killed more people than 6 years of New Zealand gun homicides combined: stats
Hints of a person’s transition to violence can range from “very conspicuous expressions of extremist activity to more subtle forms,” CSIS wrote. Even the act of trying to cover up their illicit activities can give away a would-be attacker.
The CSIS research found that women became violent at about the same speed as men but rarely did so alone and were likely to be surrounded by a like-minded group. Youths, however, tended to mobilize faster.
Only in about 10 per cent of cases did subjects move to violence in five days or less. “This finding counters the common perception that people radicalize and subsequently mobilize to violence suddenly and spontaneously,” a CSIS report said.
WATCH: New Zealand PM confirms Christchurch suspect manifesto was received

A page from a CSIS presentation showing the sequence of steps extremists undergo as they mobilize the violence.
CSIS/ATIP
According to the RCMP’s Terrorism and Violent Extremism Awareness Guide, terrorists “always go through phases of radicalization and planning of their violent actions.”
The signs can include: a significant change in interests, social isolation, a change in peer groups, use of extremist language and attending private ideological meetings.
Watching violent online propaganda, an “us against them” outlook, glorification of violence, a change in appearance and dress, adopting a pseudonym and displaying tattoos or other symbols can also be indicators.
Those planning attacks may be nervous or anxious, be trying to raise money, have unusual web activity, acquire fraudulent identification and uniforms, scout potential targets and pay close attention to security.
WATCH: Turkish foreign minister visits survivors of attack, visits mosque site


“Bystanders (people in a position to observe this information) are critical to the identification and prevention of mobilization to violence,” CSIS wrote in a report released under the Access to Information Act.
Stewart.Bell@globalnews.ca

[Zaune]

According to the RCMP’s Terrorism and Violent Extremism Awareness Guide, terrorists “always go through phases of radicalization and planning of their violent actions.”

The signs can include: a significant change in interests, social isolation, a change in peer groups, use of extremist language and attending private ideological meetings.

Watching violent online propaganda, an “us against them” outlook, glorification of violence, a change in appearance and dress, adopting a pseudonym and displaying tattoos or other symbols can also be indicators.

Those planning attacks may be nervous or anxious, be trying to raise money, have unusual web activity, acquire fraudulent identification and uniforms, scout potential targets and pay close attention to security.

“Bystanders (people in a position to observe this information) are critical to the identification and prevention of mobilization to violence,” CSIS wrote in a report released under the Access to Information Act.

Well, that's... "broad" is one word for it, I guess. I counted seven signs that applied to me when I was 19 and started hanging out in an online fanfiction community whose members intervened to get me help after a suicide attempt and supported me after I cut ties with my emotionally abusive family. I'm also just ever so slightly concerned that they specifically mention "unusual web activity", which is something rather difficult to pick up on without deliberately violating someone's privacy. And what exactly do they mean by "private ideological meetings"? It's not like it's unusual for political parties or other organisations to restrict entry to certain events to dues-paying members only.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, some of them are certainly broad, and not in and of themselves evidence of extremist tendencies (I don't think anyone is trying to make the case, for example, that having a tattoo makes you a likely terrorist- perhaps they meant to refer specifically to tattoos or symbols that are of significance to those ideologies?).

I would think that while some signs (traveling to receive extremist training/meeting with extremist groups, stockpiling weaponry, etc.) are fairly obvious, in a lot of cases, it wouldn't be any one thing that would be a tip off, but the overall pattern. The more signs someone started to exhibited, the more cause for concern there would be.

[Zaune]

True, but I still worry about the false positives this is likely to throw up. Especially since the usual suspects will be projecting all the extremist right's issues onto the actually-not-that-extremist left.

[Jub]

Yes, some of them are certainly broad, and not in and of themselves evidence of extremist tendencies (I don't think anyone is trying to make the case, for example, that having a tattoo makes you a likely terrorist- perhaps they meant to refer specifically to tattoos or symbols that are of significance to those ideologies?).

That's a pretty large assumption to make when it's entirely possible that CSIS has made a poor guide for the average person to use. They think in terms of an intelligence agency and it's highly unlikely that they expect even a family member or significant other to pick up on these clues. It gets even harder if the person in question lives alone or with a roommate they don't interact with often.

I would think that while some signs (traveling to receive extremist training/meeting with extremist groups, stockpiling weaponry, etc.) are fairly obvious, in a lot of cases, it wouldn't be any one thing that would be a tip off, but the overall pattern. The more signs someone started to exhibited, the more cause for concern there would be.

How can you determine traveling for this purpose apart from traveling for any other reason?

How would you determine that stockpiling firearms and ammo isn't just the start of a new hobby?

I think we want to believe that if we just noticed the signs we could stop the bad things from happening but just like with suicide it's often the case that the signs are only obvious in hindsight or if you've invaded that person's privacy as a precautionary measure.

[madd0ct0r]

I think given the number of lives at stake simply going "oh well its too hard" isnt really good enough.

If building collapses killed people at the same rate there'd be an outcry.

If you are worried about privacy from the government, let me just buy your credit history. Whats the gun purchase pattern? Any specialist magazines or unusual travel to likely potential targets. Any loans or paycheck patterns that indicate lack of stability?

What social breadcrumbs have you left on the internet? Does it indicate increased consumption of alt right stuff? Friends mirror, so for other people who aren't as careful, but associate with same sites we know you do, what else do they associate with?

[madd0ct0r]

Its easy shit man. And who cares if my trawl finds a few thousand false positives? They wont know and im unlikey to send a swat team in
Check them again weekly and a bunch will blip back below the radar.

But fundamentally a thousand false positives reflects the pool of thousands of radically vulnerable young men and suggests that covert job creation or targeting civilising mission through local churchs

[Broomstick]

True, but I still worry about the false positives this is likely to throw up. Especially since the usual suspects will be projecting all the extremist right's issues onto the actually-not-that-extremist left.

Part of the problem is seeing this as a binary issue - terrorist or non-terrorist, extremist or non-extremist.

Reality is that people live along a spectrum. Radicalization is moving closer and closer to the end of a spectrum. So yes, these lists are always going to be broad. People are usually going to start somewhat in the middle and move farther and farther out. So it can start with maybe researching certain topics on line. Then maybe the person starts hanging out more and more with people of a certain viewpoint. And lot of people will stop right there and never get "further" radicalized - they're wrong-headed bigots but they never act on it, beyond telling racist/bigoted "jokes" with their friends and engaging in multi-hour rants over pizza and beer or whatever. But some will take it further and further. It's more and more points adding up that starts signaling someone is getting to be more of a risk.

I would not support jailing people because they're being verbal assholes over pizza and beer in someone's basement. But we need a better way of spotting and dealing with situations that go from pizza and beer to one or several people stockpiling/modifying weapons and planning violence and death.

[Lord Revan]

True, but I still worry about the false positives this is likely to throw up. Especially since the usual suspects will be projecting all the extremist right's issues onto the actually-not-that-extremist left.

Part of the problem is seeing this as a binary issue - terrorist or non-terrorist, extremist or non-extremist.

Reality is that people live along a spectrum. Radicalization is moving closer and closer to the end of a spectrum. So yes, these lists are always going to be broad. People are usually going to start somewhat in the middle and move farther and farther out. So it can start with maybe researching certain topics on line. Then maybe the person starts hanging out more and more with people of a certain viewpoint. And lot of people will stop right there and never get "further" radicalized - they're wrong-headed bigots but they never act on it, beyond telling racist/bigoted "jokes" with their friends and engaging in multi-hour rants over pizza and beer or whatever. But some will take it further and further. It's more and more points adding up that starts signaling someone is getting to be more of a risk.

I would not support jailing people because they're being verbal assholes over pizza and beer in someone's basement. But we need a better way of spotting and dealing with situations that go from pizza and beer to one or several people stockpiling/modifying weapons and planning violence and death.

Indeed the key is to spot those who are past the "racist jokes over pizza", but you cannot and shall never be able to counter radialization with your own radicalization, so going after someone just because they looked at alt-right website or said things some known alt right member said is not an option.

EDIT:This might come as surprise to some here but one of easiest way to get movement to become radical is to try to suppress them.

[Zaune]

Indeed the key is to spot those who are past the "racist jokes over pizza", but you cannot and shall never be able to counter radialization with your own radicalization, so going after someone just because they looked at alt-right website or said things some known alt right member said is not an option.

EDIT:This might come as surprise to some here but one of easiest way to get movement to become radical is to try to suppress them.

Thank you for articulating the point I was trying to make more clearly than I could.

[K. A. Pital]

Outside of total abolition of private thought, you hardly can find all people who become radicalized.

What then? Corporate DPRK on steroids?

Nazis are ugly. But they are a symptom... society is sick, can offer no positive vision for them.

[bilateralrope]

Nazis are ugly. But they are a symptom... society is sick, can offer no positive vision for them.

A few people I've talked to claim that "you can't radicalize people who are happy with their lives". Go with that thought and the solution becomes to look for people who are in a crap situation and/or have mental illness and help them through it. Or, even better, structure the social safety nets so that people don't fall down those holes in the first place.

Basically, blame capitalism for creating the conditions where people can be radicalized.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nazis are ugly. But they are a symptom... society is sick, can offer no positive vision for them.

A few people I've talked to claim that "you can't radicalize people who are happy with their lives". Go with that thought and the solution becomes to look for people who are in a crap situation and/or have mental illness and help them through it. Or, even better, structure the social safety nets so that people don't fall down those holes in the first place.

Basically, blame capitalism for creating the conditions where people can be radicalized.

Capitalism and other problems that capitalism inhibits solutions to, yeah. As I recall, I posted a thread not to long ago about how the Alt. Reich types were deliberately targeting people with depression online and trying to recruit them.

I don't think fascism and other forms of extremism are purely a product of economic injustice. That seems too much like taking the blame off the fascists and echoing the "anti-establishment" rhetoric they've used so well, in addition to being overly simplistic. Fascism, and similar extremist ideologies, appeal to some very deeply engrained and ugly aspects of the average person's psychology- our tribalism, our self-interest, our yearning for a strong leader who will cut through all the messy complexities of life, our desire for simplicity and purity and a scapegoat for our problems. And of course, there will always be people who are just sadistic or sociopathic and want power over others. But its harder for those people to gain traction in the mainstream if there are fewer desperate and unhappy people for them to promise a false sense of purpose, strength, or revenge to, and anything we can do as a society to make it harder for them is worth doing. Plus, of course, improving standards of living and the happiness of others is the right thing to do, regardless.