
How a Danish Town Helped Young Muslims Turn Away from ISIS - tim_sw
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/15/485900076/how-a-danish-town-helped-young-muslims-turn-away-from-isis
======
jacquesm
Fascinating, and worrisome.

This paragraph jumped out at me because of the numbers involved:

"Starting in 2012, 34 people went from Aarhus to Syria. As far as the police
know, six were killed and 10 are still over there. Of the 18 who came back
home, all showed up in Aarslev and Link's office, as did hundreds of other
potential radicals in Aarhus — about 330 in total."

If a small town like Aarhus harboured 34 people that joined ISIS and 330
potential radicals in total that does not bode well for the rest of Western
Europe.

Those numbers, when extrapolated make the problem a lot larger than I thought
it was (and I actually thought I was over-estimating).

Aarhus has a population of only ~320K, so that's 1:1000.

~~~
ceejayoz
Going to Syria isn't necessarily joining ISIS. There are many rebel groups,
some directly fighting _against_ ISIS.

~~~
internaut
I keep hearing this and it does not comfort me much.

Remember how the West had a problem with...

The Taliban... then Al-Qaeda...... then ISIS.......... then ??

The names are changing but something else remains constant or is getting
worse.

~~~
ameen
One constant factor is strife in the region. Provides a constant source of
enraged youngsters seeking revenge after being hard done by an outsider (death
in family, unemployment, living under an authoritarian govt, illiteracy, etc).

This will continue until weapons need to be sold. Military Industrial complex
is a thing and it needs blood to lubricate its wheels.

~~~
dogma1138
There are plenty of other countries which are considerably poorer than the
middle east. Circa 2010 Syria wasn't a "bad" place, the average income was
greater than that say of India, it was about equal to that of Moldova and the
Republic of Macedonia both which are both EU accession candidates.

Syrians (and Saudis) who joined the insurgency in Iraq weren't disenfranchised
infact they were from the elite, often dropping out of university to go and
join the "cause". Osama Bin Laden who founded AQ was born into one of the
richest families in the world, had higher education and really had no hard
done to him by anyone.

Europeans who join ISIS are mostly 2nd and 3rd generation "immigrants", often
to mixed families and "fresh converts", they aren't particularly
disenfranchised either.

Geopolitics and economics do have a role in conflicts everywhere, but the
sooner you stop blaming everything on people being poor, oppressed and
"western expansionism" the sooner we might actually be able to start working
on a solution.

Last time I've checked Tibet is effectively poorer than Lebanon, Syria, Iraq,
Iran, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the smaller gulf states (and I'm not
counting the average which is skewed because of how the wealth is distributed)
and it's quite objectively oppressed but I have yet to see Tibetans blowing up
restaurants in China.

~~~
internaut
If you read enough old books you'll notice that the authors ascribe a general
temperament to each European nation. The word temperament today is not in
common use except in animal breeding and the nearest equivalent we have today
is the word stereotype, which captures some but not all of the meaning.

Here is a formal example of what I mean:

[http://i.imgur.com/r3bom1c.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/r3bom1c.jpg)

[http://i.imgur.com/Qen8lBA.png](http://i.imgur.com/Qen8lBA.png)

While some of this is hilariously old fashioned or historical period specific,
it is also interesting just how many traits are consistent enough that we
recognize them centuries later.

This could be astrology or tea leaf reading, but I think it merits a genuine
scientific investigation. It may be anecdotal but far too many people agree
the Italians are very fond of chatting, including the Italians.

All of this is to say, while it is true that Islam is dominant in countries
where periodic religious warfare breaks out, it is possibly Islam is derived
from collective temperament and not the other way around. It should definitely
be treated seriously as a hypothesis.

------
Kenji
I love how it's always others being evil and 'discriminate' against the
muslims that then become terrorists. Like, 'Those evil, evil westerners
rejected him and did not appreciate his culture. That was the catalyst for him
wanting to become a terrorist.'

Imagine this: You go to a foreign country or are raised in a foreign culture
(because things in your own country are horrible at the moment). You feel
mistreated (even though they provide you with asylum and quite literally save
your life and provide you with all you need), for example in a job or at
school. _This makes you feel like you have to kill people to make your point,
and you have to be a terrorist, so you set out to wage this war._ This is
utter lunacy. This is not the spark for terrorism - a careless upbringing
without proper values and with extremist ideologies is. Let me tell you
something: Culture matters. A lot. Not race and not birthplace. But what you
believe to be moral and true fundamentally shapes not only how you view the
world but how you interact with it. What we need is moral education, a reform
(enlightenment) in muslim culture and stop being apologist by blaming
ourselves.

~~~
cyberferret
Let me guess - you've never been in a large group situation where you are
seemingly accepted, but nearly everyone looks down upon you and treats you
with constant suspicion and questions your motives and reminds you on a
regular basis that you are different, and that you are lucky to be part of the
group. Have you?

~~~
DominikR
Seriously, who cares? Everyone of us will have to deal at some point in life
with people that look down upon us for stupid reasons.

That doesn't give you an excuse to kill 100 random strangers!

It is their culture that causes this, as they have a loud group that
constantly calls for these massacres and generally very few of them speak up
against this loud group of fanatics.

We don't have anything like that in our culture, that's why it's so rare that
somebody from us ends up mass murdering 100 random persons.

If someone from us tried calling for mass murdering some minority he'll
actually be locked up in no time and attacked harshly by the media. That's how
we effectively deal with our radicals.

I'm tired of all these attempts to appease members of this culture as it is
clearly a much worse culture than ours and they could actually learn something
from us.

Where ever Muslims are the majority you always see the same result: Poverty,
cruel law system, oppression, massacre and often civil war

And somehow no one seems to be willing to accept that this is the direct
result of their value system and their culture.

How are they ever going to improve their societies if we help their fanatics
to keep oppressing dissenters by constantly repeating that their culture is
great and everything's fine?

Edit: And because I'm sure someone will state that this is unfair because we
constantly meddle in their affairs: We also constantly meddle in Russian,
Chinese, Indian, Japanese and EU affairs and vice versa.

Still these societies seem to be sufficiently resilient to not collapse in
mass murder and total chaos.

Muslim societies constantly collapsed when Socialism was en vogue 50 years ago
same as they collapse today with Islamism. You can promote any -Ism you want
there, nothing will change as long as the oppressive nature of their culture
doesn't change.

~~~
cyberferret
> We don't have anything like that in our culture, that's why it's so rare
> that somebody from us ends up mass murdering 100 random persons.

The USA has something endemic in their culture which results in toddlers
killing more people that terrorists have in their country this year.

People in other countries without this same culture try telling the US how
that can stop it by trying the same things that worked in their own countries
but keep being told to go away, there is nothing wrong and to mind their own
business.

> We also constantly meddle in Russian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese and EU
> affairs and vice versa. Still these societies seem to be sufficiently
> resilient to not collapse in mass murder and total chaos.

Does the US 'meddle' in those countries to the extent of placing troops on the
ground within their borders in order to shoot at citizens of said country?
Does the US conduct drone strikes against people of those countries?

~~~
DominikR
> The USA has something endemic in their culture which results in toddlers
> killing more people that terrorists have in their country this year.

Every society that gives it's citizens the right to bear arms will have
accidents. I also doubt that toddlers will have killed more persons than
terrorists this year.

> Does the US 'meddle' in those countries to the extent of placing troops on
> the ground within their borders in order to shoot at citizens of said
> country? Does the US conduct drone strikes against people of those
> countries?

Today the West does so in the Middle East, but there is also a real threat to
us. 30-50 years ago it wasn't so and there were few soldiers placed in these
countries, except for Saudi Arabia because they are apparently incapable of
upholding their fine system without Western help. Still their countries were a
total mess like they are to this day.

Of course there was meddling and certain groups were supported like the West
always does everywhere. But what those groups did with that support in terms
of cruelty when compared to other cultures is not comparable.

I guarantee you this, if every country stopped meddling in the Middle East
first thing they would do is getting weapons of mass destruction and then
they'd proceed to annihilate each other.

------
Mz
_Hearing a policeman take responsibility for his life getting derailed really
moved Jamal. He agreed to come into Link 's office._

They are doing good work. This all fits with everything I have ever read about
how to undermine extremism, radicalization, etc. Time does not tend to heal
such wounds. It tends to make them fester. That doesn't mean they cannot be
healed.

~~~
noobermin
Unfortunately, this section is becoming a political thread while I feel like
there is more to be said about psychology here. It feels unnatural especially
to accept someone back when they've essentially fought against you. At worse,
one would wonder if you embolden criminals when you do this.

I think it comes down to motivation. If a criminal is say like a sadist
rapist, giving him a hug after he rapes will just embolden him to commit more
crime. That's because his motivations are due to internal forces/perversions.
However, if someone is motivated like Jamal due to discrimination, the thing
he wanted in the first place was acceptance, so accepting him leaves him with
no reason to commit crime.

Unfortunately, you can't read inside someone's head. Some people just want to
be a Jihadist. Some want to see blood and kill. Some just want to belong. I
think the best thing to do is to do both...help those who want to be helped
and reach those who could be reached, and fight vehemently those who simply
want glory or want to get their kicks. How do you know when or when not for
this or that case? I guess you pay investigators a nice salary to figure that
out because blanket policy is only so effective.

~~~
Mz
This is something that can be studied. Social psychology. Negotiation and
conflict resolution. Etc. I have had such classes.

First, he reached out to him with his own agenda. Naturally, having been
crapped on by so many people, the young man was suspicious. So, he apologized
specifically for the role his own department had played in the ongoing tragedy
of this guy's life. He did not just say "Sorry your life sucks." He distanced
himself from the wrongdoing of the officers the guy had previously interacted
with, showed that his agenda was not harmful, it was a good faith agenda.

Then he hooked him up with a role model who could provide social proof that
there was real hope that this could be resolved. He gave him a model for how
to solve. He gave him an attractive alternative to becoming a terrorist. The
young man did not previously have an attractive alternative.

The article seriously simplified the process. Since this unit is successful in
what it does, presumably they are more informed about the various pieces of
this than whoever wrote the article.

The forgive and forget model does not work. But this kid was turning bad
largely due to bad things happening to him. He was mistreated by the police
the first time. His pissed off remark at school should have never turned into
so much trouble for him. To some extent, his second contact with the police
redressed this wrong. The apology was not just empty words.

------
juvinious
I'm astounded at the lauded idea that these guys are radicalized or it is some
unfortunate circumstance of Western (white) oppression. In all its wonderful
building of the multicultural fabric, the west continues to paint with the
wide stroke that all cultures are great and morally equivalent. Thus, when
there is an attack from these 'poor disenfranchised' individuals upon our
freedoms and people, the west is quick to attack everything but the true
problem, which is Islam. I mean all we have to do is look at Mohammed to
understand what it means to be a truly honest, moral and exemplary Muslim.

\------ 9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last
Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and
those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people
of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued. \------

~~~
frankquist
Why must it be either/or? One can critique (certain tenets of) Islamic
thought, yet recognize that there's an interaction between the narrative an
individual has about their life (i.e. I'm being disenfranchised) that
interacts with their cultural/religious background, making them more prone to
certain interpretations of their faith and more committed to these
interpretations and their behavioral consequences. You can empathize with an
individual that feels like an outcast while not necessarily making a positive
moral judgment of their religion or their subjective interpretation of their
own predicament. Without "appeasing them" (whatever that means). Nobody in the
article you are replying to has made any argument about moral equivalence. To
me, they seem to be mostly pragmatic and interested in preventing crime, and
the article makes it seemingly effective.

Generally I experience that wanting the world to be a certain way does not
necessarily make it so. The act of judging Islam, does not necessarily
transform it, or its followers. To sway people, you have to understand how
they are swayed. I do not discount that some might be swayed by criticism,
threat or use of force (i.e. dealing with _potential_ extremists), but these
are not necessarily the actions that have the best outcome. I think the
"Aarhus model" is interesting in so far as that the officers involved seem to
be pragmatical: hey, if we do this, then, in our experience and according to
this science, we might very well achieve this certain desired outcome. So
let's debate if that is true - instead of getting into this tiresome debate
about how people need to be more negative about islam, which in no way I can
ascertain contributes to change.

I do not believe in the "debate model of change": that people change when they
"lose" a debate, and therefore we must all be voracious in our judgment of
those people. The model seems to say: if only the entire western world voiced,
in harmonic unison, this grand thesis that Islam itself is the problem, by
sheer force of this combined act of judgment, the Islamic world would think
"dude, I really think these people are on to something. They are right" and
cast off their shackles and their cultural heritage. In fact, I find the model
frightening because it says: "unless you join me in disparaging another
people's culture, you are part of the problem". Which makes it impossible to
have a debate on how to engage with people, because somehow engaging with them
is seen as appeasement or agreeing with them (I can empathize with someone I
do not agree with). Which limits the options we have in pragmatically working
on changing our world: by engaging those people that are problematic, trying
to find out why they think a certain way, and intervene in a way that
maximises effect.

 _" In order to be involved in, or be a guide to, the transforming of the
present into the future state - the essence of our work - one must have the
skill to do this in such a way that the object with which one is working is
not violated, but is transformed according its own laws" \- Kaplan_

EDITED to add: If I interpret you correctly, your argument is that these
youngsters are not radicalized, because islam itself is radical, so
"radicalized muslim" is a pleonasm of sorts. This is a flawed argument because
it can not explain why some Muslims commit to violent action while others do
not (reminder, there are hundreds of millions of muslims). For any productive
discussion on change to take place, one will have to try and find the x here:
"follower of islam + x = commits to violence". I do not know what exactly the
x is, but I call people where x exists radicalized.

~~~
juvinious
True, the article spoke nothing of moral equivalence. Glancing at commentary
here I felt it needed to be said. I also agree it's not completely binary, as
beliefs are contrasted over a highly myriad of interpretations coming from
ones understanding of their faith and how it fits into their world view. I
feel however to say nothing or contribute only in a form of western apologia,
well it is disingenuous and should be shameful. If only we could be honest
about the realities we are facing in the west. Additionally, those who are in
their communities aware of the kind of individuals harboring doctrinal
adherence should be willing, I mean if they truly have secular and pluralistic
values in mind, to speak outwardly against it. Yet, I fear that to do so is
extremely costly (death/physical harm/reputation) and so it continues to
proliferate. Unfortunately, even if the debate model of change were to work
the current debate is out of focus. I still think that debate is of little use
other than to get your 15 mins at this point and that it is more important to
speak outward against bad ideas in an honest and non-threating manner.

------
cyberferret
A fascinating story, and a great initiative by the town police. The world
needs more role models for non aggressive activism - we lack a Ghandi or MLK
of our generation...

~~~
mtgx
You mean someone that would argue against economic injustice, racism,
violence, and had a decades old track record of doing so? (even to the point
of marching with MLK himself)

Yes, if only our generation had someone like that running for president in the
US.

~~~
douche
Instead, we have people like that selling out to corrupt career politicians
who can't say two sentences without lying through their teeth.

~~~
calibraxis
I get the impression that Jeremy Corbyn (in the UK) is much better than Bernie
Sanders at helping build grassroots organizations that hopefully persist
without him. I heard Bernie Sanders compared with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow
Coalition, whose energy & commitment faded away after Jackson wasn't elected.
Same with Ralph Nader, apparently.

~~~
noobermin
It is a little too early to discount Sanders. Just because the media buzz
around him isn't as strong doesn't mean many still don't respect him and he
doesn't have influence amongst his supporters before he endorsed Clinton.

------
noobermin
It seems like no one realizes that this is a audiocast. Yes it's an hour, but
listening to NPR is the thing to do on Sundays!

------
HappyFunGuy
This is a story about Somali Jamal in Denmark, who planned to join ISIS with
his friends. But a cop called him, and apologized for uh.., thinking he might
be a threat. So Jamal uh, changes his mind, but two of his buddies don't and
die in Syria.

So if you hug a terrorist, he might not want to kill you as much, maybe.

You know who doesn't have this terrorist hugging problem?

Japan.

~~~
crishoj
Could you describe Japan's approach in greater detail?

~~~
oldboyFX
_Japanese society is one of the most ethnically, linguistically and culturally
homogeneous societies in the world, composed of 98.5% ethnic Japanese._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan)

