chimera wrote on Mar 5^th, 2026 at 7:37pm:

I am not a moron like you.

I dont ask if the red light self identifies AS red light.
I dont ask if a rabid dog self identifies as rabid.

chimera wrote on Mar 5^th, 2026 at 7:45pm:


So you are as stupid as you seem. 

chimera wrote on Mar 6^th, 2026 at 1:13pm:



You are explaining the wrong thing.

chimera wrote on Mar 5^th, 2026 at 6:44pm:



That was what you were supposed to be explaining. And your reference was so off topic as to be in the next state.

You can see the q. is about Frank's post on red lights and rabid dogs.
You must have less sense than Frank and lee.
Abuse again is the way to avoid thinking.

(what is the last part of my dribbling quote that you're so excited about?)

By John Smith

Over the past two decades, governments around the world have invested heavily in deradicalisation programs aimed at rehabilitating Islamist extremists. These initiatives often involve religious re-education, psychological counselling, vocational training, and reintegration support. While such programs are politically appealing because they promise to reduce terrorism without relying solely on incarceration or military force, the available research suggests that deradicalisation initiatives have limited demonstrated effectiveness. Problems with evaluation, unreliable success metrics, and the difficulty of changing deeply entrenched ideological beliefs all raise serious doubts about their broad impact.

One of the most significant challenges is the lack of rigorous empirical evidence showing that these programs actually work. Scholars frequently note that reliable long-term data is scarce and that most programs are not evaluated using strong scientific methods. Research published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point found that the effectiveness of many prison-based rehabilitation programs remains uncertain because of limited transparency and the absence of systematic follow-up studies (Rabasa et al., 2010). Without control groups or long-term monitoring, it is difficult to determine whether individuals who abandon extremist activity do so because of the program itself or because of other factors such as aging, family pressures, or personal disillusionment with militant groups.

Another major problem lies in how governments define “success.” Official reports often cite very high success rates, but these figures can be misleading because they typically measure recidivism rather than genuine ideological change. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation initiative run through the Prince Mohammed bin Nayef Counseling and Care Center has often been cited as one of the world’s most successful deradicalisation programs, with authorities claiming success rates above 80 percent. However, independent analysts have pointed out that these figures rely largely on government-provided data and that several program graduates later returned to extremist organizations (Boucek, 2008). As a result, the true effectiveness of the program remains difficult to verify.

Furthermore, existing research suggests that deradicalisation programs tend to work primarily with individuals who are already inclined to disengage from extremism. Studies by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King's College London indicate that deeply committed ideological militants are far less likely to abandon their beliefs through rehabilitation programs (Neumann, 2010). Many participants categorized as “successes” were not strongly ideologically motivated to begin with. Instead, they may have joined extremist movements due to social pressure, personal grievances, or a search for identity. Consequently, programs may appear effective simply because they are working with individuals who were never fully committed extremists.

Another important distinction highlighted in the literature is the difference between deradicalisation and disengagement. Deradicalisation implies a genuine transformation in beliefs and ideology, whereas disengagement refers only to the cessation of violent activities. Many scholars argue that most rehabilitation programs achieve disengagement rather than true ideological change (Horgan, 2009). Participants may refrain from violence because of legal supervision, employment opportunities, or family influence while still privately maintaining extremist views. This distinction is critical because individuals who remain ideologically radicalized may continue to support extremist causes indirectly or potentially return to violent activity in the future.

In conclusion, although deradicalisation programs represent a well-intentioned effort to address Islamist extremism through rehabilitation rather than punishment alone, current evidence does not demonstrate their broad effectiveness. Weak evaluation methods, questionable success metrics, and the resilience of extremist ideology all limit their impact. Until more rigorous research provides clearer evidence of success, policymakers should approach claims about deradicalisation programs with caution and recognize that ideological extremism is far more difficult to reverse than such initiatives often assume.

References

Boucek, C. (2008). Saudi Arabia’s “Soft” Counterterrorism Strategy: Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Aftercare. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Horgan, J. (2009). Walking Away from Terrorism: Accounts of Disengagement from Radical and Extremist Movements. Routledge.

Neumann, P. (2010). Prisons and Terrorism: Radicalisation and De-radicalisation in 15 Countries. International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, King's College London.

Rabasa, A., Pettyjohn, S., Ghez, J., & Boucek, C. (2010). Deradicalizing Islamist Extremists. RAND Corporation in cooperation with the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

chimera wrote on Mar 5^th, 2026 at 2:00pm:



You're still killing it in the Imbecile Stakes.

LNP never again wrote on Mar 5^th, 2026 at 5:19pm:


NO