Radical Redemption – What Terrorists Believe

Author: Beatrice De Graaf

What is it that terrorists believe? That is the key question that Beatrice De Graaf addresses in this work. With this work she lays a foundation for further approach and study of the phenomenon of terror.

First of all, the source material: the author obtained her data from direct conversations with (former) detainees, from legal writings and the like. From this she distills a ‘grounded theory’, namely the theory of radical redemption, which I try to briefly outline here.

There are a number of enabling conditions – a five-step process – that can play out very quickly as follows:

  1. A perceived deficiency in relation to an existing recognizable community and about an ethical program. For example, one interviewee talked about his personal luxuries while children were being killed in Syria.
  2. The deficiency is the starting point for a search for interpretation. This involves an interpretation framework of, for example, an extreme religion or ideology.
  3. The embrace and activation of one’s own role and responsibility to do something about that deficiency. This can range from sending clothes to Syria to wanting to become a fighter in Syria or Iraq for the Caliphate.
  4. The radical act of redemption and its fulfillment and redemption. Here, the presence of an existing, informal ethical program of ‘pure deeds’ directs the actions of radical redemption, and rewards them in anticipation. One can ‘earn points’.
  5. If the perpetrator does not die in his actions, a fifth step sometimes occurs: reflection and disillusionment. The Caliphate did not keep its promises.

The idea that stays with me is that the majority of the interviewees were actually looking for creative meaning with that redemption. And that sounds odd to me. Hence the beginning of the work caught my attention strongly. The author first indicates what normal people can understand by creative meaning. An example is that of a person who has been through a lot and decides to fill his existence with services to his fellow man. For example, helping the children of the neighbors with their studies and helping them with a diploma, which would have had little chance without any help.

Mutatis mutandis, (some of) these interviewees try to give meaning to a life that was going in the wrong direction. For example, someone who had set up illegal trade, or who kept his life empty with drug use. Yet one does not really speak of destructive meaning. In their eyes they started to kill two birds with one stone: to purify their own souls, by sacrificing themselves for a struggle with a noble, higher purpose. But a number of those who survived ended up in a disillusionment with the latter. The final battle did not come any closer. They did not like the behavior of Muslims who fought against Muslims,…

The latter, of course, in no way justify the deeds committed.

The advantage of the conducted study is that it provides hope for a number of ‘cases’. This can be done by encouraging sobering up where possible. After all, it appears that redemption cannot be achieved just like that if the supporters of the combatants do not give them support. Furthermore, it also helps if one’s own people, such as family and community, do not ‘drop’ them as scum but stay in touch with them to welcome them when they decide to return and face the reality they have created. So continue to be there for them, but not give support for their actions.

However, there are a number of preconditions.

There are limits to the number of interviewees. There are limits to the possibilities to view legal files. There are limits by GDPR. There are limits to the time within which a person can unravel a number of things. There are many questions that arise from this study that require further study. Do these five steps apply universally to all? Because there are many more types of terror than just religious terror. Paradoxically, because of the latter I am inclined to say: I hope that there will be insufficient material to allow this study to come to a conclusion.

Discussing the tragedy of the war

Author: Erik De Soir; photo by Karolien Coenen

For several weeks now, images of war have been a daily presence in our homes and we have been overwhelmed by the news of the fighting in Ukraine. It is not only war journalists and diplomats who are involved, but everyone is now a participant in the war that is taking place in Europe and threatening us all. Up to a few weeks ago, for most of us this was unthinkable! This war has generated a new influx of refugees and many of our fellow citizens are preparing to assist refugees and war victims once again and even take them into their homes. Many questions arise as to how to discuss the war with children.

Set out in the document below are ten practical tips on how to talk to people who have fled the war, left everything behind, and need to be accommodated in a foreign environment.

When are scenario thinking and future planning appropriate in risk management ?

Author: Manu Steens

In this article I write my own opinion, not that of any organization.

On the one hand, we have risk management.

In risk management, it is common practice to translate a risk as a product of probability and impact.  The most well-known formula for measuring a risk is:

R = P * I

R is the measure of risk, P the measure of the probability of an undesirable event occurring and I its impact on achieving the objectives of the organization. Both are considered known.

Special attention in this article is paid to the situation in which there is a high degree of uncertainty with a risk. Unlike certainty, usually mathematically defined as a number between 0 and 1, or between 0% and 100%, uncertainty is rather something we feel but on which we cannot attach a clear mathematical definition that leans back on certainty. What we do know, however, is when the uncertainty is maximum for the occurrence of an event as a result of a cause. That is if the probability is 50%. Why? Because then the occurrence of the event is a coin on its side: you really do not know which way it will fall.

On the other hand, we have the combination of the future strategies with scenario thinking.

In itself, risk management is also a bit like thinking towards the future: if the probability is high, for example 95% chance of occurrence, then there is a relative high certainty of the occurrence of the impact. It is then, from risk management and in function of the impact, that one has to define and implement a measure. This allows the impact to be optimally prevented or mitigated (in the event of a threat) or provoked to the maximum (in the event of an opportunity).

However, the reasoning I want to make here is this one where the uncertainty is maximum. There it is therefore unclear whether the event will occur, or not. So a twofold future occurs: the event happens or does not happen. With this, a game of extremes occurs, for example:

  • Will it be war or peace?
  • Will healthcare become more preventive or more curative?
  • Will sufficient measures be taken in time for the climate or will it become an unbearable climate?
  • Will there be famine or abundance?

With such uncertainties one can consider these uncertainties in their own right, where one has two futures per uncertainty, or one can  express them per two against each other (if they are sufficiently independent), obtaining quadrants that represent four futures.

In theory one can work with n uncertainties, where one then obtains 2n futures but it becomes problematic, because already from n = 3 one has 8 futures, which becomes unworkable and also because in practice it  becomes more difficult to maintain the independence of these uncertainties.  And that is necessary to foresee extremely different futures.

For each of these futures, instead of directly defining measures, one can then start thinking about scenarios. This is a strategic choice, where one defines how one will act in a certain direction depending on which future becomes true. This instead of putting a single project or action in the pipeline because one has a strong expectation regarding whether (probability rather high) or not (probability rather low) the event with a specific impact will occur.

In order to be able to make the right choice, it is necessary to explore the evolution of the circumstances of the organization.  In other words, lowering the uncertainty about the knowledge of the future. To do that, one has a number of things that one can do.

  • The very first thing to do is to dare to question the assumptions. Are the assumptions that were made the good ones.
  • One determines the extreme futures, the scenarios, and whether one is ready for it, or whether, in contrast, one still has work to do. Usually it is the latter. To this end, one looks at which strategic option is most useful in which possible future. These options involve developing possible future projects or actions, and thoroughly considering their effects with a 360° view. As far as possible, tests or exercises are carried out to estimate the possible effects.  What are the shortcomings that need to be filled in?
  • Furthermore, there is the collection of the necessary information. One will define relevant parameters – indicators – and follow their trends. One determines in advance when one will decide on the basis of which (combination of) indicators which strategic options one will roll out. This is important, because being there in time and preparing for a future can determine whether one can get a  competitive or societal advantage from it or whether one is more likely to encounter a problem.
  • When the future unfolds, one deliberately monitors it, and consciously chooses the pre-agreed options tailored to the actual nuanced future. The timing of the decision and the roll-out of action plans is then crucial.

Conclusion:

Scenario thinking and future planning are relevant within risk management. However, one should have a good idea when this is the case. A rule of thumb is: do this with priority where the probability of an event with a certain impact is average.

Usually there are multiple risks with an average probability. Then give priority to risks with a high impact. After all, these give a more extreme course of the possible futures. As much as possible, make sure that you work with uncertainties that are maximally independent of each other if you plot them against each other.

However, if the impact is very large, and opportunities exist to influence the probabilities in your favor, do not fail to do so with common risk management strategies. “Choose your battles wisely.” After all, future planning and scenario thinking are especially useful when the internal and / or external environment of the organization are substantially uncertain. The choice to work on certainty, or to try to take advantage of uncertainty, is also a strategic choice in itself. And that depends on the capabilities of the organization. The internal environment can usually be influenced. Tinkering with the external environment is usually an impossible task. That is why this technique is also important when trying  to look at risk management objectively for the organization as part of the world.

170 pitfalls for ERM in Europe

Inspired by the book “Enterprise Risk Management in Europe”, Edited by Marco Maffeic

What is it about? It is about the implementation of ERM in organizations in Europe. This is accompanied by a number of obstacles. So there are pitfalls in the implementation of ERM in Europe.

The practice-oriented definition of risk management that is used is as follows:

“Risk management consists of active and intrusive processes that:

  • Are capable of challenging existing assumptions about the world within and outside the organization;
  • Communicate risk information with the use of distinct tools (such as risk maps, stress tests, and scenarios);
  • Collectively address gaps in the control of risks that other control functions (such as internal audit and other boundary controls) leave unaddressed; and in doing so
  • Complement – but do not displace – existing management control practices.”

This book does a study on that. Each of the first 13 chapters are about the situation in a country. This is followed by two reflective chapters about the countries. The countries concerned are: France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Finally, in a number of hierarchies, a summary is given in an academic way.

But what seems really important to me are the identified lessons from which insight comes into what can be the cause of ERM going wrong.

The identified lessons that tell why ERM can go wrong are listed in the accompanying excel sheet. This can be used as a kind of attention list for the (further) expansion of ERM.

Corona approach – which factor can become decisive?

Author: Manu Steens

In this blog I write my personal opinion and not that of any organization.

Recently, the VRT (Flemish Radio and Television) stated that the fifth wave has started, with an expected 125,000 infections per day by mid-January.

That is very appealing of course, such numbers. But people want to know what the risk is and what the risk factors are. Classically speaking, one can say that:

Risk = probability x impact

In the case of this pandemic, if we dig deeper into these two factors, we can say in simplified terms that:

–         Probability = exposure x susceptibility x behavior

–         Impact = sensitivity x behavior

In the case of probability, the exposure is a function of the environment (directly proportional to the number of infected people in the environment of the person) in which an individual is located and the susceptibility is an internal factor of the human body: how receptive the body is to the exposure. The behavior here is a factor that implies caution on the part of the individual. This without any degree of pejorative intent: it is regardless of whether the behavior is reckless, such as people hanging too close to each other at the pub, or whether the job is a contact profession that entails this behavior, such as people taking care for patients with Covid19 in the ICU.

At the impact level, the sensitivity is an internal factor of the person’s body, such as someone who naturally has a strong immune system or, unfortunately, just doesn’t have a strong one. The behavior here is best illustrated by people who do or do not have themselves vaccinated. By having themselves vaccinated, if necessary several times, it has been shown that people who get corona suffer a significantly lower impact: they may still get sick, but it is less bad, and therefore there is a good chance that they will not end up in the ICU.

What does that mean, if we put this analysis back into the original formula of risk?

That behavior has an influence of at least squared. Why at least? Because situations are possible where the behavior can have a serious influence on exposure, for example by reducing the number of contacts where possible. But more than that: you can also protect others by adopting good behavior, such as doing a self-test before organizing a party, for example.

So the risk is in higher powers (than the square) dependent on behavior. So far for mathematics from the secondary high school.

That means that not only people should be “good citizens”, the government should direct that behavior as a major factor that can influence this fifth wave (actually any wave).

This applies to citizens as individuals, but also to organizations that depend on their employees. Having an adapted BCP and pandemic plan that is coherent in a flexible way with what the politicians and the legislator prescribe is therefore of enormous importance in the pandemic.

So there is more to it than just infectiologists, virologists and biostatisticians: just as much importance must be attached to what psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists can say about how to deal with this pandemic.

So an identified lesson from this mathematics is

  • More so to work on behavior in any pandemic, endemic or epidemic. The low numbers of flu in 2021 show that it works. So good behavior must be maintained.
  • Without neglecting the medical reality, of course. But as support to healthcare.

And if possible, without fear mongering. One has to work through the trust of the citizens. That which they have with their General Practitioner, their specialist, their caregivers in their own family, their teachers, the caregivers of their relatives, the social workers, community workers…