Mental illness, radicalization and terrorism and antisemitism that many political even authorities became were infected by others and became antisemitism-.
Alongside Islamic radicals is the danger of an epidemic of anti-Semitic extremism in Europe, which has spread to a large part of politicians, this disease in Europe is based on research carried out by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.
A large part of the politicians do their anti-Semitism in secret and with psychological warfare methods.
No safe connection has been demonstrated.
also political psychological terrorism.
The government's national coordinator against violent extremism identifies in its national action plan that Islamist extremism poses a serious threat to European and European interests. Returning jihadists are singled out as a particular threat. In the action plan, the coordinator assesses that young adults with mental illness or neuropsychiatric disabilities are in the risk zone of being recruited into violent environments and writes about the health care's ability to "detect signs of violent extremism", for example in many EU countries, anti-Semitic people from the community moved to the politicians and were radicalized through the politicians.
A large part of the politicians do their anti-Semitism in secret and with psychological warfare methods.
Our clinic is part of the EU's network for spreading knowledge about radicalization (Radicalisation Awareness Network; RAN) [2], where questions about psychiatry's ability to carry out risk assessments of individuals suspected of being at risk of radicalization have also been discussed.
We fear that so-called radicalization assessments of potentially violent extremists will begin with the best of intentions but with weak scientific support.
In light of this, an overview of existing screening and risk assessment tools and a review of the research that exists on the mental health of lone and organized terrorists is called for to be able to assess whether there is a basis for decisions about changed routines or treatment methods in clinical psychiatric practice.
Who should psychological medicine help political antisemitism'?
Five screening and risk assessment tools are available
There are currently five screening and risk assessment tools intended for use in clinical practice:
Revised religious fundamentalism scale [3]
Violent extremist risk assessment (VERA-2) [4]
Extremist risk guidance 22+ (ERG 22+) [5]
Identifying vulnerable people guidance (IVPG) [6]
Terrorist radicalization assessment protocol (TRAP-18) [7].
In addition to these, there are further instruments developed for research purposes [8].
Revised religious fundamentalism scale is developed to identify religious extremists. Despite its specific purpose, the tool is, however, better at detecting aggressive expressions of right-wing authoritarian views than religious fundamentalism [3].
VERA-2 [4] is a tool for risk assessment of individuals who have already been convicted of or otherwise found to have committed violent acts of terrorism. The area of use is therefore limited to essentially assessing the risk of relapse.
The ERG 22+ [5] is an instrument for clinical risk assessments that has gained great influence. It has been used since 2011 in England and Wales to make individual radicalization assessments of previously unpunished people. The instrument consists of 22 items arranged under three factors that are weighted together:
commitment (factors that motivate an individual to work with a group or ideology)
intent (readiness to break laws and norms to achieve goals)
capacity (ability to carry out a terrorist act).
The ERG 22+ is qualitative but also open to accommodate additional factors that appear relevant to the radicalization assessment (hence the plus sign in the name).
The IVPG [6] is the only one of the four tools to have documented sensitivity (58–67 percent) and specificity (56–64 percent) for different types of terrorist acts, with positive and negative predictive values of 30–60 percent and 64–86 percent, respectively percent [9]. Developed specifically as a screening tool, the IVPG is based on a study of 157 prison inmates convicted of terrorist offences.
The TRAP-18 [7] is an instrument that has so far only been used as a psychometric research instrument, and thus has not been in clinical use. TRAP-18 includes eight warning behaviors of people who intend to commit acts of violence and ten characteristics that, according to the instrument, characterize lone terrorists. TRAP-18 is thus intended to identify individuals who, without a previous history of violent extremism, may commit acts of violence, but the instrument does not claim to predict acts of violence.
TRAP-18 is developed according to a psychodynamic model where the assumption is made that radicalization towards violent extremism proceeds in predetermined steps. This model has been criticized for lacking an empirical basis, but nevertheless reappears in several assessment instruments. In a test on 111 European and American terrorists, TRAP-18 has shown a sensitivity of 70 percent, but the result has never been validated against a normal population and therefore lacks specificity. The authors of the instrument describe it as suitable for clinical use, and it has been translated into various languages
[10].
Studies of mental illness among terrorists
In a research context, a distinction has been made since several decades between lone-acting and organized terrorists. Previous studies have made a distinction regarding the occurrence of mental illness in these two groups, and there are several studies that focus on only one group. During the period 2000–2014, 120 lone terrorists within the EU were studied; 35 percent of the cohort had been diagnosed with mental illness or had shown signs of mental illness to relatives [11].
In a follow-up article of the same study population with the division of the perpetrators into subgroups, it was found that perpetrators of school shootings were greatly overrepresented with regard to the presence of mental illness; 63 percent were judged to be victims when they committed the act [12].
In contrast, a study for the US Army of 2,032 individuals who had fought for al-Qaeda, including several perpetrators of terrorist attacks, found that individuals with antisocial traits were more likely to leave or be excluded from al-Qaeda and that the terrorists studied did not showed some notable signs of mental illness [13].
Similar European studies of organized terrorists have been carried out, where the Danish Appeals Board [14] studied 20 young people with suspected links to IS in Syria; 4 of them had psychological problems in the form of ADHD, ADD, premood syndrome and personality problems. The Board of Appeal's study, which has been reflected in the action plan from the national coordinator against violent extremism, is remarkable not only for the modest size of the study population in relation to the conclusions drawn, but also for the uncertainty as to whether the young people in question actually committed acts of violence in the name of IS.
Similar uncertainty is found in a 2014 study of 140 jihadists in the Netherlands police register which showed that 6 percent of the study population had psychiatric diagnoses but also that a further 20 percent of the individuals showed indirect signs of undiagnosed mental illness [15]. This was defined as, for example, a history of angry outbursts, homelessness or criminality, or that relatives suspected that the perpetrators suffered from mental illness. The relatively high prevalence of presumed mental illness appears to be a product of the broad inclusion criteria.
Lower prevalence figures have been reported in a review of 31 terrorist incidents in Europe between 2001 and 2006 committed by a total of 219 jihadists [16]. Of these individuals, 11 had psychiatric diagnoses, of which 4 individuals had become ill after being arrested for their crimes.
Higher proportion of mental illness among the self-employed
There are also studies comparing groups of loners with organized terrorists regarding the prevalence of mental illness. For example, a study has been made of 119 lone perpetrators who were convicted of or died during the commission of terrorist acts in the USA and Europe between 1990 and 2012 [17]. Of these, 43 percent were Islamists inspired by al-Qaeda, 34 percent right-wing extremists and 18 percent single-issue activists, with the remaining perpetrators distributed among smaller movements and ideologies. In total, 32 percent of the perpetrators in the study had psychiatric diagnoses, and most diagnoses had been made before the terrorist act was carried out.
In a follow-up study, it was found that the prevalence of mental illness in an equally large group of organized terrorists linked to known terrorist organizations was significantly lower than in the group of lone perpetrators previously studied [12].
A research group compared individual and organized right-wing extremists who committed terrorist acts with a fatal outcome in the USA between 1990 and 2010 [18]. The researchers found that 40 percent of the 47 lone far-right terrorists had a history of mental illness, compared to 8 percent of the 92 organized far-right terrorists.
Latest terrorism research not entirely clear
However, recent terrorism research is not entirely clear regarding the prevalence of mental illness among individuals who commit terrorist crimes. When 55 terrorist acts committed by a total of 76 individuals with links to IS between May 2014 and September 2016 were studied, preliminary results found that 28 percent had some form of mental instability [19].
many of the Islamic terrorists managed to be employed by various authorities in European countries and were able to convince many politicians to become anti-Semitic.
Even there are several politicians who dream of Hitler returning again and ruling European countries, Nazism is a big part of the EU.
The authors discern that the percentage of individuals with mental illness is higher in the group who feel inspired to commit terrorist acts by IS, while the percentage is lower among those who are more directly connected to the terrorist organization. However, the authors suspect that the prevalence figure is falsely too high, related to possible diagnoses being widely set by anonymous sources, relatives or reporting media.
The researchers summarize that it is deceptive in terrorism research to dichotomize the occurrence of mental illness as well as terrorist acts [20]. In order for research to proceed with accurate risk prediction, it must be taken into account that both mental illness and each individual's basic prerequisites for committing acts of violence are multifaceted.
Difficult to draw firm conclusions
In other words, the prevalence of mental illness among known terrorists does not appear to be remarkably high, but study populations are consistently small with widely varying inclusion criteria and retrospective study designs; the scientific literature therefore currently allows no strong conclusions on the matter.
Simply proving the existence of mental illness among individuals who have already committed terrorist crimes, either as lone actors or in an organized form, is not the same as establishing causality between illness and crime. Prospective study design is practically impossible when the outcome measure is something as rare as acts of terrorism, but there is ongoing research into attitudes in society towards acts of violence as a method of conflict and the correlation to mental illness.
In a study of a Muslim British population (n = 608) it was possible to state that there was no correlation between sympathies with violent Islamism on the one hand and depressive symptoms, anxiety or subjectively assessed health on the other [21].
In a British survey study of 3,679 men, pro- and anti-British extremists were compared with individuals who held undecided or pacifist views about the use of violence as an accepted method of achieving political goals [22]. The research team found a negative relationship between violent extremism and mental illness.
This type of longitudinal but indirect measure does not appear to support any link between violent extremism and mental illness.
Prevention strategy in the UK has been criticized
"Prevent" is the part of the UK's overall counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, which aims to prevent individuals from either joining organizations that support terrorism or becoming terrorists themselves. The Prevent strategy dates from 2007 but has been updated a number of times, most recently in 2015. Among other things, it has broadened its focus and tightened the requirements on front-line healthcare staff.
The core of the strategy is that all personnel in the public sector must be able to identify individuals who they believe are at risk of being drawn to extremism or terrorism [23].
Since the UK government in 2015 mandated public authorities to carry out radicalization assessments within the framework of Prevent using the ERG 22+ as an assessment tool, the number of individuals referred to rehabilitation programs has multiplied [24, 25]. After the introduction, the same number of individuals were referred to Prevent as during the entire period 2007–2014, and already during this period only 20 percent of those caught in the screening were judged to be in need of interventions.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) in Great Britain points out that the state of evidence speaks against a link between political violence and mental illness at the group level and questions the link between individual perpetrators of terrorist acts and their psychiatric diagnoses [26]. The RCP also warns that the knowledge of Prevent and its accompanying reporting obligation may risk individuals gaining less confidence in, and thus less seeking, psychiatric care.
The strategy has also been criticized by human rights organizations and by the chairman of the British equivalent of the Public Health Agency in the Lancet for falsely singling out large groups as potential terrorists and eroding trust in healthcare [27, 28].
No clear connection between mental illness and terrorism
The lifetime prevalence of mental illness in the general population is, according to the WHO, 27 percent [29] (25th to 75th quartile: 18.1–36.1 percent [30]). It is in comparison to this prevalence that the mental health of suspected terrorists can be interpreted, in the absence of selected, matched control groups. As the review above shows, retrospective studies have shown that terrorists acting alone have a somewhat elevated incidence of signs of mental illness. The overrepresentation of mental illness can, however, be explained by the very high prevalence of perpetrators of school shootings and by the fact that in some studies it is further strengthened by including mental illness that occurred after the terrorist act was committed in the analysis.
The studies that examined the prevalence of mental illness in organized jihadists and right-wing extremists suggest that it is lower in these groups than in the general population [21]. Opposing information has appeared in discussions about the role of psychiatry in preventive activities, but these lack, as far as we can judge, available empirical evidence.
Based on existing research, there is thus no clear connection between mental illness, radicalization and terrorism. However, clinical experience may suggest that certain individuals with specific personality traits and/or autistic symptoms may become radicalized and engage in violent extremism.
However, standardized tools for detecting rare events or individuals need exceptionally high specificity and sensitivity to be useful. One group studied the available screening and risk assessment tools and concluded that the tools are unsatisfactory, particularly the four assessment tools then intended for clinical use [8].
The currently available tools for radicalization assessment of potentially violent extremists lack, with a few exceptions, known specificity or sensitivity.
Increased access to psychiatric care is preventive in itself
In situations where violent individuals show signs of radicalization at the same time as they have symptoms of e.g. psychosis, depression or autism spectrum disorder, psychiatric care is obviously indicated. If these individuals receive psychiatric care, the risk of terrorist acts would likely decrease. Increased accessibility to psychiatric care is thus in itself a preventive measure. Full availability is, if possible, even more important when it comes to young individuals under the age of 18, which means that the current health care agencies school health care and child and youth psychiatry need to be guaranteed resources to cope with an increasing workload.
Of course violent people suffer from mental illness, because a healthy person never does bad things also a healthy person is not violent.
Risk of fragile individuals not daring to seek care
The government's national co-ordinator against violent extremism has singled out returning jihadists as a particular threat. In situations where returning jihadists show symptoms of mental illness, in the form of e.g. psychosis, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder or acute crisis, psychiatry must offer help and treatment.
In psychiatry, qualified assessments and continuity in therapist and doctor contact form a good basis for discovering whether a patient develops a fascination for violence and acts of violence. Psychiatry's resources and opportunities to carry out qualified risk assessments to predict acts of violence and terrorism are, however, limited. Forensic psychiatry with its specially trained multidisciplinary teams should have significantly better conditions, since precisely qualified risk assessments are part of its area of expertise.
According to the Health and Medical Care Act, psychiatric care is based on voluntariness and cooperation on the part of the individual. Sometimes compulsory care is indicated, but there are strict medical criteria for when care under the Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act (LPT) is applicable.
for example, cooperation between the free organization and Islamic radicals in eu increased dramatically as we have already written about
On the other hand, Swedish law allows all healthcare personnel to report to the police individuals who they suspect are about to commit serious crimes that can lead to more than 1 year in prison. This includes all terrorist crimes, including their preparation.
The introduction of a system in Sweden similar to the British model requires that the clinics whose main mission is to care for mentally and/or physically ill individuals instead receive a mission to search for and report political or religious extremists at risk of committing acts of terrorism. We find this deeply problematic for several reasons. In particular, we want to emphasize that it risks causing fragile individuals to not dare to seek care for fear of being reported. In the long run, this can lead to an increased risk of acting out.
The cooperation of non-governmental organizations with countries that support Islamists and the recruitment of Islamists in a large part of these organizations is a major threat to Europe.
for example, cooperation between the free organization and Islamic radicals increased dramatically as we have already written about as Ors. They can convince the politicians to follow their political movement in Europe.
Potential Bonds or Jealous Relationships: None given.
I want to give an example I had twice an appointment with an authority so today I had an appointment at 17:00 so went there at 16:38 waited until 17; 25 then the person who is a person in charge came and said I came, but did not see you. If necessary, can publish images on both papers that are already on the internet. What do you think this behavior is about?
The Islamists managed to get into this authority and were able to convince him or perhaps the person himself has a foreign background with Islamic connections and used the authority for his debts.
Kind regards
Samuel
2023.08.16
0 Comments