“You cannot kill your way out of a terrorist problem”. This was the message from John Kirby, retired US Navy Rear Admiral, in a 2017 CNN interview critiquing US President Donald Trump’s counter-terrorism strategy. Kirby’s comments echo similar statements made by a dozen former CIA directors interviewed for a 2015 documentary: the struggle against terror is not a conventional war. It is a battle for hearts and minds, and cannot be won with military might alone.

During the Debating Security Plus (DS+) online brainstorm (the report of which will be published on 20 September 2018 at Friends of Europe’s annual Policy Security Summit), participants were asked to come up with innovative solutions to the challenge of terrorism. One of the issues discussed was how to counter extremist propaganda (especially online), and how to deradicalise and reintegrate former extremists. After all, if there is no way to leave a terrorist organisation and return to society, then members of extremist groups will be forced to stay even if they have doubts or are disillusioned with the group.

Curious to know more about deradicalisation and reintegration of extremists? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).

What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Catherine, who is highly sceptical about this whole deradicalisation and reintegration thing. She argues that, in reality, deradicalisation programmes don’t actually work. Is she right?

To get a reaction we spoke to Daniel Koehler, Director of the German Institute on Radicalization and De-Radicalization Studies (GIRDS). What would he say to Catherine’s scepticism?

One cannot say that [deradicalisation programmes don’t work] so generally. Of course success, however defined, depends on the individual case (client’s personal background, stage of radicalisation, potential crimes and convictions, trauma, threats from the terrorist group, family involvement, friends or maybe even own kids within the group etc.) on the one hand and the quality of the programme on the other. How well is the staff trained, are there emergency protocols, how well is the programme financed etc.? These and numerous external factors (e.g. how strong positive emotional support for the client is or if there are any spoiling events and influences) determine if a deradicalisation programme might work (meaning: if they are successful in bringing a client out of extremism and terrorism for good).

To say that these programmes generally don’t actually work would mean that we also should never attempt trying to help persons to leave violence and terrorism behind even if they would want us to. Using that logic, we would have to abandon almost all social work programmes, where success also depends on a lot of individual and contextual factors.

To get another perspective, we also put the question to David Toube, Director of Policy at Quilliam, the world’s first counter-extremism organisation.

The practice of deradicalisation is, if not quite in its infancy, at least in adolescence. It is important that goverments and NGOs review their practice and learn from the inevitable process of trial and error.

It is not true that deradicalisation programmes never work. People do change their minds. Certainly, different individuals may be receptive to varying approaches. We should be cautious of embracing a “one size fits all” approach to deradicalisation. However, a well-run programme should be capable of promoting a diverse approach which best fits the needs of the individual.

Certain programmes have proved extremely successful in leading individuals off the path of extremism. Quilliam’s paper ‘In and Out of Extremism’ documents the successful testimonies of 5 right wing and 5 Islamic extremists who tribute their deradicalisation to the work of Quilliam. Both groups acknowledged the impacts of positive counter-speech initiatives, as well as accessing stories of individuals who had faced similar experiences. Experts in theology who are able to open up a positive dialogue were also instrumental in contributing to the journey out of extremism.

As a footnote, there are certainly some who argue that deradicalisation programmes do not work because they do not want them to work. There are critics of deradicalisation programmes whose chief objection is that they do not want those who have fallen into jihadist politics to be dissuaded from their path.

Are there examples of successful deradicalisation programmes anywhere in the world? We had a comment from Sophie, for example, who cites Saudi Arabia’s approach as “very successful”. How would Daniel Koehler respond?

‘Successful’ is a very difficult concept among deradicalisation programmes. There are no generally accepted definitions of what it means for such a programme to be ‘successful’. Is it enough if the clients abandon violence? Or do they also have to abandon extremist beliefs? Do they have to disavow violence for the future or also within their own pasts? What about police and military? Do they have to become 100 percent pacifists or is it acceptable that former extremists and terrorists still support the use of violence in some situations (e.g. self-defense)? How far do clients have to go to prove that they have been successfully ‘deradicalised’ and for how long? What about if a former neo-Nazi becomes a left-wing activist and wants to protest against the extreme right? Is that a case of re-radicalisation?

Practitioners and academics alike do not agree on what it means to be ‘successful’ in deradicalisation and so most societies do not either. Regarding knowing if a programme achieves its own goals, we would need to evaluate them and have access to internal data. The vast majority of programmes has never been scientifically evaluated. Especially the programme in Saudi Arabia [that Sophie referred to] rarely grants access (and if so only on a very limited basis) to researchers to actually find out what they are doing and if this helps the clients in any way. Hence, it is simply impossible to say that the programme has been ‘very successful’, if one is not inclined to take the Saudi government’s response at face value.

David Toube also provided his own feedback on best practices worldwide.

Over the past decade, governments and NGOs have developed a range of contrasting approaches to deradicalisation, some of which at the very least have promise.

A Danish programme that pairs deradicalisation with reintegration opportunities has proved successful in many aspects. The Aarhus model does not punish certain individuals who want to join extremist groups, or returning fighters. Instead, Danish authorities provide them with facilities to finish education, find work, and integrate into the community. NBC News reports the number of people from Aarhus travelling as foreign fighters to be 31 in 2013, falling to just 1 in 2014.

The Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence has implemented a model that seeks to counter all forms of extremism, including the far right. Canada also has a successful host of non-governmental movements to counter extremism in the community, including Muslims Against Terrorism and the Council of Canadian Imams, who run deradicalisation clinics.

Canada and Denmark are liberal democratic countries. It is therefore only natural that the models which they have developed emphasise the standards and expectations of democratic societies, and emphasise community efforts and tolerance.

These western approaches contrast with that promoted in Saudi Arabia. The KSA operates rehabilitation centers for extremists who have been released from prison. The BBC states that officials estimate a success rate of around 85% in these units, and the center claims that people are not released if they have not been deradicalised. This method is arguably appropriate for the particular circumstances in Saudi Arabia. However, we should note that it has been reported that some militants released from this programme have returned to terrorism. Said al-Shihri underwent supposed deradicalisation at a rehabilitation centre, was discharged, and subsequently became deputy leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Finally, Antonio sent us a comment arguing that radicalisation is hardly a new phenomenon. In the past, for example, states were worried about radical left-wing ideologies, including communism. Antonio implies a better alternative to deradicalisation programmes might be to strengthen European and international security cooperation. Is he right?

Of course, radicalisation is not a new phenomenon. [Nor] is leaving violence and extremism behind. People enter and leave terrorist and extremist groups all the time. However, to help them leave and find a new life is a rather new concept. This is not easy; on the contrary, delivering this help is highly complex and requires extensive training, as well as expertise in many fields. Nevertheless, deradicalisation is not an exclusive concept pushing aside security cooperation. In fact, deradicalisation supports or amends security cooperation and makes it more effective and efficient.

It is impossible to arrest or kill your way out of terrorism and extremism. Only if we can stop the flow of new recruits through soft measures (including helping members to leave) will we be able to really reduce the risk of terrorism. In addition, deradicalisation programmes can have very significant security effects: reducing the manpower and technical skills of terrorist groups, creating internal power struggles and gaps within hierarchies, deteriorate narratives of success etc.

On the other side of the coin, deradicalisation programmes do not make any sense if there is no effective law enforcement or cooperation between security agencies. If extremists and terrorists do not have to fear prosecution or any other negative consequence of their action for that matter, the motives to leave that environment drastically dwindle away. Some people still might want to leave for internal reasons (so called push factors like hypocrisy or disillusionment with the group) but many actually decide to leave initially because of burn out or the toll this lifestyle takes.

How would David Toube react to the same argument?

Addressing deradicalisation does not preclude improving international security cooperation. Both have their part to play.

We should start with a definition of extremism. Extremism is any ideology or political movement which seeks, in a militant and often violent way, to undermine the foundations of liberal democracy: equality between persons, democracy and respect for fundamental human rights. Jihadist and Islamist politics is only one of many ideologies which presents a challenge to liberal democracy, and is of comparatively recent vintage.

The battle against extremism, therefore, is essentially an ideological battle. It is a struggle of ideas. Any deradicalisation programme, stripped to its bare bones, constitutes persuading an individual that they are mistaken, and should think again. International security cooperation, by contrast, chiefly addresses the impact of bad ideas, where they motivate individuals to engage in terrorism. Quilliam believes that it is better to tackle those bad ideas, at source.

International security cooperation is invaluable in addressing the consequences of radicalisation, particularly where it transcends borders. Certain forms of radicalisation may be chiefly a domestic issue, where the need for international cooperation is less acute. That said, the internet has facilitated the transmission of ideas, cross border. As a result, domestic jihadist and ethno-nationalist movements have drawn upon both material and ideological support from those in other nations. Terrorists plan atrocities in one country which are executed in another jurisdiction. Transnational problems of this nature demand transnational solutions.

Should terrorists be reintegrated into society? Are deradicalisation programmes really effective? And are there successful examples anywhere in the world? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: (C) Bigstock – weerapartPORTRAIT CREDITS: (c) / Quilliam

152 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    catherine benning

    Should former terrorists be reintegrated into society?

    That is not possible. They never were and cannot be integrated into the cultural expectations of those they wish to destroy.

    The single answer is, for the terrorist to remain within his/her own cultural environment. In his homeland. That way he has no need to terrorise other societies. This applies to Western society likewise.

    • avatar

      We must come to understand that the war against terrorism is a war for civilization.

  2. avatar

    There are no former terrorists.

    • avatar

      You may want to read up about the man in the picture if that’s what you actually believe. That guy is now a Canadian intelligence agent.

  3. avatar

    A terrorist is always a terrorist. Apostate.

    • avatar

      Do you realize who that is in the picture? Are you familiar with his backstory?

      That guy is a former jihadist. Now a Canadian intelligence agent, who is the canada’s foremost expert on how radicalization happens, how to prevent it, and how to deprogram it.

    • avatar

      Max The problem is that he wont use all that info for the good of Canada…

  4. avatar

    My feeling is that it’s more difficult than one would imagine. But basically see it analogous to the whole “Hearts and minds” question during the cold war. Our side is going to need collaborators who were once on the other side of this thing. USA knows that. Israel knows that. Russia knows that. But does europe know it?

  5. avatar

    Religious terrorists can not be rehabilitated so will never truly reintegrate, the only thing to do is give them a true life sentence or shot as they attempt to murder the innocent.

    • avatar

      This is unbelievably short-sighted. Well done. You’re advocating the same failed policies used during the Easter Rising, the Sepoy Mutiny, the Boer War, etc. You advocate suspending the rule of law + execution / life imprisonment for membership of proscribed organisations. You would strengthen the hand of groups like ISIS because members would now understand that there is no escape, so they must fight to the death.

    • avatar

      Ivan isn’t EU the real terrorist anyway?

    • avatar

      James While your plan would be what ? let them loose onto the streets to kill again ?You cannot convert, change, alter or rehabilitate religious fundamentalists, even less so when they do not come from the culture they are attacking. You touchy touchy approach would turn the street into a bloodbath. Now that would be short sighted.

  6. avatar

    Next thing for debate: – Should EU will be setting “former” serial killers free for rehabilitation. 🤔

    • avatar

      Should members of criminal gangs be rehabilitated? Are all members of extremist / jihadist organisations serial killers? Some of them are stupid kids, who have been duped into joining organisations. But if there is no escape, no way to leave the org, then they will fight to the death.

    • avatar

      Pretty much

  7. avatar

    Only if the terrorist in question shows genuine remorse and wants to atone for what he’s done. No crocodile tears, of course, this must be assessed by a qualified specialist. That said, I don’t think that most can be rehabilitated.

  8. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    “If extremists and terrorists do not have to fear prosecution or any other negative consequence of their action for that matter, the motives to leave that environment drastically dwindle away.”- said the “expert Daniel Koehler”!

    Who nowadays fears EU regulatory power? Non abiding folks love it and come in droves!

    So- why are some Human Right EXTREMISTS allowed to “steal” taxpayer’s money for a cause which has no proven financial benefit for the law abiding majority?

    It seems the EU tries to become the holiest of the holy. Even holier than the Vatican? A close second is Germany, who has an abundance of Euros and can’t make up its mind how best to invest it.

    In fact, while the Chinese think big, construct big, grow big and massively modernize the globe- the EU is captured by holy ideas, twiddles thumps and forgets what it COULD achieve!

    Let Islam sort out its religious extremism and the EU its Human Rights extremism but in the meantime please strictly apply law & order in our Nation states at home.

    • avatar
      EU Reform- Proactive

      Sorry folks for “thumping” the EU and giving that idea a thumb down!

  9. avatar

    Terrorist is a terrorist it can’t be done because it’s religious fanaticism that we are speaking of

  10. avatar

    Are you serious??? Life sentence is what they deserve despite a rope around their neck sounds better.

  11. avatar

    CM or who ever poses these questions is either naive or just stupid. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist. And that goes for any type of criminal. Hardly any reintegrate into a normal life. Rapists are let loose and rape again, murderers the same, drug lords the same etc etc. You can tell the EU wants to push their own agenda. Terrorist should be shot. The only place they should be integrating is into the ground as they rot in a grave.

    • avatar

      “That goes for any type of criminal”. Hanging for everybody? If you hand down lengthy prison sentences, it can actually be counter-productive, because it forces people to interact with lifelong criminals and actually “trains” young people to stay in a life of crime. Also, the idea that “Terrorists should be shot” is a great way to create more terrorists. It’s blinkered thinking, and would be massively counterproductive. You’re angry, I get it. But your so-called “solution” would just make things much, much worse

  12. avatar
    Hanif Qadir

    Daniel is 100% right in his responses. However, and Daniel knows about the Active Change Foundation in London, we have demonstrated that our de-radicalisation & reintegration programme has been successful. Again quoting Daniel ‘each case is different’ and not all can or will prove successful. But in the main, the prevention element is crucial.

    Coming back to wether de-radicalisation works or not. My answer and experience via evidence says Yes it definitely works.

    Hanif Qadir

  13. avatar

    Why not just house them in Merkels, Macrons, and other “open borders” politicians homes? Im sure they will love it!


    why not just stop the mass “immigration” and do some nice deportations.
    or do the big wigs need more cheap labour and destabilization so important foreigners?

  14. avatar

    No, this includes left and right terrorists, and neither should killers or rapists for that matter.

  15. avatar

    Apparently the terrorists day job was taking orders from the CIA et al.

  16. avatar

    Each one of these questions is worse than the previous one, the last one they posted was, should erdogans turkey join the EU

    • avatar

      Hopefully the EU bureaucrats see the overwhelming responses to this question.
      No amount of Open Society money can change this. Remember diversity is “strength”! as long as you live in a big mansion, gated area, drive limousines, etc.

  17. avatar

    Terrorist is too general a term. Among terrorists there are different identifiable profiles. Some are ideological leaders, those whose convictions are to some extent “intelectual” and internal in nature. On the other end of the spectrum common criminals recruited in prisons or through collaborations with terrorists, have less of an ideological push for their actions and are heavily subjected to situational motivations. There are many other “types” of terrorists and the difficulty of deradicalization is different for all of them. Simple-minded, short term thinking such as giving them all life sentences or even death penalty as some would have it, is delusional at best. Plus, not really sure the question asked should be directed toward the general public, I’d leave it to professional forums.

    • avatar

      Yes!! I agree very much with your first comment about the different kinds of “terrorist” and about injecting nuance into the debate. I disagree, however, with the comment about leaving this question to “professional forums”. Policies must be defended publicly in a democracy if they are to have public support

  18. avatar

    Uhm, what now? It’s not the same as being a former secretary. What would they do, teach ‘Hobbies, Arts & Crafts’?

  19. avatar

    No. They can always go to Saudi Arabia

  20. avatar

    Why do you keep asking so provocative questions? They are bad people, period. Enough with stupidity. Stupidity kills people.

    • avatar

      The man in the photo is a top canadian intelligence agent, and special advisor on dealing with ISIS. He also advises NATO allies on radicalization and deradicalization.

      Not sure if you knew that.

    • avatar

      He has to make a living somehow.

    • avatar

      Yes, he is good, no doubt. He convices western leaders, like Trudeau to bring in snakes.

  21. avatar

    No, they should be executed for treason.

  22. avatar

    The last one recovered in Guantanamo was called Abu Al Baghdadi…Terrorists recovery programs are basically terrorist training camps…

  23. avatar

    They should be integrated in terriccio

  24. avatar

    Seems like a lot of people are quick to call for murder.

    • avatar

      Those are people who think with their emotions, and basically don’t understand national security nor strategic interests.

  25. avatar

    Should honest, perhaps less fortunate, people be integrated into society by, I dunno, education, decent jobs, etc?

  26. avatar

    Niente richiesta preliminare di dire la verità sui misfatti a cui hanno partecipato???…. Dopo le performance a cui ci hanno abituati in giro per il mondo e nei teatri di “guerra” (Syria, Iraq, Libia, Nigeria, …), dobbiamo far finta di non aver visto e di aver dimenticato???…
    No preliminary request to tell the truth about the misdeeds they participated in???…. after the performance they used to use us around the world and in the theaters of “War” (Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria,…), we must Pretend you didn’t see and forget???…

  27. avatar

    Should dumb questions be asked :-( ?

    • avatar

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m from Washington and I see this from the National Security POV.
      But its not clear why you think this is a stupid question. Especially given who the man in the photo is.

    • avatar

      Max Well, let’s remember the 9/11 terrorists attacks in the US and wise men learn from the mistakes from others :-( …

  28. avatar

    No, they should be detained in prison for all the crimes they committed and the key thrown away

  29. avatar

    Do you have any more interesting questions like these?

    • avatar

      Maybe you should take a quick second to inform yourself about the man in the picture. Top Canadian intelligence agent and special advisor to NATO allies.

      Why do we need to turn our allies for such skilled people. Don’t we have our own?

  30. avatar

    The right place for terrorists is in jail. Period.
    They have committed atrocities of all kinds! How can you even ask such a question?!?
    They should all be tried for war crimes but this is not happing! Why?
    Maybe because NATO has supported these criminals and called them “moderate rebels”…

    • avatar

      Read about the man in the picture, and you will have your answer. That’s a top-canadian intelligence officer. Their foremost expert in dealing with jihadism.

  31. avatar

    In Rhodesia, Namibia and South Africa we (the police) successfully retrained terrorists and they made extremely versatile and successful fighters, at the end of the day all these types of wars are settled politically.

    • avatar
      EU Reform- Proactive

      Hi Malcolm,

      You make an interesting but controversial comparison! But- it’s not that simple!

      The struggle you refer to was plain political. In the one corner was a “politically” oppressed majority (these former “terrorists” are today’s ruling party & politicians) who were pitched against a minority rule using an unjust & eventually UN condemned political system.

      The “EU terrorists” in contrast consist of a mixture of local and recently acquired “asylum seekers” of Islamic faith. Surely THEY cannot claim to have been suppressed in Europe by an unjust system or received the support of an UN resolution condemning the EU of Human Rights abuses.

      They are also not an UN recognized political group fighting for a “just system” to explain their brutal killings to achieve “self-determination by practicing self extermination”. Their “homeland” is where their God rules= total submission.

      All in Europe and globally are the abused and need protection!

      The ideal place for them would be a return to their “godly homeland”- where they have “learned” and can practice their (weird) ideology. It should be the Muslim Org’s to grant them their wish & deal with them.

      As voters why not demand a “special (extradition) treaty” (we know the EU loves them) with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC):


      consisting of 57 member states & over 1.3 billion people (over twice the size of the EU!)- having already a permanent delegation at the EU! Come on guys!

      and the “Muslim World League”


      to enable European nations to export or extradite all “these” convicted terrorists quickly and cheaply and release them into permanent Arab “care”! Given “persona non grata” status here and automatically stripped of their European citizenship.

      Therefore, Europe’s “terrorism” and solutions cannot be compared to your example. It is religious in nature and a fight by a group of religious extremist against everyone on this globe who do not share their belief.

      They are only loyal to their God but no Government on this earth!
      Let their God & their system take care of them- nobody else can!

  32. avatar

    A radical may still be deradicalised, however an actual terrorist crossed a line that will never be crossed again.

    I’m all in for prevention measures, but ‘deradicalisation’ programmes for those who’ve already committed horrible acts are just too risky.

  33. avatar

    No they should NOT !! They should be marked on their front, in such a way that everybody should know and avoid them !!

  34. avatar

    No they should go to Jail for the rest of their life

  35. avatar

    nope they will ever change deport them or lock them up

  36. avatar

    Mejor NO intentarlo,por si falla el plan …
    Better not try, in case the plan fails…

  37. avatar

    First of all, criminals should be sent to the country where they committed their murders to be trialed there and it is very likely that the question of rehabilitation would become irrelevant!

  38. avatar

    You mean like Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Yasser Arafat or Menashem Begin?

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      @ Ingrid

      How very clever of you. And a few others, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Tony Blair, Barry Obama, David Cameron.

      The list goes on.

      However, the threat to ‘us’ as Europeans and our families right now are far more dangerous, and, they have been foisted on us by those who are in offiice right now. Put there by you and me. Who pay them very highly as they destroy what we hold dear.

  39. avatar

    What matters is that he’s good at what he does. Which is sabotaging ISIS.

    He didn’t have to switch sides. He CHOSE to switch sides. Like most defectors.

  40. avatar

    When murder was escalated of Earth on the people, I guess you were on a trip to Mars, besides, the kind of training to kill by the terrorists have made them to hate anyone, and became blood tasty drunkards. Nothing can change that, because they’ll always want what they want. Nothing can change that, and donot expect anything atom of Truth from a terrorist, he’ll always play you around. They are worthless .

    • avatar

      You may want to read about the man in the picture and what he does, and try again later. That’s a top Canadian intelligence agent. Specialized in dealing with jihadism.

    • avatar

      Kill the terrorists. Win the hearts by means of propaganda. Stop religious tolerance in public places. It’s a very simple recipe that has solved this problem in the past. Fight with any means necessary against religion, like the French did during their revolution.

  41. avatar

    As normal people withouth blood upon their hands are already excluded from the society by hundred thousands, the very idea of redeeming terrorists will be seen as a provocation by many of them.

  42. avatar

    Are you joking ? Kill them

    • avatar

      You may want to read about the man in the picture and what he does, and try again later. That’s a top Canadian intelligence agent. Specialized in dealing with jihadism.

      You may have some subjective emotions about this, but who then will kill ISIS?

    • avatar

      I din t write kill the agent … 😆

  43. avatar

    Should the East German Nazis be reintegrated into society? Even if they don’t repent? It’s the same thing.

  44. avatar

    well, whatever the job possibly not as bus drivers

  45. avatar

    ci sono terroristi e terroristi. Alcuni sono dei criminaletti da 4 soldi che agiscono per stupidità, altri sono persone ideologiche . Entrambi fanno stragi e morti e sarà la magistratura a valutare la persona e la pena. In carcere sarà aiutato a capire lo sbaglio , non ci sta giustizia se chi sbaglia non capisce dove ha sbagliato. L’importante è non tagliare la spesa pubblica che costringe gli Stati a rimettere i terroristi in strada senza aver fatto il percorso che richiede ( può richiedere pure tutta la sua vita ). In questo caso chi chiede tagli alla spesa pubblica è un pericolo pubblico , è un criminale come il terrorista che uccide

    There are terrorists and terrorists. Some are 4-money criminaletti acting for stupidity, others are ideological people. Both are killing and dead, and it will be the judiciary that assesses the person and the penalty. In prison he will be helped to understand the mistake, there is no justice if anyone wrong does not understand where he was wrong. The important thing is not to cut public spending that forces states to put terrorists back on the street without having done the path it requires (it can take all of its life) in this case those who demand cuts in public spending is a public danger, it is a Criminal like the terrorist who kills

    • avatar

      Ma vaa…..

  46. avatar

    it s what prisions should be made for. Reinsertion is or should be the oly goal, better than having a man becoming crazier in a cage for ever.
    An other question should be CAN A RACIST WHITE MAN BE REINSERTED or should be in jail for ever?

  47. avatar

    İf you believe that all the former Nazis could be reintegrated into society, then terrorists can too. Both were politically motivated to commit atrocities. But of course, they do need to be carefully monitored.

    • avatar

      Satsuma Who believe that all former Nazis could come back to society???

  48. avatar

    Should we let people who’s goal in life is to convert everyone to their faith and kill anyone that refuses live amongst us ? Is this is a serious question or did I go to sleep and wake up on April fools day ?

  49. avatar

    … should mass murderers be “integrated in society”? 🤔
    Are you really asking this question? 🤣

  50. avatar

    Stupied question made made stupied people responsebly by the income of the terrorists called refugees to the europe and the atacks .

  51. avatar

    There are terrorists, and there are terrorist sympathizers. The first are few and easy to define, the latter much harder.

  52. avatar

    Depends on the individual case

  53. avatar

    Only if they genuinely repent. And wear an electronic bracelet at all times.

  54. avatar

    What a question? Ofcourse not, they are against democracy, against freedom. No One Will never Change them.

  55. avatar

    If they are “integrated into society” and they kill again, then every single person involved in the decision should be executed along with them. This way nobody will ever easily sign papers away.

  56. avatar

    Did you totally lost it???

    • avatar

      You may want to take a moment to read about the man in the picture. Then get back to us. That guy is a high-level Canadian intelligence agent.

    • avatar

      You may want to take a moment to read about the man in the picture. Then get back to us. That guy is a top intelligence agent. Canada’s foremost expert on ISIS. It’s easy to get emotional and wish that we didn’t need intelligence agents or enemy defectors. But reality is more complicated.

    • avatar

      It may be, but still it can’t be ex extremist

    • avatar

      The guy in the picture is a top canadian intelligence agent. The questions and its implications are clear enough if they are gonna show a defector who is now one of NATO’s foremost experts on a very specific enemy.

    • avatar

      Look just today a I held in my hands a book. On the back one of the author called Bauer Tamas.
      Firstly I thought that he is maybe a relative of Sandor Bauer ( http://www.janpalach.cz/en/default/zive-pochodne/bauer ).

      I literally blown up and was very nervous when I realized who tried to defend our democracy. ( The book tries to prove – across several perspectives, authors in short essays – that what happened in 2011. A new constitution was introduced in Hungary and I needed to agree that was needed after 89 constitution. )

      But a few research after I realized that Tamas Bauer, the acadamic writer who is part of our parliament today and (!) the European parliment has a tremendous past.

      Because his father was a AVO/AVH ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Protection_Authority ) Miklos Bauer. Please read.

      Miklos Bauer was also a lawyer after the system change. ( https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauer_Mikl%C3%B3s_(jog%C3%A1sz ) He was a kind of surveillance agent some of them called him “Nailer” because he tore out nails from his prisoners.

      From example this line: ” Páter Kiss Szaléz ferences-rendi szerzetest is kínozták az Andrássy út 60-ban, többek között az ő javaslatára vizet csöpögtettek a fejére, amivel azt akarták elérni, hogy az áldozat megőrüljön. Ugyanezt a célt szolgálta, hogy vödröt tettek a fejére, s azt gumibottal döngették. A harangzúgáshoz hasonló állandó hang rettenetes szédülést okozott ” – Translate it. By the way the Andrassy road 60 was reopened by the Fidesz party in 2001 maybe. Now I am confused who is the good who is the bad because some politicians even from the right parties include – strange past persons. In my opinion they somehow saved them “across” in the new system – this is the crucial important if someone likes to understand what’s the problem with the post-soviet era.

      So this Miklos “Nailer” Bauer was a lawyer after 90’s and he defended a case.

      He defended Vajda Tibor ( https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajda_Tibor ). This person creates and send files about people to Rakosi ( the dictator of Hungary in 50’s ) – I mean in one hand-shake distance.

      After Tibor Vajda left Hungary and in 1957 he got papers in Austria as a Hungarian Revolutionist/Refugee – please do not confuse the world now it is 50 years back, but similar.
      He after became – without deegre – a dentinst in Sydney, Austrialia.
      Until 1994, when one of a former victim.

      “Bár diploma nélkül praktizált, haláláig jómódban élt volna Sydney-ben, ha 1993. január 26-án – Ausztrália legnagyobb ünnepén – fel nem ismeri benne Bárdy Magda az egykori vallatótisztjét. A zsidó származású, korábban Auschwitzot megjárt Bárdy Magdát – ekkor még Somogyi Istvánnét – és férjét 1951. március 7-én koholt vádakkal letartóztatták. A házaspár kihallgató tisztje – bár ezt mindvégig tagadta – Vajda Tibor volt. ”

      Bardy Magda’s husband was died in 1951 in an AVO prison.
      Ferenc Kubinyi – a historian – confirmed that he was the AVO officer who was duty in 1951 when her husband has gone.

      And how does it relate to Tamas Bauer and our topic?

      Tamas Bauer’s father – Miklos Bauer – after system change was a lawyer. He defended Tibor Vajda in this suit.
      Imagine that somebodies’ kid live happily, get deegre even try to defend my nation from the bad, bad constitutions – and their fathers or relatives are responsible that 200 thousands people left as a refugee and other 200 thousands people left as a prisoners in Siberia our contry.

      By the way in this law suit they tried to prove that Vajda Tibor was not in the office in 1951-1952. And who? An another AVO official.. :D

      So regarding the question he describes himself as a trustworthy man in 2000 – the former AVO officer.
      In this aspest I thought that if I have legal power, I will start a law change because the entire family should not have get public service jobs – like in a Baltic states. I am thinking about that somehow defend this – because it is obviously against some theoritacal (This is the problem of liberalis that it assumes that everuthing is clear – like liberal economy – the liberalism is dying because its weakness and others make laugh on that ) pillars – like ‘everyone has right to the forgiveness ‘ so on..
      Yes, you know who used this ?
      After Magda Bardy accused him – Tibor Vajda – that her husband has disappeared in this prison. He – Tibor Vajda – files a against a law suit as ‘libel/defamation’.

      Why? Because this liberal pillar starts their perspective – that everybody is equal and clear – and bad intent people do not exist. The main problem that they try to solve something in theoritically. How do they respect the law better ? If they fear to lose it or they know that they don’t – kind of Machivelli problem )
      This is why liberal parties are so weak – and this is why happening the same like between 1920-1940 – because the laws somehow could be used and defend people who is the bad.

      For example the guy who got full salary in Germany and everybody knows that he is a terrorist but because of the law nobody can do anything. If you need I find this – but here are two very basic question was tapped.
      What happened in Hungary?
      And why is it happening in Europe again?

    • avatar

      Ohh yes and the other thing because liberalism is dying because it is so corrupt.
      The people who established and introduced these pillars in 1948 almost world wide – they know from experience what is happeining if it is not working – 60 millions people died in the Second World War. But this political shifts and its people seems forget it.

  57. avatar

    Surely almost all known terrorists will get prison for life. Like the nzis who were convicted of war crimes.

    • avatar

      Prison for life? That means the tax payer has to feed them on the top of everything. No thanks.

    • avatar

      That’s what we do with criminals. It is known.

    • avatar

      You may want to take a moment to read about the man in the picture. Then get back to us. That guy is a top intelligence agent. Canada’s foremost expert on ISIS.

      You might “LOL about “prison for life”. But intelligence agencies value enemy defectors.

  58. avatar

    …Should is not could …

    • avatar

      The man in the picture is a top intelligence agent. Canada’s foremost expert on ISIS. And that is an expertise NATO has in very short supply. A very key enemy defector.

  59. avatar

    Is this a serious question ?

    • avatar

      You may want to take a moment to read about the man in the picture. Then get back to us. That guy is a top intelligence agent. Canada’s foremost expert on ISIS. It’s easy to get emotional and wish that we didn’t need intelligence agents or enemy defectors. But reality is more complicated than that.

      And IRL every cause uses enemy defectors.

  60. avatar

    Government agents and employees are already part of our communities and we have no say so or relief for their actions.

    • avatar

      You may want to take a moment to read about the man in the picture. Then get back to us.

  61. avatar

    The N*zis didn’t get a second chance. Why give it to the Jihadists? Looks like the EU is discriminating tsk tsk ..

    • avatar

      Did they not? Do you know who the man in the picture is? How did we treat nazis of similar background?

    • avatar

      Max, in the case of WW2 , the terrorists won the war…
      Watch the documentary “HELLSTORM”…
      But the winners write history…

  62. avatar

    You have a lot of them inside governments and we voted in some of them.
    By saying terrorists are saying all or just those ones who use Islam in a wrong way?

  63. avatar

    Are u kidding DebatingEurope?? No way!!

  64. avatar

    You mean, should former terrorists be sentenced to death penalty? Then yes.

  65. avatar

    And why not place them to live in the same buildings where the families of their victims reside?

  66. avatar

    To be politically correct they should. And then the public pray not to ever undergo ideology-related actions.

  67. avatar

    If they are immigrants, they should be deported on the grounds that European values do not align with theirs. As for Europeans, that’s for legal minds to ponder.

  68. avatar

    Because ‘former’ terrorists never lie ?

  69. avatar

    In their own countries

  70. avatar

    What is the meaning of “Reintegrated”?
    Typically English people use Latin words on their language (or neologism) but they have no clue about the original meaning.
    Is like the Brexit, now the English say: ohh! we never understood that was really a free movement of people and that means that all the european are equal… The problem was understanding the word “movement” …

  71. avatar

    Yes, but in Luxembourg, next to Juncker’s house.

    • avatar

      Michael -100 % agree!

  72. avatar

    They made their choice. They want to kill – send them far away. Expell them. Strip them off their nationalities, if they so want to become citizens of a caliphate; let them be free there… And make a register, so when they try to come back into the EU (after realising the sh**hole in which they’ve gotten themselves into), everyone will know its them. And we’ll deny them entry.

    Why should we welcomes these elements into our society? Honestly…

    Most of them are grown men and women; at the end of the day, they made their choices and have to live with the consequences…

    It doesn’t matter how radicalised or manipulated or marginalised they were. At some point they could’ve said no; at some point they knew what was wrong from right. And they chose violence and death anyway…

    They became criminals. And we punish criminals.

  73. avatar

    There is a strong possibility that former terrorists have probably committed murder, so what do you do with other people who have committed a murder?

  74. avatar

    Believing you can change one person’s principles and delete the experiences that lead to that mindset is Western Arrogance at its worst.

  75. avatar

    Of course this is a joke…

  76. avatar

    Yes in time but only after they are cured

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.