NCC Model Vs. Raifman's Model Of Radicalization

Furthermore, the two models follow a similar timeline, yet in starkingly different ways. The NCC model splits into three steps of radicalization, mobilization, and action, essentially asserting that certain catalysts from personal and sociopolitical factors lead to preparation, and eventually action.1 It places all the factors into said three distinct nonlinear steps that work together dynamically in order to get to the final action. Overall, it seems to narrow in on physical, tangible items. Conversely, Raifman’s model, due to its focus on mental health, delineates more internal and emotional factors- things that may be harder to identify outwardly, like a hatred for humanity and feelings of subjective victimization, for example. It outlines
For instance, actions by Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, can be lined up on the NCC model. Hasan was of Palestinian descent and grew up with his parents and two younger brothers.1 But it wasn’t until his medical residency after joining the army that he began to demonstrate signs of radicalization; he would openly express violent Islamic extremism in class presentations, projects, and assignments, lining up with the Silber and Bhatt radicalization model’s self-identification stage.1 Even so, nobody in the DoD (Department of Defense) intervened, as documenting such records would be considered “politically incorrect.” Hasan then attended the Dar-al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, where he presumably met Anwar Al-Awlaki, a man strongly linked to the 9/11 attacks, and entered the indoctrination stage of the model.1 Emails exchanged between them that considered “whether killing American soldiers and officers is lawful or not” and other alert-worthy content caught the attention of the FBI, who then dismissed the emails due to “misleading” reports praising Hasan’s research.1 This radicalization process continued with no hindrance until Hasan saw an opportunity to target American soldiers, whom Hasan believed were wrong in killing Muslims.1 He bought a semi-automatic pistol and went to the shooting range, becoming adept in shooting from a
However, someone like Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shootings, links more closely with Raifman’s model.3 From a young age, Cho was very quiet, rarely speaking, and continued to act this way even after he moved to the United States from Korea.4 However, no mental health issues were suspected, mainly because his Korean culture tended to taboo mental health, causing family members to blame his silence on something else, like the fact that he was only studying a lot.4 This ignorance continued until eighth grade when he was formally diagnosed with selective mutism and social anxiety.3 He started treatment in high school and got better, but suddenly decided to stop treatment altogether, causing a setback in his mental health.4 Since federal law prohibits disclosing personal information without Cho’s permission, Virginia Tech University did not receive any information of past mental disorders;4 this directly marks one of the steps in Raifman’s model, as there was a clear reversal of mental health due to avoided intervention without accountability.2 His experience in college only exacerbated this as his writing, social interactions, and romantic endeavors were constantly rejected;4 concerns from peers led him to spend time at a mental health center before returning back to Virginia Tech for his senior year.3 Not long after, Cho legally purchased multiple guns and began practicing at shooting ranges.4 This extensive planning highlights another aspect of