An Empirical Examination on the Severity of Lone-Actor Terrorist Attacks

Lone-actor terrorists have increasingly attracted the attention of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners alike. Despite this enhanced interest, few studies have compared the outcomes of lone-actor terrorist attacks with other terrorists, and those that have do not consider the terrorists’ intention to kill in an attack. This study utilizes a sample of 230 terrorist homicide incidents from the Extremist Crime Database to examine the extent to which lone-actors perpetrate more severe attacks than other terrorists. We find that lone-actors are significantly associated with more severe attack outcomes when controlling for the intention to kill. We conclude by commenting on the utility of these findings in U.S. counterterrorism policy and the importance for future research to account for actors’ intentions when assessing terrorist attack severity

From the Patriot Act to the “Muslim Ban”

This chapter examines counterterrorism policy as one of the major sites through which American Muslims are framed as an out-group against which American identity can be measured and defined. It cites the reading of the War on Terror that presents hate crimes, bias incidents, and discriminatory state policy as a productive discourse through which certain groups are constituted as outside the boundaries of the national community. It looks at the rise of Muslim American advocacy organizations and the domestic and foreign policy issues at the core of their lobbying efforts. The chapter covers surveillance and profiling, protection of religious freedom, Islamophobia, countering violent extremism, the Palestinian—Israeli conflict, the Arab Spring, and human rights in the Muslim-majority world. It also clarifies how US Muslim organizations navigate their entry into the policy process while negotiating their community's place in the American mosaic.

Homegrown Terrorism

To tackle the phenomenon of terrorism, especially the attacks carried out by homegrown terrorists, since 2005 all the EU's member states have adopted the Global Strategy to Combat Terrorism. Focusing on four pillars (prevention, protection, persecution, and response), the strategy provides for security measures to protect against terrorism as a criminal act. What if, instead, we consider terrorism as a social phenomenon, strictly connected to radicalization and resulting from discriminatory experiences and discomfort young second generation immigrants suffer within the European society? Moving in this direction, through the application of the PESTLE analysis to the specific context of Belgium, this study elaborates a counterterrorism policy which takes into account the root and activating factors of radicalization by filling Belgium's gaps in terms of integration policies and which could help reducing the likelihood of occurring radicalization and terrorist attacks episodes.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Last January, the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union produced an estimate that, by the year 2035, the drones' sector will create up to 100,000 new jobs and, in addition, will have an economic impact of more than ten billion euros per year. This chapter takes its cue precisely from the central importance of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, and tries to sum up their future. Indeed, despite the enormous success of drones over the decades, many are the criticisms related to unmanned aircraft on board. The first section aims at outlining an historical framework, while the second section analyses the impressive role played by drones within the counterterrorism policy of the US presidency, with particular regard to Barack Obama's mandate. The third section applies a SWOT type analysis to UAVs, taking into account both their advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the fourth section investigates the human factor problem within UAVs, which was inspired by Dr. Giovanni Miranda's PhD thesis.

How Perpetrator Identity (Sometimes) Influences Media Framing Attacks as “Terrorism” or “Mental Illness”

Do media frame attacks with Muslim perpetrators as “terrorism” and attacks with White perpetrators as the result of “mental illness”? Despite public speculation and limited academic work with relatively small subsets of cases, there have been no systematic analyses of potential biases in how media frame terrorism. We addressed this gap by examining the text of print news coverage of all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2006 and 2015. Controlling for fatalities, affiliation with a group, and existing mental illness, the odds that an article references terrorism are approximately five times greater for a Muslim versus a non-Muslim perpetrator. In contrast, the odds that an article references mental illness do not significantly differ between White and non-White perpetrators. Results partially confirm public speculation and are robust against numerous alternative explanations. Differences in media framing can influence public (mis)perceptions of violence and threats, and ultimately harm counterterrorism policy.