Week 1, Defining Terrorism & State Terrorism PDF

Week 1, Defining terrorism & State terrorism Ganor, Definition Terrorism (2002) Ganor defines terrorism as “the intentional use of, or threat to use, violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims” The definition has three core elements: - The use o...

Week 1, Defining terrorism & State terrorism Ganor, Definition Terrorism (2002) Ganor defines terrorism as “the intentional use of, or threat to use, violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims” The definition has three core elements: - The use of violence or threat of violence - Political motivation, the aim must be to achieve political goals, if there are no political aims there are criminal acts or acts of insanity - Intentional targeting of civilians, terrorism is distinguished from collateral damage in this way Ganor differentiates between terrorism and guerilla warfare by focusing on the intended target of the attack - Terrorism is characterised by “the deliberate use or the threat to use violence against civilians in order to attain political, ideological and religious aims” which implies that the targeting of non-combatants/civilians distinguished terrorism. - Guerilla warfare is defined as “the deliberate use of violence against military and security personnel In order to attain political, ideological and religious goals.” The focus is on engaging with enemy combatants. The ends, no matter how justifiable cannot justify the means of terrorising innocent people. Schmid, Academic Consensus Definition (2013) Schmid presents the Academic Consensus Definition and describes terrorism as: terrorism refers on the one hand to a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties - As a doctrine: Toros, Definition terrorism (2008) Toros argues that the broad understanding of terrorism within academia includes it being: - A violent means - Aimed at triggering political change - Affecting a larger audience than its immediate target Stohl, State terrorism (2006) Examines the concept of state terrorism, the article highlights the challenges in defining and understanding state terrorism as well as its implications for international relations, human rights and the fight against terrorism Defining state terrorism is problematic, as it is loaded with moral judgement and is a heavily politicised concept. The article suggest that understanding state terrorism requires moving beyond narrow definitions and to examine the broader context of state actions. Challenges and contradictions - State terrorism directly violates fundamental human rights - Hypocrisy and double standards, the state can use violence/terrorism on civilians but they condemn this behaviour from non state actors. This creates a double standard and undermines the legitimacy of the fight against terrorism, it also complicates efforts to build international cooperation against terrorism. - Fueling cycles of violence, state terrorism can cause resentment and foster radicalization which potentially contributes to the rise of non-state terrorist groups Stohl asks for a shift in focus from defining state-terrorism to understanding its real-world consequences. They also call for a more comprehensive approach to combating terrorism that addresses all forms of political violence, included that perpetrated by states. Tarrow, Collective action (1993) Examines the nature of collective action Moments of madness: periods of heightened conflict and social upheaval where conventional norms and boundaries of political engagement are challenged. These moments are marked by a surge in collective action, often with the emergence of new actors and tactics. They disrupt existing power structures and create opportunities for social and political change Examples: Iranian revolution (1979) and periods of heightened conflict in Northern Ireland Repertoire of contention: the range of tactics and strategies employed by social movements, encompasses the forms of collective action available to groups seeking to make claims on others. This is not static, evolves over time as new tactics are developed, adopted, and adapted Tarrow argues that collective action tends to unfold in cycles, characterized by an initial eruption of protest, followed by a period of sustained mobilization, and eventual decline or institutionalization Tilly (2004) Tilly (2004) argues that the terms "terror," "terrorism," and "terrorist" are not inherently distinct social phenomena but rather represent strategies employed by various actors in different political contexts. He contends that using these terms as fixed categories hinders accurate description and explanation of the complex realities of political violence. - Terror as a Strategy: Tilly emphasizes that terror is a tactic, not a specific ideology or belief system. It involves deliberate acts of violence aimed at instilling fear in a target population to achieve political goals. Both state and non-state actors can employ this strategy, blurring the lines between conventional warfare, state repression, and non- state terrorism. - Terrorism as a Continuation of Politics: Tilly suggests that terrorism should be viewed as a continuation of politics by other means, echoing Clausewitz's famous dictum about war. He argues that understanding terrorism requires analyzing the  broader political landscape, including power struggles, grievances, and the strategies employed by various actors to achieve their objectives. - Justifying State Violence: Governments often use the label "terrorist" to delegitimize opponents and justify their own use of force. This can create a dangerous double standard - Tilly urges a shift in focus from simplistic definitions to the actual impact and consequences of violence. Tilly (2004) advocates for a more sophisticated and context-sensitive approach to understanding "terror," "terrorism," and "terrorist." He encourages moving beyond simplistic labels to analyze the strategic use of violence, the political motivations of various actors, and the broader dynamics of power and conflict that shape the landscape of political violence. Week 2, Waves, Strains and the PIRA Rapoport, Waves (2004) Rapoport proposed a framework for understanding the historical evolution of terrorism. This framework categorises modern terrorism into four distinct waves, each associated with a particulat ideological trend and historical context. 1. Anarchist Wave (1880s – early 1900s) o Originated in Russia o Ideology: Anarchists sought to overthrow existing political orders and create societies without hierarchical structures of authority. Often targeted government officials and symbols of authority o Key Characteristics: This wave marked the emergence of modern terrorism as a distinct phenomenon o Rapoport highlights the role of figures like Sergei Nechaev and Peter Kropotkin in developing the doctrine of propaganda by deed, advocating violence as a means of raising awareness and inspiring revolutionary change o Example: Assassination of Tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881 2. Anti Colonial Wave (1920s-1960s) o Arose in aftermath of WWI, rise of nationalist movements seeking independence from colonial powers o Motivations: Anti-colonial groups aimed to liberate their homelands from foreign rule, employing terrorism as a tactic to weaken colonial administrations and mobilise popular support o Key Characteristics: Widespread use of guerrilla warfare tactics combined with acts of terrorism targeting colonial officials and infrastructure. Also witnessed the emergence of international terrorist networks and the use of transnational safe havens. o Examples: the IRA struggle against British rule in Ireland and nationalist movements in Asia and Africa 3. New Left Wave (1960s-1990s) o Inspired by the success of anti-colonial movements and fueled by leftist ideologies like Marxism and Maoism  o Motivations: Sought to overthrow capitalist systems and challenge perceived injustices, including imperialism and racism o Tactics: This wave witnessed the rise of urban guerrilla warfare, hijackings and hostage-taking, targeting both domestic and international actors. Groups in this wave drew inspiration from earlier anarchist and anti-colonial movements, adopting and adapting their tactics. o Examples: Red Army Faction in Germany, Red Brigades in Italy 4. Religious Wave (1979-Present) o Rapoport identifies the Iranian Revolution in 1979 as a major catalyst for this wave o Motivations/Ideology: This wave is characterised by religiously motivated terrorism often seeking to establish theocracies or enforce religious laws. The use of suicide bombings as a tactic became prominent during this wave o Characteristics: Global reach, emphasis on transnational networks and ideologies, with Al-Qaeda emerging as a key actor. The adoption of suicide tactics by secular groups exemplifies the concept of contagion, where terrorist groups learn and adapt tactics from others, regardless of ideological differences. o Examples: Al-Qaeda, rise of ISIS (and 9/11) Parker & Sitter, Strains (2016) Parker & Sitter define the four strains of terrorism - Nationalist terrorism o Motivated by the desire for national self=determination and independence, aims to create a separate state for a particular ethnic or national group. Often within the territory of an existing state o Examples: IRA, PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) - Socialist terrorism o Driven by ideologies rooted in Marxist, Lenist or Maoist thought, seeks to overthrow capitalist systems and establish socialist or communist societies. o Examples: RAF and the Red Brigades - Religious terrorism o Motivated by religious beliefs and a desire to impose those beliefs on society, aims to establish a theocracy or enforce religious laws. o Often views their actions as divinely ordained, justifying violence as a means to achieve religious objectives o Examples: Al-Qaeda, ISIS - Exclusionist terrorism o Driven by a sense of marginalisation, alienation and victimhood, this strain targets groups perceived as responsible for their exclusion or oppression o Often focuses on racial, ethnic or cultural differences as the basis for violence o Examples: Ku Klux Klan, Incel movement Strains vs Waves - Parker & Sutter argue that their model of strains provided a more nuanced and accurate understanding of terrorism than Rapoport’s Four Waves theory  o Waves suggest distinct periods of terrorist activity driven by specific historical trends, implying that each wave replaces the previous one o Strains acknowledge the continuous presence and evolution of different types of terrorism throughout history. They recognise the interconnectedness and cross- pollination of ideas and tactics among different groups. Conclusion This framework of four strains offers a more flexible and insightful way to analyse terrorism, emphasising the ongoing presence of evolution of different types of terrorist motivations and tactics. It acknowledges the complexity of terrorism and the interplay of various factors that contribute to its persistence and transformation. Dowling, Pulling the Brakes on Political Violence(2023) Morrison (2019) Week 3, CTS & Key concepts Horgan & Boyle, Critiques of CTS (2008) Horgan & Boyle critique the emerging field of Critical Terrorism Studies, according to them CTS often fails to meet the standards of rigorous scholarship and risks becoming an echo chamber for pre-existing political biases. Some of their critiques include: - Lack of intellectual Rigor: CTS lacks methodological rigor and relies on poorly defined concepts. They notice a tendency to accept certain narratives about terrorism while neglecting empirical evidence that challenges those narratives. - Politicisation of Research: CTS is often driven by political agendas rather than a genuine desire for objective understanding. This undermines the credibility of the field. - Overemphasis on the “Root Causes”: CTS focuses too much on the “Root causes” of terrorism, such as poverty or political grievances. This risks justifying or excusing terrorist violence and distracts from the need to address the security challenges posed by terrorism. - Ignoring the importance of psychology: CTS often overlooks the crucial role of individual psychology in understanding why people engage in terrorism. The authors advocate for a more nuanced approach which considers the social and psychological factors contributing to radicalisation. - Engagement with governments: Horgan & Boyle acknowledge the ethical dilemmas in collaboration with governments on counterterrorism efforts but they reject the notion that this inherently compromises academic integrity. They argue scholars can maintain their intellectual independence while working with policymakers on specific projects. Jackson, Establishment of CTS (2007) The author argues for the establishment for CTS as a distinct and necessary approach to understanding terrorism. Outlines the core commitments of CTS in contrast to Orthodox Terrorism Studies. Critiques on OTS include:  - Poor methods, often relies on simplistic assumptions - State-Centric Bias, heavily biased towards state perspectives, often serves to legitimise state counterterrorism policies. - Too much focus on problem solving, the studies focus too much on providing solutions rather than critically examining the underlying power structures and political contexts which contribute to terrorism. Core commitments of CTS: - Scepticism towards “Terrorism knowledge: CTS encourages a critical and sceptical approach to accepted knowledge about terrorism as much of this knowledge is shaped by political interests and power dynamics. - Recognition of the “terrorism” category’s instability: CTS recognises that “terrorism” is a contested concept which does not have a singular agreed on definition. The definition is continuously evolving and used selectively. - Critical reflexivity in research: CTS urges scholars to be aware of their own biases and the potential impact of their work. - Strong research ethics: CTS advocates for strong ethical guidelines in terrorism research - Commitment to emancipatory political praxis: CTS should not be limited to academic analysis but should strive to contribute to positive change in the real world. Schmid, Radicalisation, De & Counter-radicalisation (2013) Examines the concept of radicalisation, de-radicalisation and counter-radicalisation. He argues that these terms lack a clear and consistent definition. Key points: - Conceptual confusion hinders our understanding of the processes involved and makes it challenging to measure progress in countering terrorism - Proposes a framework for defining radicalisation based on three key elements: o Adoption of an extremist ideology that justifies the use of violence o Development of psychological and social processes that lead individuals to embrace violence o Engagement in violent or illegal actions to achieve political goals - Schmid distinguishes between de-radicalisation, the process of individuals abandoning their extremist beliefs and behaviours, and counter-radicalisation, encompasses broader societal efforts to prevent or counter radicalisation. - He emphasises that radicalisation is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon which is influenced by a range of factors: o Personal experiences o Ideological narratives that provide a sense of meaning and purpose o Social networks that reinforce extremist views - Schmid acknowledges the difficulties in developing effective counter-radicalisation strategies, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, tailored interventions are needed to address the specific needs and circumstances of different individuals and communities. Schuurman, Critiques on terrorism research (2020) Schuurman analysed 1887 articles on terrorism, he provides an overview of terrorism research trends between 2007 and 2016. His key findings include: - There is a limited use of primary sources in terrorism research as a significant majority of the studies rely heavily on secondary sources. This potentially limits the depth and originality of insights. - Quantitative methods dominate the field, there is a particular focus on statistical analysis of existing datasets. Schuurman highlights the need for greater methodological diversity. - There is predominantly a Western focused perspective and contexts which limits understanding of the diverse manifestations and dynamics globally. - A small group of authors contributes a disproportionally large share of the publications. Schuurman encourages greater collaboration and knowledge sharing to foster innovation and broaden the field. - The need for increased adoption of open science practices. Week 4, Psychology & Understanding involvement Horgan (2008) This article argues that psychology offers valuable insights into the processes of radicalization into terrorism, moving beyond simplistic "profile" approaches to understanding how individuals become involved in and disengage from terrorist groups. He proposes a "pathways" model that emphasizes the dynamic and evolving nature of radicalization. Three stage process model: - Decision to join, focusses on individual’s motivations and the factors that influence their initial decision to join a terrorist group. May include personal grievances, ideological convictions or social pressures - Becoming active, This stage focusses on the process of becoming an active participant in a terrorist organisation, training, indoctrination and engagement in violent actions. - Disengagement, This stage explores the factors that lead individuals to leave terrorist groups, disillusionment, personal changes or external interventions. Horgan critiques profiling and argues that these approaches are reductionist and fail to captgure the complex interplay or individual, social and organisational factors which contribute to radicalisation. Roots vs routes of radicalisation: - Roots: underlying factors - Routes: specific trajectories - This acknowledges the diversity of experiences and non-linear nature of involvement in terrorism. Sarma et al. (2022) Sarma et al. found no evidence to support the notion that individuals involved in terrorism have higher rates of mental health difficulties than the general population. This finding directly contradicts the common misconception that terrorists are inherently mentally unstable. - Prevalence rates of mental disorders in terrorist samples were comparable to those observed in the general population - The review highlighted the heterogeneity of terrorist samples and the challenges of making generalizations about mental health and terrorism. - Emphasised the importance of considering the temporal relationship between mental health difficulties and terrorist involvement. They stressed the need for future research to prioritize longitudinal studies that can better assess the potential role of mental health factors in the radicalization process. Crenshaw (1981) Crenshaw advocates for a multifaceted understanding of the phenomenon of terrorism, focusing on the interplay of individual motivations, organizational dynamics, and environmental conditions. She argues that understanding terrorism requires examining the subjective perceptions and grievances of those who engage in it, as well as the social and political contexts that shape those perceptions. Crenshaw identifies several key themes that contribute to the emergence of terrorism: - Precipitating Events: Specific events or government actions can trigger a backlash and motivate individuals to resort to violence. These events might include crackdowns on dissent, human rights abuses, or military interventions. - Group Dynamics: Crenshaw emphasises the role of group dynamics in shaping and sustaining terrorist behaviour. She highlights the influence of leaders, ideologies, and internal cohesion in fostering a commitment to violence. - Strategic Goals and Tactical Choices: Terrorist organizations make strategic decisions about their goals and the tactics they employ to achieve them. Crenshaw underscores that terrorism is often a deliberate choice, aimed at achieving specific political or social objectives. - External Support and the "Contagion Effect": Crenshaw acknowledges the role of external support in sustaining terrorist groups, whether through funding, training, or safe havens. She also points to the "contagion effect," where successful terrorist acts can inspire copycat attacks elsewhere. - The Role of Media: Crenshaw recognises the media's role in amplifying the impact of terrorist acts and shaping public perceptions. She notes that terrorists often seek to exploit media coverage to advance their cause and instil fear. Contagion effect: How the perceived success of one terrorist group can inspire others to adopt similar tactics and ideologies. This effect, she argues, is partially driven by an "image of success" that makes terrorism seem like an effective means to achieve political or social change. When a group witnesses another achieving its objectives through violence, it can create a momentum and sense of urgency for other groups who identify with the original perpetrators. LaFree & Ackerman (2009) LaFree & Ackerman distinguish between Event and Involvement decisions in the context of terrorism. They argue that research on terrorism often conflates these two distinct types of decisions, making it difficult to develop a clear understanding of the causal factors driving terrorist violence. - Event decisions: refers to the specific choices made by terrorist groups in planning and executing an attack. o Target selection o Tactics o Timing o Logistics - The factors influencing event decisions may differ from those influencing the decision to become a terrorist in the first place. For example, the availability of weapons or the opportunity to exploit a security vulnerability might play a more significant role in event decisions, while ideological motivations or social networks might be more important for involvement decisions. - Involvement decisions: Encompasses the process by which individuals become members of terrorist groups o Initial recruitment o Indoctrination o Commitment to the group’s ideology and goals - Understanding involvement decisions requires examining factors like social and psychological vulnerabilities, group dynamics, and the appeal of extremist ideologies. The authors advocate for a more nuanced approach that differentiates between event and involvement decisions, recognizing that different factors may be at play at different stages of the terrorist process. Schuurman & Carthy (2023) Schuurman & Carthy (2023) discuss three levels of analysis in their research on the factors differentiating individuals who engage in terrorist violence from those who do not. By examining radicalization and terrorism from these three interconnected levels, researchers can develop a more comprehensive understanding of the complex factors that contribute to this phenomenon. - Structural, examines the broader societal, political, economic and cultural conditions that create an environment conducive to terrorism. The researchers emphasise that perceived inequalities between groups and lack of political representation can be powerful drivers of violent mobilization o Political instability o Economic inequality o Social marginalisation o Discrimination o State repression  - Group, this level focuses on the dynamics within and between terrorist organisations, examining how group processes, ideologies, leadership and social networks influence individual behaviour. o Group norms & values o Recruitment & socialisation processes ▪ Extremist movements and groups can offer benefits to their members, including a sense of identity, purpose and belonging. ▪ Group norms on the use of violence can act as barriers to terrorist attacks ▪ The roles individuals occupy can influence their likelihood of engaging in violence o Inter-group competition and cooperation o The availability of alternative tactics - Individual, This level examines the psychological, personal, and biographical factors that make individuals more or less susceptible to radicalization and involvement in terrorism. o Personal grievances and motivations o Ideological beliefs o Mental health and personality traits o Social networks and relationships o Prior experiences with violence or criminal behaviour Week 5, Lone actors & tactics Schuurman et al. (2019) The researchers argue for a fundamental reconsideration of the "lone wolf" typology in terrorism research. Schuurman et al. consider the term lone wolf is misleading and obscures the complex social and relational dynamics that often contribute to lone actor terrorism. This challenges the traditional view of lone actors as isolated individuals acting independently of any group or network. The two main arguments include: - Lone actors are rarely truly “lone”, most lone actors have connections to extremist networds, online of offline. This plays a significant role in their radicalisation process as they provide ideological support, practical guidance and sense of belonging which can influence both their motivation and capability to commit acts of terrorism. - “Lone wolves” are often less capable and stealthy than assumed, the study reveals that many lone actors exhibit observable pre-attack behaviours and struggle to plan and execute sophisticated attacks. Schuurman et al. suggest the “lone wolf” typology should be abandoned as it can hinder effective counterterrorism efforts. They advocate for a more nuanced approach to understanding lone actor terrorism which recognises the importance of social networks and pre-attack behaviour. Spaaij (2010) - According to Spaaij Lone wolf terrorism accounts for a relatively small proportion of overall terrorist activity (1.23%). They do note a significant increase in lone wolf terrorism in the US over the past three decades. - Lethality: lone wolf attacks have resulted in relatively limited casualties compared to other forms of terrorism. There is also no evidence that lone wolves would be more likely to use weapons of mass destruction. - Bruce Fuchs: American lone wolf terrorist responsible for a series of mail bombings in the 1990s. The case study illustrates the complexities of lone actor motivations, planning processes and target selection. - Challenges of Defining and Studying Lone Wolf Terrorism: Spaaij (2010) acknowledges the conceptual and methodological difficulties in defining and researching lone wolf terrorism. He highlights the lack of consensus on a precise definition and the challenges in distinguishing lone actors from individuals acting on behalf of or in loose association with terrorist groups. Pape (2003) According to Pape (2003) suicide terrorism is primarily a strategic tactic employed by nationalistic groups seeking to compel foreign democracies to withdraw military forces from their territory. This directly contradicts popular explanations that attribute suicide terrorism to religious fanaticism or psychological disorders. - Suicide terrorism as a coercive strategy, it is not driven by a death wish or irrational hatred but rather a calculated strategy to inflict costs on a more powerful adversary and influence their political decision-making - Nationalist goals, the vast majority of suicide terrorism is waged by groups seeking to establish or preserve national sovereignty, not spread religious dogma or achieve some other ideological objective. - Targeting democracies, suicide terrorist groups deliberately target democracies as they believe democratic publics are more susceptible to pressure from casualties and more likely to demand policy changes. Thomas (2021) The author argues that suicide attacks are not simply a product of ideology or group-level characteristics but rather a strategic response to the competitive environment in which terrorist groups operate. - Inter-group competition, intense rivalry between terrorist groups, particularly when competing for resources, recruits, and public support, increases the likelihood of suicide attacks. Groups facing stiff competition are more likely to adopt extreme and attention-grabbing tactics to outbid their rivals and demonstrate their commitment to the cause. - Availability, the availability of less costly and risky tactical options, such as conventional attacks or nonviolent activism, reduces the likelihood of suicide attacks. When groups have access to a diverse repertoire of tactics, they are less likely to resort to suicide attacks unless they perceive a strategic advantage in doing so. This echo’s the repertoire of contention concept by Tarrow  - Implications for CT: understanding the competitive dynamics and tactical options available to terrorist groups is crucial for developing effective counterterrorism policies. Strategies aimed at disrupting inter-group cooperation, fostering defections, and promoting nonviolent alternatives may prove more effective in reducing the incidence of suicide attacks than traditional approaches focused solely on military force or intelligence gathering. Week 6, Counterterrorism approaches & practice Harris-Hogan et al. (2016) Miller (2007) Miller (2007) examines how states can effectively counter terrorism by understanding and addressing the underlying motivations of terrorist groups. Five ways to counter terrorism according to Miller, he argues that these categories are not mutually exclusive and can be used in combination to achieve greater effectiveness - Do nothing, Ignoring the terrorist threat or refusing to take action against perpetrators, this approach is unlikely to succeed. - Conciliation, Involves attempting to resolve a terrorist crisis or prevent future ones by negotiation with terrorists and addressing their grievances o Social reform o Releasing of prisoners o Negotiating with state sponsors of terrorism - Legal reform, Strengthening the legal framework and tools available to the government to combat terrorism. o Expanding police powers to investigate terrorists o Creating terrorism-specific laws o Cooperating with other states to develop international institutions and legal mechanisms for counterterrorism efforts - Restriction, Encompasses policies aimed at limiting the activities of terrorist groups and their state sponsors o Increasing intelligence gathering powers o Hardening targets o Imposing martial law o Using sanctions against states that support terrorism - Violence, Use of force by government to injure, kill, or capture terrorists and their supporters o State terror o Assassinations o Missile strikes o Invasion Understanding the motivations of terrorist groups is crucial for selecting the most effective combination of counterterrorism policies. Schuurman (2013) Schuurman examines the impact of public support on counterterrorism policies in three Western democracies: the United Kingdom, the United States, and West Germany. Schuurman argues that public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping the effectiveness and sustainability of counterterrorism measures. - Public support is essential for counterterrorism success, governments require public support to effectively implement and maintain counterterrorism measures, especially those that involve restrictions on civil liberties. - Public Opinion Can Constrain Counterterrorism Efforts: Schuurman highlights that public opinion can also act as a constraint on governments, potentially limiting their ability to adopt harsh or controversial measures. For example, if the public perceives counterterrorism policies as excessively intrusive or discriminatory, they may withdraw their support, forcing governments to reconsider their approach. Schuurman analyses the relationship between public attitudes and support for various counterterrorism measures, such as: - Increased surveillance: Public support for surveillance measures tends to be high immediately after terrorist attacks but declines over time. Suggesting that governments have a limited window of opportunity to implement such policies. - Military intervention: Public support for military intervention can be influenced by factors such as the perceived threat level, likelihood of success and potential for collateral damage - Detention Without Trial: Public support for detention without trial is generally lower than for other counterterrorism measures. This indicates that such policies are perceived as more controversial and potentially damaging to democratic values. Schuurman emphasises that public support is crucial not only for the immediate response to terrorism but also for the long-term sustainability of CT efforts. Governments must engage with the public, explain the rationale for their policies, and address concerns about civil liberties to maintain trust and cooperation. AIVD Annual report 2023 Week 7, Narratives Kruglanski et al. (2018) Kruglanski et al. propose the Significance Quest Theory (SQT) to explain the psychological underpinnings of violent extremism. The theory posits that individuals are driven to extremism by a fundamental need for personal significance – the desire to matter, to have meaning in their lives, and to “be someone.” - The Need: need for personal significance, when individuals feel insignificant or lack meaning in their lives they become more susceptible to extremist ideologies that promise to fulfil this need.  - The Narrative: A violence-justifying narrative provides individuals with a cause that can grant them significance and meaning. This narrative outlines a collective identity, a set of grievances, and a path to redemption through violent action. - The Network: A network of individuals who subscribe to the narrative reinforces its legitimacy and makes it more appealing. This network provides social support, validation, and a sense of belonging, making it easier for individuals to accept the narrative and engage in violence. The crucial role of narratives in the process of radicalization, arguing that they provide individuals with a sense of meaning and significance, particularly when those individuals feel a lack of purpose in their lives. The authors emphasise that narratives are not merely stories but powerful tools that shape individuals' perceptions of reality, their goals, and their choice of actions. Understanding the role of narratives in radicalization is critical for developing effective counterterrorism strategies that challenge extremist ideologies and offer alternative paths to significance. - Cultural specificity of significance and how narratives within different cultures outline distinct ways to attain it. For example, in times of peace, narratives might focus on peaceful contributions to society as the path to significance. Conversely, during conflict, a narrative may glorify violence against the enemy as the ultimate means to achieve significance - Kruglanski et al. explain how narratives justify and legitimize violence as an effective and acceptable way to achieve significance. Individuals who subscribe to a violence- promoting narrative are more likely to engage in extremism because it provides a moral framework that supports their actions - The authors argue that networks play a crucial role in making narratives accessible and validating them. Contact with a radicalized network exposes individuals to the violence-justifying narrative, while the network's support reinforces its perceived truthfulness. Schmid (2014) Schmid delves into the concept of narrative, drawing upon various definitions and frameworks. Narrative: - “a system of stories that share themes, forms, and archetypes” - “a simple unifying, easily-expressed story or explanation that organizes people’s experience and provides a framework for understanding events” Schmid analyses al-Qaeda’s “single narrative” and explores various efforts to develop effective counter-narratives. - Problem identification & injustice framing: AQ frames problems not merely as misfortunes but as injustices, fuelling a sense of grievance and resentment. - Moral justification for violence: The narrative provides moral justification for violence, often rooted in religious or ideological beliefs, legitimising violent actions against perceived enemies. - Victim blaming and dehumanisation: The narrative blames and dehumanises victims, portraying them as deserving of punishment, stripping them of their humanity  - Displacement or diffusion of responsibility: Responsibility for violent acts is either displaced onto a higher authority like God or diffused across the group, absolving individuals of personal accountability. Schmid argues for the development of “alternative narratives” that offer a more compelling and positive vision than the one provided by AQ. These narratives should be: - Credible and Evidence-Based: They should be grounded in facts and reason, effectively refuting al-Qaeda’s claims and exposing its inconsistencies. - Locally Relevant and Culturally Sensitive: They should resonate with the target audience, taking into account their specific concerns and aspirations. - Delivered by Credible Messengers: They should be communicated by individuals who are trusted and respected within the target community, such as Muslim intellectuals and activists Schmid concludes that effectively countering al-Qaeda’s narrative is crucial for undermining its appeal and preventing the spread of its ideology.