Scholars have traditionally argued that Islamist terrorist groups tend to commit higher casualty attacks. Noting that casualty rates of attacks vary widely across Islamist terrorist groups, this study advances an alternative hypothesis that group organizational features and goal structures better explain differing casualty rates than does the overarching ideological type. Using both cross-national analysis and a case study of post-invasion Iraq, I demonstrate that there are two basic types of Islamist terrorist groups whose organizational and goal-structure features explain divergent casualty rates: “strategic groups” that function similarly to secular national-liberation and regime-change movements and “abstract/universal groups” that are affiliated with the global al-Qaeda network.
Is Islamist Terrorism More Dangerous?: An Empirical Study of Group Ideology, Organization, and Goal Structure
21 January 2015
Hit the core or weaken the periphery? Comparing strategies to break the circle of violence with an embryonic terrorist group: The case of Galician Resistance
‘Just three Skittles in a bowl will kill you. Would you take a handful?’ Evidence, public policy and Islamist-inspired violent extremism
Terrorism, the Internet and the Social Media Advantage: Exploring how terrorist organizations exploit aspects of the internet, social media and how these same platforms could be used to counter-violent extremism
Extreme hatred revisiting the hate crime and terrorism relationship to determine whether they are “close cousins” or “distant relatives”