This dissertation examines three research questions related to Muslim minorities in Western Europe. The first chapter explores the question why some countries in Western Europe suffered terrorist attacks perpetrated by Islamist extremists whereas others did not. I argue that there is a positive association between level of discrimination towards Muslim minorities and number of terrorist attacks: the presence of cultural and religious networks in discriminated communities can enhance the socialization of grievances, resulting in the radicalization of a small portion of the community. I conduct a comparative analysis of the cases of Italy, France, and the U.K. In the second chapter, I examine factors that contribute to discriminatory laws against Muslims in Europe (laws like the hijab ban). I argue that more secular countries are more likely to pass such laws as they aim at a more comprehensive separation of the state from religion. On the other hand, less secular countries are less likely to approve this kind of legislation, because in doing so they might open the door to the regulation of the country's "favored" religion (or the majority religion, depending on the institutional architecture of the country). I use a multimethod approach consisting of quantitative and qualitative analyses. Lastly, the third chapter explores two questions; it seeks the effects of (1) geographical proximity of voters to terrorist attacks and (2) number of Muslim immigrants in a geographical area, on the vote share of far-right parties. I use a statistical model that incorporates alternative explanations and focus on the 2017 French Presidential elections. The findings of this dissertation yield relevant policy implications related to integration of Muslim minorities in the European host countries and makes a substantial contribution to the literature in this area of research.

In this dissertation, I examine the within-country and between-country effects of state-based human rights violations on annual counts of total, fatal and attributed attacks. I use the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) for my outcome variables and Political Terror Scale (PTS) to measure state-based human rights violations. Scholars argue that repressive governments that silence dissidents and close all avenues of political expression increase the likelihood of terrorism and other acts of violence against the state (Gurr, 1970; Crenshaw, 1981; DeNardo, 1985; Piazza, 2017). In such circumstances, terrorism and acts of violence against the state may serve as a defense mechanism against repressive governments (Gurr, 1970). Others argue that state-based violations of human rights can damage public approval and perceptions of legitimacy towards the government (Piazza, 2017). This, in turn, fosters anti-state and anti-status quo grievances. Such polarized environments become vulnerable to extremist movements in regard to the gathering of support, recruitment of new members, and distribution of effective propaganda, all of which may result in increased terrorist attacks at the country-level (Walsh and Piazza, 2010). I use the fixed effects negative binomial regression model to test the effects of within-country changes in state-based human rights violations on annual changes in terrorism. I use generalized hierarchical linear modeling to test the effects of between-country changes in state-based human rights violations on annual changes in terrorism. Using country-level data from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), Political Terror Scale (PTS), Polity IV, Freedom House and the World Bank, I examine the relationship between state-based human rights violations and terrorism for 175 countries between 1980 and 2014. The results indicate that state-based human rights violations is significantly and positively correlated with annual terrorism. The results regarding human rights violations are consistent for both within-country and between-country differences. Increases in human rights violations within a country results in increase in the number of terrorist attacks. Similarly, countries which have higher human rights violations also have high frequency of annual terrorist attacks.

Since the crusades, terrorism has been a form of violence used to promote some kind of agenda, whether political, social, religious or ideological (Martin 2018). With many different definitions of what constitutes terrorism, it is somewhat difficult to measure what exact impact terrorism has had globally. Attacks such as those on 9/11 in the United States and the Manchester bombings have been accepted worldwide as examples of acts of international terrorism. International terrorist attacks have lasting effects on both those directly affected as well as the larger community and beyond. Studies have shown that Americans are overly afraid of terrorism given their risk and want to put a complete and 'final' end to terrorism (Friedman 2011; Mueller 2005). Additionally, media outlets and politicians speak of threats and demand action which spreads fear and perceived risk (Bloch-Elkon 2011; Nellis and Savage 2012). This study seeks to contribute to the previous literature on people's fears regarding terrorism and how their emotions affect the desires to have action done regarding terrorist attacks. The current research uses a sample of 302 people to compare the levels of fear and the likelihood to want more action taken towards terrorism. The results from the statistical analysis show that fears and desire to seek action are shaped by many different variables. Gender was found to be the biggest predictor of higher levels of fear and political affiliation was determined to be the strongest predictor for desire to seek action.

This thesis looks beyond the sensationalized coverage of Islamic State and instead utilizes Islamic State materials as a window into the remote radicalization and recruitment process of susceptible English-speaking individuals in the West. This thesis considers Islamic State’s mode of operation in conjunction with the appeals made in its online materials to devise a framework for understanding how Islamic State materials interact with susceptible individuals. The framework lends insight into how the body tasked with creating counter-narratives within the U.S. State Department can more effectively disrupt the remote recruitment and radicalization process.

Book Summary: This work is the fourth Small Wars Journal anthology focusing on radical Sunni Islamic terrorists and insurgent groups. It covers this professional journals writings for 2016 and is a compliment to the earlier Global Radical Islamist Insurgency anthologies that were produced as Vol. I: 2007-2011 (published in 2015) and Vol. II: 2012-2014 (published in 2016) and Jihadi Terrorism, Insurgency, and the Islamic State spanning 2015 (published in 2017). This anthology, which offers well over 900 pages of focused analysis, follows the same general conceptual breakdown as the earlier works and is divided into two major thematic sectionsone focusing on Al Qaeda and Islamic state activities in 2016 and the other focusing on US-Allied policies and counterinsurgent strategies.

The purpose of this thesis is to determine how different variables can affect a terrorist group's reaction to a targeted leadership strike, known as a decapitation strike. Decapitation strikes often produce unwanted results, such as a splintering of the terrorist group, or a failure to destroy the group. It is important that we understand which variables can lead to a group's destruction after a decapitation strike, to maximize the decapitation's effectiveness. In my research I have determined that group size, group ideological extremism, and the role of the leader targeted all have a substantial impact on the success of the decapitation strike. Using these three variables, I will examine three groups which have varying size, extremism, and leadership, and determine whether the decapitation strikes were successful and how these variables affected the results.

This research analyzes political leaders' response to the ideological challenge presented by ISIS and Al Qaeda. It focuses on the counterterrorism speeches given by political leaders in a number of Middle Eastern countries and the United States. The analysis of the speeches is along two dimensions: the nature of their domestic and international audiences, and the motivations behind the speeches. A sample of several dozens of speeches is analyzed. The empirical study had proved that leaders mostly exhibit differences depending on their audiences to reach a certain political goal. While leaders tend to call for unification among countries in their international speeches, they promote and advocate for their political interests domestically.

Terrorist organizations have always been predominantly dominated by male members in numbers of participants, supporters, and leaders. Despite men having the majority of the roles, oftentimes the world witnesses attack executed by female terrorists which deal a substantial amount of damage to the infrastructure and the peaceful civilians surrounding them. Furthermore, the sense of unpredictability and unpreparedness from the counterterrorist forces and the general public adds up to the overall advantage women possess in the field of terrorism over men. Considering these observations, one can argue that women have grown to be far more dangerous and successful in the field of terrorism than men, who still hold the absolute majority in terrorist organizations. This thesis will investigate the phenomenon of women as nontraditional terrorists through answering the question of who deals more damage per terrorist attacks between males and females by looking at four major distinct terrorist organizations and their individual cases of attacks reported in the Global Terrorism Database. The unit of measurement for this study will be the average of death and wounded tolls, while the variables investigated will be individual male/female attacks and mixed-group/male group/female group attack to evaluate the impact of female member’s presence in group-attack settings. The goal of this thesis is to raise awareness on female lethality in terrorist organizations to the counterterrorist forces and the general public which is extremely important for domestic and foreign policy/security measures.

Can Americans who join terrorist organizations and fight against United States troops be charged with treason? Does the January 6th riot in Washington D.C. constitute “levying war”? Despite ongoing acts of levying war, and providing aid and comfort to enemies, the United States has not had a treason conviction since the 1950's. Courts and prosecutors actively avoid the charge, leading to a substantial lack of case law and legal guidance. Today, legal scholars disagree on how the Treason Clause should be applied. In this thesis, I discuss the disappearance of treason, and analyze opposing views on how the treason charge should be utilized in the twenty-first century. Specifically, I argue that treason holds significant constitutional importance, and should return as a viable charge in criminal law.

This Letort Paper proposes that actions, policies, and deeds—those of the U.S. Government and al-Qaeda—be leveraged as a means of delegitimizing al-Qaeda terrorist propaganda. Two chief fronts—changing deeds and challenging deeds—is proposed. Changing deeds requires that the United States carefully and systematically examine its own foreign and military policies and their specific consequences for the Arab and Muslim world. Challenging deeds comprises systematically countering with evidence and fact al-Qaeda’s two greatest propagandistic fabrications: that the United States is a crusader at war with Islam, and that al-Qaeda is the vanguard defender of a besieged and oppressed Muslim Umma. Provocative at times, and even controversial in its willingness to reconsider long-standing U.S. Government policies, this Letort Paper is adamant that it is not spin, empty platitudes, and “lipstick on pigs,” but actual deeds, that are our surest bet for defeating this ignoble adversary. / https://dc.etsu.edu/etsu_books/1128/thumbnail.jpg