Abstract
Conventional wisdom holds that terrorism is committed for strategic reasons as a form of costly signaling to an audience. However, since over half of terrorist attacks are not credibly claimed, conventional wisdom does not explain many acts of terrorism. This article suggests that there are four lies about terrorism that can be incorporated in a rationalist framework: false claiming, false flag, the hot-potato problem, and the lie of omission. Each of these lies about terrorism can be strategically employed to help a group achieve its desired goal(s) without necessitating that an attack be truthfully claimed. © 2014
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 422-439 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Studies in Conflict and Terrorism |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 2014 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
- Sociology and Political Science
- Safety Research
- Political Science and International Relations
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Lying About Terrorism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver