Resumen
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
| Idioma original | English |
|---|---|
| Páginas (desde-hasta) | 422-439 |
| Número de páginas | 18 |
| Publicación | Studies in Conflict and Terrorism |
| Volumen | 37 |
| N.º | 5 |
| DOI | |
| Estado | Published - may 2014 |
ODS de las Naciones Unidas
Este resultado contribuye a los siguientes Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible
-
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
Huella
Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Lying About Terrorism'. En conjunto forman una huella única.Citar esto
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver