PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 8, Issue 3 Table of Contents Welcome from the Editors 1 I. Articles Deterring Terrorism: a New Strategy 2 by Max Abrahms Eco-Terrorism? Countering Dominant Narratives of Securitisation: a Critical, Quantitative History of the Earth Liberation Front (1996-2009) 16 by Michael Loadenthal Should we be Scared of all Salafsts in Europe? A Dutch Case Study 51 by Ineke Roex Securing the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas from Maritime Terrorism: a Troublesome Cooperation? 64 by Senia Febrica II. Research Note Bangladesh: an Emerging Centre for Terrorism in Asia 84 by Sajjan M. Gohel III. Resources Bibliography: Arab Spring (Part 2) 92 Compiled and selected by Judith Tinnes Terrorists, Extremists, Militants: Selected Biographies, Autobiographies and related Documents and Writings 126 Compiled by Eric Price IV. Book Reviews “Counterterrorism Bookshelf” – Eight Books on Terrorism & Counter-terrorism Related Subjects 135 by Joshua Sinai V. Op-Ed Terrorism and Jihad: Diferences and Similarities 140 by Philipp Holtmann ISSN 2334-3745 i June 2014 PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 8, Issue 3 VI. News News from the Country Coordinators of TRI’s Network of PhD Teses Writers 144 by Alex P. Schmid VII. Notes from the Editors About Perspectives on Terrorism 148 ISSN 2334-3745 ii June 2014 PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 8, Issue 3 Welcome from the Editors Dear Reader, We are pleased to announce the release of Volume VIII, Issue 3 (June 2014) of Perspectives on Terrorism at www.terrorismanalysts.com. Our free online journal is a joint publication of the Terrorism Research Initiative (TRI), headquartered in Vienna, and the Center for Terrorism and Security Studies (CTSS), headquartered at the University of Massachusetts’ Lowell campus. Tere has been a change in our Editorial Team. Tim Pippard, Assistant Editor for many years, has lef Perspectives on Terrorism. We thank him for his work. Given the rapidly increasing number of submissions to our journal, the Editors are welcoming suggestions for his replacement. We are looking for a qualifed candidate with broad editorial experience and professional expertise. Te three Directors of the TRI, acting as jury, have completed their evaluation of the submissions for the “Best Dissertation on Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism published in 2013”, reading more than 10,000 pages of text. Tree fnalists have been identifed. Teir names will be made public in the August issue of our journal which will also feature an article by the winner. Te Jury has decided to make the TRI Tesis Award an annual feature. We look forward to receive submissions of high-quality PhD theses completed in 2014. More about this in the next issue of our journal. Te core of the current issue of Perspectives on Terrorism consists of four articles. Te lead article is authored by Max Abrahms and addresses the question whether terrorism can be deterred (he will also talk about this topic on an upcoming TED talk). Tis is followed by a contribution from Michael Loadenthal. He challenges the notion that so-called “eco-terrorists” are terrorists, basing his case on unique empirical material. Also controversial is Ineke Roex’ article. She challenges the notion that all Salafsts should be viewed through the lens of counter-terrorism. Our fnal peer-reviewed article is authored by Senia Febrica. It deals with maritime terrorism in South East Asia looking through the lens of international cooperation. A Research Note by Sajjan Gohel focuses on Bangladesh and the potential for international terrorism posed by Islamists there. Joshua Sinai, our book reviews editor, ofers brief reviews of eight books he found time to read. Te Resource sections contains two bibliographies, one on the Arab Spring (a topic on which Judith Tinnes had already published earlier but which she has now updated) and one by another member of our Editorial Team, Eric Price. His bibliography focuses on the personalities of a number of terrorists and extremists. Te Op-Ed by Philipp Holtmann seeks to clarify how to diferentiate terrorism from jihad – a topic of great confusion. Finally, the editor of this issue summarises some news from TRI’s ten national networks of PhD Teses Writers. Te current issue of Perspectives on Terrorism was prepared on the European side of the Atlantic, while the August issue (PT VIII, 4) will be assembled by Prof. James J. F. Forest, the journal’s American co-editor at the Centre for Terrorism and Security Studies (CTSS) at the University of Massachusetts. Sincerely, Prof. em. Alex P. Schmid Editor-in-Chief Perspectives on Terrorism ISSN 2334-3745 1 June 2014 PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 8, Issue 3 I. Articles Deterring Terrorism: a New Strategy by Max Abrahms Abstract Terrorists are poor candidates for deterrence. Tey are difcult to deter because they are motivated by a wide variety of personal and strategic aims. Te diversity of these aims practically ensures that many terrorists will derive utility from their actions regardless of how governments respond. In fact, even opposite government responses tend to generate utility for terrorists due to the complexity of their incentive structure. To an extent, however, terrorism may still be deterred by dissuading terrorist supporters since they are critical for mounting large-scale terrorist campaigns. Compared to terrorists, their supporters are more deterrable due to the relative simplicity of their incentive structure. People generally support terrorists for a single reason—to achieve their political demands. Fortunately, a growing body of empirical research fnds that terrorism is a losing tactic for perpetrators to induce major concessions from governments. Te policy community can help to deter terrorism by teaching its supporters about the tactic’s politically counterproductive efects. Keywords: deterrence, counter-terrorism Introduction Traditional concepts of deterrence try to thwart unwanted behaviour by manipulating adversary incentives. Deterrence-by-punishment threatens to impose costs on the adversary for an undesirable course of action. Deterrence-by-denial seeks to deny him any benefts from it.[1] Clearly, both strategies are based on infuencing the adversary by reducing the utility of his actions. Unfortunately, neither approach is likely to succeed since terrorists are generally motivated by such a wide variety of personal and strategic aims that they are liable to derive utility from their actions regardless of how governments respond. Although traditional concepts of deterrence are unlikely to work against terrorists on any systematic basis, the tactic itself may be deterred with an alternative counterterrorism approach. Deterrence-by- delegitimisation focuses less on deterring adversaries themselves than their support constituencies.[2] Tis less well-known indirect form of deterrence ofers superior counterterrorism promise because terrorist supporters are more likely to be motivated by a relatively straightforward incentive structure. Unlike the perpetrators themselves, their supporters are generally driven by one main goal—the desire to coerce government concessions. In recent years, a growing body of academic research has found that terrorism decreases rather than increases the odds of government compliance. In this fundamental sense, the tactic of terrorism is politically counterproductive. Te policy community’s primary contribution to deterring terrorism should be to broadcast this fnding in a targeted public diplomacy campaign to terrorist supporters. Te argument of this article proceeds in three sections. In the frst section, an explanation is ofered why classic concepts of deterrence are doomed to fail against terrorists. Te strategies of deterrence-by- punishment and deterrence-by-denial are based on the unrealistic premise that governments can deter terrorists by simply removing the utility of their violent behaviour. Tis assumption is faulty not because terrorists are categorically irrational actors, but because they do not employ a uniform, consistent metric of success. Indeed, many terrorists seem to regard their actions as fruitful regardless of how governments ISSN 2334-3745 2 June 2014 PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 8, Issue 3 choose to respond. Te second section argues that most terrorism is deterrable, however, even if its practitioners are not. Tis section details the burgeoning academic literature on terrorism’s political inefectiveness and explains how this fnding can be exploited to deter terrorist supporters and, by extension, the tactic itself. Te conclusion issues an appeal to the policy community—work closer with the academic community on counterterrorism. Only by sharing our knowledge can we hope to deter the terrorism threat. Why Terrorists Tend to Be Undeterrable Te conventional approaches to deterrence are actually two sides to the same coin. In deterrence-by- punishment, the threat of reprisal is intended to deter the adversary with unacceptable costs. In deterrence- by-denial, the point is to deter him by removing the potential value of his actions. As Matthew Kroenig and Barry Pavel noted: “Whereas cost imposition strategies threaten retaliation, beneft denial strategies threaten failure. If actors believe that they are unlikely to succeed or reap signifcant benefts from a certain course of action, they may be deterred from taking it.”[3] When it comes to combating terrorism, however, this objective is intractable because its practitioners seem to derive value from their actions notwithstanding the nature of the government response.