Addressing the Myths of Terrorism in America

• DOI: 10.1177/1057567719833139
• Author: Celinet Duran,Joshua D. Freilich,Steven M. Chermak,Jason R. Silva
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Addressing the Myths

of Terrorism in America

Jason R. Silva

1

, Celinet Duran

1

,

Joshua D. Freilich

1

, and Steven M. Chermak

2

Abstract

In the aftermath of 9/11, the intersection of sensational media coverage, public fears, and political

motivations has contributed to misconceptions about the nature of terrorism and the perpetrators

of extremist violence. The current study uses data from the Extremist Crime Database and Global

Terrorism Database to address the myths of terrorism in the United States. We examine jihadist-

inspired, far-right, and far-left incidents to provide an empirical critique of turn of the century

popular discourse that suggests terrorism (1) incidents are increasing, (2) fatalities and injuries are

increasing, and is committed by (3) internationally based, (4) jihadist-inspired extremists, (5) of Arab

decent, (6) working in organized groups. The results highlight the reality of the terrorism problem

finding incidents are decreasing and often involve no deaths or injuries. Additionally, terrorists are

more often domestic-based, White, far-right extremists, acting alone. We conclude with a discus-

sion of findings and implications for public knowledge and policy responses to terrorism and

extremist violence.

Keywords

terrorism, extremist violence, ideologically motivated crime, discourse, open-source data

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were the most deadly to occur in the United States. The attacks

provoked deep concern and led to a series of responses. In its wake, America became inundated with

media, public, and political discourse surrounding terrorism and extremist violence. The terrorism

discourse developed into one of the most important conversations in the modern era (Jackson, 2007;

Nacos, 2016). Public opinion became increasingly focused on the terrorist threat, with the majority

of Americans indicating their top safety concern was rooted in targeted terrorist attacks from

international actors (Clement & Eilperin, 2015; Freeman, 2016; Martin & Sussman, 2015;

Mechanic, 2017; Salvanto, De Pinto, Dutton, & Backus, 2015; Telhami, 2015). Current popular

discourse suggests terrorism poses a greater threat than war, invasion, accident, natural disasters, and

1

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY, USA

2

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jason R. Silva, Criminal Justice Doctoral Program, Graduate Center, CUNY, 524 West 59th St, New York City, NY 10019,

USA.

Email: jasilva@jjay.cuny.edu

International CriminalJustice Review

2020, Vol. 30(3) 302-324

ª2019 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1057567719833139

journals.sagepub.com/home/icj

criminal activity (Nacos, 2016; Wolfendale, 2007). Counterterrorism rhetoric emphasizes the threat

to security, lives, values, freedom, democracy, and the existence of civilization itself (Crenshaw &

LaFree, 2017; Wolfendale, 2007). These narratives contributed to a rapid transformation in security

priorities including new anti-terrorism laws, agencies, doctrines, strategies, programs, initiatives,

and measures (Crenshaw & LaFree, 2017; Jackson, 2007). The problem with contemporary dis-

course and subsequent responses to terroris m is they may be rooted in popularized myths and

misunderstandings of the phenomenon.

Terrorism myths refer to disto rted percepti ons of extremist violence in popular discourse

(LaFree, 2011). Myths provide a way for individuals to make sense of the world around them

and explain events or processes that are not readily understood (Kappeler & Potter, 2017). As

such, myths allow for a social reality of crime, which serves as little more than convenient gap-

filler for questions that science has yet to address (Quinney, 1970). LaFree (2011) used the

Global Terrorism Database (GTD) to examine common myths surrounding the global terrorism

problem. He highlights popular beliefs suggestingmostglobalterroristattacks rely on sophis-

ticated weaponry and result in an enormous number of fatalities. However, LaFree (2011)

found that the vast majority of terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2007 used readily accessible

explosives and firearms. Additionally, over half of the attacks resulted in no fatalities (55%),

with only 1.5%resulting in more than 25 deaths. These findings provide important policy

implications by suggesting global terrorism-prevention strategies may be rooted in myths sur-

rounding sensational cases.

LaFree’s (2011) findings also suggest the current public and political reactions to terrorism in the

United States may be similarly rooted in myths about the phenomenon. This misinformation in

popular discourse surrounding terrorism can have consequences. In the aftermath of 9/11, terrorism

discourse influenced public perceptions of risk (Altheide, 2007; Chermak, Bailey, & Brown, 2003;

Nacos, 2016), potential perpetrators (Ahmed & Matthes, 2017; Nacos, 2016; Shaheen, 2003), and

the implementation of security measures (Crenshaw & LaFree, 2017; Jackson, 2007). It is important

to empirically investigate whether the realities of terrorism match the social perception and social

concern. Often, public perceptions of an issue are not closely aligned with social reality. However,

such divergences have important implications for policy on terrorism and extremist violence.

This study extends LaFree’s (2011) approach by identifying empirical evidence and comparing it

to public perceptions and common assumptions about post–9/11 terrorism in America. We use open-

source data from the Extremist Crime Database (ECDB) and Global Terrorism Database (GTD) to

identify the reality of the problem and compare it to six common assumptions (proposed in media

reports) surrounding terrorism incident occurrences, victimization rates, and perpetrator typologies.

This work is presented in five sections. First, we highlight popular assumptions (i.e., myths) and

previous research investigating the phenomenon. In the second section, we set forth our methodo-

logical framework including our terrorism definition, inclusion criteria, operationalization of vari-

ables, and analytic strategy. In third section, we compare the empirical findings to six common

assumptions about the nature of terrorism and extremist violence in the United States. We discuss

our findings and their policy implications in the fourth section. Finally, we conclude by outlining

some of our study’s limitations and provide suggestions for future research.

Literature Review

Terrorism Scholarship

Terrorism research greatly increased after the 9/11 attacks. Lum, Kennedy, and Sherley’s (2006)

systematic review of terrorism and political violence literature found that over 50%of peer-reviewed

articles between 1971 and 2002 were published in just 2 years—2001/2002. Despite this increased

Silva et al. 303