Online Library

This study examines the Pakistan military’s strategic use of social media in encouraging and sustaining public support for the ongoing war against terrorism in Pakistan. Its findings indicate that the military used significantly different types of strategic frames in response to a fast-changing, evolving security situation in the country. Framing was used strategically to facilitate public–military and people-to-people engagements. Motivational frames were the most dominant forms of communication used to generate dialogue between the military and the public in the war against terrorism and to enhance public participation in it. This study also indicates that different frames used by Pakistan’s military on social media significantly mediated military engagement with different segments of society during the critical phases of Pakistan’s ongoing war against terrorism.

VOX-Pol Blog post.

Jihadis have long shared military-related information and expertise on top jihadi forums. Recently, much of that information has been circulated on the various social media outlets, as well. The shared information varies, from original content to translations, summaries, and recommended reading of non-Arabic material. Contrary to the common notion that jihadis are suspicious of, and avoiding circulating, any material originating from “enemy” sources, jihadis visiting military and technology sections on top jihadi forums in fact thrive on a broad base of information, especially information originating with “enemy” sources. This report provides an overview of military and technology-related subsections on the main jihadi forums.

The paper maintains the complementary nature of technological practice and discursive content in the process of meaning-making in digital jihadist discourse. The study shows that digital practices of strategic sharing, distribution and campaigns to re-upload textual materials are made possible by exploiting SMC communicative affordances. As for the analysis of discursive content, the paper focuses on YouTube and highlights strategic patterns and covert references in an IS-produced flagship video. It illustrates how IS discourse constructs its envisaged in-group/outgroup by (re-)symbolising current events within historical, political and ideological conflict scenarios, i.e. the incessant resistance and legitimacy of forces of virtue vs evil. By foregrounding symbolic references to military outgroup actors, IS legitimises its own violence and projects a powerful self-identity against a (perceived) global hegemony. The paper shows how the combination of a technologically savvy operation and a resistant, anti-hegemonic narrative, embedded in a strategically framed symbolism of Islam, may resonate with global (quasi)-diasporic digital consumers.

The edition of Dabiq, the online magazine of the Islamic State (IS), that followed the horrific Paris attacks (130 dead) glorified the work of what it called the “eight knights” who carried out the killings. It rejoiced, too, in the downing of a Russian airliner (224 dead), picturing the homemade bomb it said caused the crash. together, these constituted what the magazine called “blessed attacks” against “crusader nations”. Other “brave knights” who carried out terrorist attacks in Australia, America, Israel and Jordan in the autumn of 2015 are said to have “sacrificed their souls in the noblest of deeds in pursuit of Allah’s pleasure”.

Recent acts of terrorism and hate crimes have prompted a renewed focus on the possible links between internet content and offline violence. While some have focused on the role that social media companies play in moderating user-generated content, others have called for Congress to pass laws regulating online content promoting terrorism or violence. Proposals related to government action of this nature raise significant free speech questions, including (1) the reach of the First Amendment’s protections when it comes to foreign nationals posting online content from abroad; (2) the scope of so-called “unprotected” categories of speech developed long before the advent of the internet; and (3) the judicial standards that limit how the government can craft or enforce laws to preserve national security and prevent violence.