Internet Radicalization: Actual Threat or Phantom Menace?

109 Pages·2012·0.33 MB·English

NAVAL
POSTGRADUATE

SCHOOL

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

THESIS

INTERNET RADICALIZATION: ACTUAL THREAT OR
PHANTOM MENACE?

by

Michael J. Mealer

September 2012

Thesis Co-Advisors: Anders Strindberg
Rodrigo Nieto-Gómez
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA
22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
September 2012 Master’s Thesis
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Internet Radicalization: Actual Threat or Phantom 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Menace?
6. AUTHOR(S) Michael J. Mealer
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Naval Postgraduate School REPORT NUMBER
Monterey, CA 93943-5000
9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
N/A AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy
or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. IRB Protocol number: ___________N/A________
12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited A
13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words)
Popular opinion expresses fear that accessing radical Islamic content and connecting with extremist networks through
Internet functionalities causes radicalization and recruitment to commit terrorist acts. Anecdotal evidence has been
used to support this assertion. The opinion assumes the Internet creates a new path that drives radicalization and
recruitment. Whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) and Internet functionalities cause individuals to
radicalize has not been thoroughly studied. This thesis explores whether a correlation can be found to attribute
radicalization to radicalizing content and extremist networks accessed through CMC and Internet functionalities. A
framework is used to evaluate vulnerabilities identified by the psychological, sociological and social-psychological
elements of radicalization against the radicalization process, personal history, and the presence of radicalizing
conventional communication and extremist contact. The analysis finds three cases that may support a conclusion that
Internet radicalization is possible; however, the importance of root causes and individual vulnerabilities may have a
greater impact. Since some circumstances involving CMC may increase the likelihood of radicalization, the fear of
Internet radicalization may be reasonable, but the number of incidents validating that fear makes the threat unlikely,
and appears more as a phantom menace than a real threat.

14. SUBJECT TERMS Internet radicalization, radicalization process, radicalization 15. NUMBER OF
causation, radicalization, jihad, jihadist, extremist, Islamic extremist, globalization, PAGES
causation, correlations, vulnerability, computer-mediated communication, CMC, 109
conventional communication, root causes, recruitment, Internet recruitment and 16. PRICE CODE
radicalization
17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF
CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
REPORT PAGE ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UU
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
i
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ii
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

INTERNET RADICALIZATION:
ACTUAL THREAT OR PHANTOM MENACE?

Michael J. Mealer
Commander, Chicago Police Department
B.A. North Park University, 1982
B.S. North Park University, 1982
J. D., Loyola University of Chicago, School of Law, 1989

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN SECURITY STUDIES
(HOMELAND SECURITY AND DEFENSE)

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
September 2012

Author: Michael J. Mealer

Approved by: Anders Strindberg, PhD
Thesis Co-Advisor

Rodrigo Nieto-Gómez, PhD
Thesis Co-Advisor

Daniel Moran,
Chair, Department of National Security Affairs

iii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
iv
ABSTRACT
Popular opinion expresses fear that accessing radical Islamic content and connecting with
extremist networks through Internet functionalities causes radicalization and recruitment
to commit terrorist acts. Anecdotal evidence has been used to support this assertion. The
opinion assumes the Internet creates a new path that drives radicalization and
recruitment. Whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) and Internet
functionalities cause individuals to radicalize has not been thoroughly studied. This thesis
explores whether a correlation can be found to attribute radicalization to radicalizing
content and extremist networks accessed through CMC and Internet functionalities. A
framework is used to evaluate vulnerabilities identified by the psychological, sociological
and social-psychological elements of radicalization against the radicalization process,
personal history, and the presence of radicalizing conventional communication and
extremist contact. The analysis finds three cases that may support a conclusion that
Internet radicalization is possible; however, the importance of root causes and individual
vulnerabilities may have a greater impact. Since some circumstances involving CMC
may increase the likelihood of radicalization, the fear of Internet radicalization may be
reasonable, but the number of incidents validating that fear makes the threat unlikely, and
appears more as a phantom menace than a real threat.
.

v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1
A. OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................1
B. INTERNET PLUS RADICALIZATION ASSUMES “INTERNET
RADICALIZATION”......................................................................................2
C. RESEARCH QUESTIONS.............................................................................4
II. LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................5
A. PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNET ON
RADICALIZATION, RECRUITMENT AND TERRORISM....................5
B. RECRUITMENT AND RADICALIZATION............................................13
C. RADICALIZATION CAUSES AND RADICALIZATION PROCESS...14
1. Radicalization Causation...................................................................15
2. Radicalization Process.......................................................................18
3. Self-Radicalization.............................................................................21
III. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................25
A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................25
B. CASE SELECTION.......................................................................................26
C. OUTCOME PROBLEM AND VARIABLE IDENTIFICATION............28
1. Variables: Conventional Communication, Computer-Mediated
Communication and Vulnerability...................................................28
2. Vulnerability Framework.................................................................29
D. ANALYSIS METHOD..................................................................................29
IV. FINDINGS..................................................................................................................31
A. CASE REVIEW SUMMARY.......................................................................31
1. Hamaad Munshi.................................................................................32
2. Roshonara Choudhry........................................................................32
3. Nicky Reilly.........................................................................................33
4. Colleen LaRose aka Jihad Jane:.......................................................34
5. Mohammed Hassan Khalid:.............................................................35
6. Abdul Basheer Abdul Kader.............................................................36
7. Arid Uka aka Abu Reyyan................................................................37
8. Betim Kaziu and Sulejah Hadzovic..................................................38
9. Mohamed Osman Mohamud............................................................40
B. ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................41
1. Conventional Communication..........................................................41
2. Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC).................................42
3. Vulnerability.......................................................................................44
4. Radicalization Process Staging.........................................................44
C. DISCUSSION.................................................................................................48
1. Causation and Correlation and Comprehension of Threat...........48
2. Categorization: Internet Radicalization-Support-Utility...............51
3. Specific Analysis with Categories.....................................................52
vii
a. Internet Radicalization...........................................................52
b. Support....................................................................................53
c. Utility.......................................................................................55
V. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................57
A. WHY THIS MATTERS AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NEXT.....59
APPENDIX. CASES FREQUENTLY CITED AS EXAMPLES OF
INTERNET RADICALIZATION AND RECRUITMENT, BUT CMC IS
USED FOR UTILITY OR SUPPORT RATHER THAN FOR INTERNET
RADICALIZATION..................................................................................................63
A. CASES INVOLVING GROUPS..................................................................63
1. London Transportation Bomb Plot of July 21, 2005......................63
2. Canadian Bomb Plot aka Toronto 18 Plot.......................................64
3. Shirwa Ahmed and Somali Youth Radicalization..........................65
4. Ramy Zamzam Group.......................................................................66
5. Madrid Bombing................................................................................67
B. OPERATIVE CASES....................................................................................68
1. Aabid Hussein Khan:.........................................................................68
2. Younes Tsouli aka Irhabi007:...........................................................69
3. Jesse Curtis Morton aka Younis Abdullah Muhammed................70
C. CLEARLY CONVENTIONAL RADICALIZATION CASES.................70
1. Rajim Karim.......................................................................................70
2. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab...........................................................71
3. Carlos Bledsoe aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad................72
4. Faisal Shahzad....................................................................................72
5. Nidal Hasan........................................................................................74
D. INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION CASES................................................75
1. Abdul Benbrika..................................................................................75
2. Naser Jason Abdo..............................................................................76
3. Emerson Begolly.................................................................................76
LIST OF REFERENCES......................................................................................................79
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST.........................................................................................93
viii