Lone Wolf Terrorists and Internet Recruitment

Recruitment of the Lone Wolf

Introduction

The recent terrorist episodes in the US have all been incidents of Lone Wolf terrorism. From the bombing of the Oklahoma City Building in 1995 by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to the Charlottesville attack in 2017 by neo-Nazi James Fields, Lone Wolf terrorists exist in this country and their presence is the most important current domestic security concern. This paper will explain why Lone Wolf terrorism is the most important security concern for the US and how Internet recruitment is playing a part in the spreading of violent actions by extremists.

What is Lone Wolf Terrorism?

Lone Wolf terrorists are terrorists who act alone without any support group, network and assistance from a terror cell or organization. Lone Wolfs may be motivated by ideology that is shared by other people and groups, but they are not supported by these groups or given orders to act. They are not part of an overall infrastructure and do not take commands from anyone.

An example of a Lone Wolf terrorist would be Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, whose manifesto revealed the extreme Right ideology that prompted his actions. Another example would be the New Zealand mosque shooter, who left behind ample evidence of his inspiration for mass murdering Muslims at their place of prayer. McVeigh and Nichols can be considered Lone Wolves, and the Orlando night club shooter could be considered a Lone Wolf as well. What they all have in common is that they were operating on their own, outside of any organized terrorist cell. Their actions were directed solely by themselves.

Yet they are not created in a bubble—particularly today. Lone Wolf terrorism is as much a reaction to the Left-Right paradigm that has spread across the world as it is to social media influence, where extremist ideologies are communicated and fuel individuals focused on taking violent action. Yet, as Weimann notes, Lone Wolves actually hunt in packs and their hunting ground is cyberspace: “They are recruited, radicalized, taught, trained and directed by others.”[footnoteRef:2] From Facebook to YouTube to Twitter, social media platforms are places where Lone Wolf terrorists can be formed in cyberspace and unleashed onto the real world. [2: Weimann, Gabriel. "Lone wolves in cyberspace." Journal of Terrorism Research (2012), 1.]

The Formation of Lone Wolf Terrorists

Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter of 2009, is a good example of a Lone Wolf terrorist radicalized on cyberspace. Hasan was a US Army major and psychologist. He had been in contact with a Yemen freedom fighter by the name of Imam Anwar al-Awlaki and they had exchanged emails for some time leading up to Hasan’s attack on the military base, where 13 people were killed and 30 wounded.[footnoteRef:3] Hasan openly admitted afterwards that he had been radicalized and had come to believe that he was working for the enemy and that he had to fight back against what he perceived to be an evil American foreign policy that was killing his people in the Middle East. He identified with Middle Eastern Muslim radicals and wanted to take vengeance against the American military as a means of retribution. He was not legitimately or officially acting on behalf of any organized terrorist group—but, as Weimann has shown, he was shaped by those people. He was initiated into their ideological worldview by way of cyberspace. As Meleagrou-Hitchens notes, Hasan was “a self-identified member of the global jihad movement who took it upon himself to contribute to the struggle in the most effective way at his disposal.”[footnoteRef:4] He saw himself as an actor in a larger movement—but he did not receive orders from anyone. He acted on his own. [3: Breed, A. & Plushnick-Masti, R. “Terror act or workplace violence? Hasan trial raises sensitive issue.” (2013). Retrieved from https://tucson.com/news/national/terror-act-or-workplace-violence-hasan-trial-raises-sensitive-issue/article_be513c51-a35d-5b4f-b3a0-13654f019ea6.html] [4: Meleagrou-Hitchens, A. (2015). Jihad In The Workplace: Looking Back On The Fort Hood Shooting. Retrieved from https://warontherocks.com/2015/09/jihad-in-the-workplace-looking-back-on-the-fort-hood-shooting/]

Yet, Lone Wolf terrorists are never really alone, just as ISIS is not really alone. It has a number of affiliates around the world and they have been able to “flourish in regions plagued by weak governance, porous borders and inept security force.”[footnoteRef:5] These organizations often appeal to individuals who are on the Internet looking for guidance and direction. They may be dissatisfied with their society or the way they see the government working and they may look for other like-minded individuals who can provide them with supportive words. They may not be nations plagued by weak governance, but they are individuals plagued by weak governance in the mind. They do not have the discipline or education needed to keep from falling into the trap of radicalization. They seek it out because they have no barrier in their minds that would deter them from this course of action. The Columbine shooters are a similar example. They acted on their own, yet they were radicalized to a degree by their exposure to content online that affected their sensibilities. Their actions were largely planned online, as Costello and Hawdon have pointed out.[footnoteRef:6] [5: Intel Brief. (2019). The Islamic State Will Live on Through Its Affiliates. Retrieved from https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/the-islamic-state-will-live-on-through-its-affiliates] [6: Costello, Matthew, and James Hawdon. "Who are the online extremists among us? Sociodemographic characteristics, social networking, and online experiences of those who produce online hate materials." Violence and gender 5, no. 1 (2018): 55-60.]

Addressing This Issue

Clearly some kind of content control is required online in order to prevent recruitment and proliferation of radical ideas that could potentially lead to the development of more Lone Wolf terrorists in society. Yet this very idea creates conflicts within the realm of American notions of freedom. Americans are not quite comfortable with the idea of their online activity being monitored or their words being assessed by government agents. Some Americans feel that if their words and content online are judged incorrectly they could be harassed by the government, arrested or charged with trying to incite violence or hate crimes or terrorism. Monitoring the Internet and attempting to implement controls on social media has been a complex problem for companies like Facebook and Twitter. Social media becomes a dominant place where individuals can reinforce an increasingly radicalized view of the world even if they are only communicating with other people who may not share their intentions towards violence at all.[footnoteRef:7] Does the fact that they are communicating or sharing ideas with the radicalized Lone Wolf make them complicit? [7: Chatfield, Akemi Takeoka, Christopher G. Reddick, and Uuf Brajawidagda. "Tweeting propaganda, radicalization and recruitment: Islamic state supporters multi-sided twitter networks." In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 239-249. 2015.]

There are ethical questions that have to be asked as well as the government seeks to address this most crucial of points. The security threat to America is clear and present, but at what point can the government actually step in to declare that certain topics and ways of speech are off limits? From a utilitarian perspective, one could argue that for the common good, the government should have the authority to limit free speech on the Internet because of the risks it poses for the development of Lone Wolf terrorists. But from a deontological perspective, one could argue that the government has a duty to uphold the Constitution, which protects Americans’ right to free speech.

The problem is not an easy one to solve considering that the Internet is constantly providing new platforms for users to meet and share views. The big social networking platforms are just a drop in a very large bucket. Numerous platforms exist and just the fact that instant communication is now available as a wide spread technological tool of Web 2.0 indicates that it is not a process that the government can easily monitor. This makes the need to address the issue of Lone Wolf radicalization over the Internet all the more urgent. There is no apparent or ethical solution to the problem.

Conclusion

Thus, addressing this issue is not something that the government will be able to take lightly in the coming years. Serious discussion in Congress will be required about how the Internet is provided to people, who is allowed access to it, who is permitted access to digital technology, and so on. One possible solution is that just as there are strict gun laws that regulate the sale of guns, there may need to be strict Internet laws that prevent people from having access to the Internet if they have been flagged by mental health workers as potentially at risk for radicalization. The Fort Hood shooter had been flagged for this exact issue—yet his Internet access was never cut off nor did government officials take action to prevent the tragedy soon enough. What his story and the story of all the other Lone Wolf terrorists that America has seen is that instead of monitoring and attempting to control the Internet, it may be helpful simply to better monitor the lives of individuals and to provide people with a way to report on those who are showing obvious signs of radicalization—as Hasan did in the months leading up to his attack. Perhaps in this manner, lives could be saved.