The fall-out from the Brussels terrorist attacks. EPC Commentary, 16 June 2016

On 22 March, Belgium got a brutal wake-up call. In a coordinated attack, two nail bombs exploded in the departure hall of the Brussels National Airport. A little over an hour later, a third bomb exploded inside a metro train passing through Maelbeek station. 32 civilians lost their lives, while more than 300 people were injured. The Islamic State (IS) network, which was responsible for the Paris attacks on 13 November 2015, claimed responsibility. The arrest of Salah Abdeslam, the sole survivor of the Paris attacks, on 18 March, seems to have made IS expedite the Brussels attacks following a claim from the Paris prosecutor that Abdeslam would cooperate with the French Justice Department over the Paris attacks

Automatic Detection of Online Jihadist Hate Speech

We have developed a system that automatically detects online jihadist hate speech with over 80% accuracy, by using techniques from Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning. The system is trained on a corpus of 45,000 subversive Twitter messages collected from October 2014 to December 2016. We present a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the jihadist rhetoric in the corpus, examine the network of Twitter users, outline the technical procedure used to train the system, and discuss examples of use.Comment: 31 page

The History and Influence of the Belgian ISIS Contingent

This paper provides an insight into how the Belgian Jihadi scene and recruitment evolved since the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011. We will look into the recruitment hubs and provide a brief demographical background of recruits. After an introduction to the various networks in Belgium that led to the biggest Western European per-capita foreign fighter contingent, we will zoom in on the various groups in which the Belgian foreign fighters were involved and how these groups eventually were responsible for organising the biggest terrorist attacks in North-Western Europe since World War II: the attacks in Paris in November 2015 and the March 2016 Brussels attacks. Subsequently, we will look into the evolution of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) as an internationally focused terrorist organisation and how Western European foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) played a highly important role in the internationalisation of ISIS terror.No ISSN/ISBNstatus: Published onlin

Belgian Radical Networks and the Road to the Brussels Attacks

As the Paris and Brussels attacks made clear, the high number of Belgian foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq has severe national security implications for Belgium and neighboring European countries. The emergence of three overlapping radical networks in Antwerp and Brussels and their early recruitment of fighters for the Syrian jihad is the key reason why Belgium has more foreign fighters per capita than any other Western nation.status: Published onlin

Belgian fighters in Syria and Iraq

Part II of our series on ISIS : Blogforum "Kalifat des Terrors: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf den Islamischen Staat" On Thursday January 15, only a week after the bloodyattacks in Paris by the Kouachi brothers and AmedyCoulibali, Belgium was on high alert. In a raid carriedout by police and security forces in the small villageof Verviers, two alleged terrorists were shot dead, a third suspect wasarrested. The action was part of a larger operation carried out throughout thecountry to prevent imminent attacks by a group of Islamists, some of whomwere directly tied to the war in Syria and Iraq. In the days that followed itbecame clear that the prevented attacks probably were aimed at a highranking police official. The terror threat level was subsequently raised tolevel three, indicating that the threat of attacks was imminent. What makesBelgium such a hub for Jihadis?.

How jihadi Salafists sometimes breach, but mostly circumvent, Facebook’s community standards in crisis, identity and solution frames

We analyzed posts written by Facebook profiles who advocate violent jihad without supporting any terrorist group. They share extremist content in the middle of regular posts, thanks to which they are likely to reach a large audience. We identified to what extent their ingroup-outgroup opposition is constructed in crisis, identity, and solution frames and how they use these frames in posts which sometimes breach Facebook's community standards, but which mostly circumvent them through various strategies of doublespeak. Among them, myth, in the sense of Barthes, and eudaimonic content appeared as particularly powerful to naturalize and spread jihadi ideology on social media

Facebook’s policies against extremism : ten years of struggle for more transparency

For years, social media, including Facebook, have been criticized for lacking transparency in their community standards, especially in terms of extremist content. Yet, moderation is not an easy task, especially when extreme-right actors use content strategies that shift the Overton window (i.e., the range of ideas acceptable in public discourse) rightward. In a self-proclaimed search of more transparency, Facebook created its Transparency Center in May 2021. It also has regularly updated its community standards, and Facebook Oversight Board has reviewed these standards based on concrete cases, published since January 2021. In this paper, we highlight how some longstanding issues regarding Facebook’s lack of transparency still remain unaddressed in Facebook’s 2021 community standards, mainly in terms of the visual ‘representation’ of and endorsement from dangerous organizations and individuals. Furthermore, we also reveal how the Board’s no-access to Facebook’s in-house rules exemplifies how the longstanding discrepancy between the public and the confidential levels of Facebook policies remains a current issue that might turn the Board’s work into a mere PR effort. In seeming to take as many steps toward shielding some information as it has toward exposing others to the sunshine, Facebook’s efforts might turn out to be transparency theater

Facebook’s policies against extremism: Ten years of struggle for more transparency

For years, social media, including Facebook, have been criticized for lacking transparency in their community standards, especially in terms of extremist content. Yet, moderation is not an easy task, especially when extreme-right actors use content strategies that shift the Overton window (i.e., the range of ideas acceptable in public discourse) rightward. In a self-proclaimed search of more transparency, Facebook created its Transparency Center in May 2021. It also has regularly updated its community standards, and Facebook Oversight Board has reviewed these standards based on concrete cases, published since January 2021. In this paper, we highlight how some longstanding issues regarding Facebook’s lack of transparency still remain unaddressed in Facebook’s 2021 community standards, mainly in terms of the visual ‘representation’ of and endorsement from dangerous organizations and individuals. Furthermore, we also reveal how the Board’s no-access to Facebook’s in-house rules exemplifies how the longstanding discrepancy between the public and the confidential levels of Facebook policies remains a current issue that might turn the Board’s work into a mere PR effort. In seeming to take as many steps toward shielding some information as it has toward exposing others to the sunshine, Facebook’s efforts might turn out to be transparency theater