Hubbry Logo
Beheading videoBeheading videoMain
Open search
Beheading video
Community hub
Beheading video
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Beheading video
Beheading video
Beheading video
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A beheading video is a video which depicts a live murder by beheading or the aftermath (e.g., display of the severed head). Such videos are typically distributed mostly through the Internet,[1] and are often employed by groups seeking to instill shock or terror into a population. Although beheading has been a widely employed public execution method since the ancient Greeks and Romans,[2] videos of this type only began to arise in 2002 with the beheading of Daniel Pearl and the growth of the Internet in the Information Age, which allowed groups to anonymously publish these videos for public consumption. The beheadings shown in these videos are usually not performed in a "classical" method — decapitating a victim quickly with a blow from a sword or axe — but by the relatively slow and torturous process of slicing and sawing the victim's neck, while still alive, with a knife.[3]

History

[edit]

The first beheading by the National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty was of Daniel Pearl in 2002.[4] The videos were popularized in 2004 by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a radical Islamic militant.[5]

The videos caused controversy among Islamic scholars, some of whom denounced them as against Islamic law; al-Qaeda did not approve and Osama bin Laden considered them poor public relations. Regardless, they became popular with certain Islamic terrorist groups, such as the Islamic State.[6]

Early videos were grainy and unsophisticated, but, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, had by 2004 been "growing in sophistication, using animated graphics and editing techniques apparently aimed at embellishing the audio to make a victim's final moments seem more disturbing".[7] These videos are often uploaded to the Internet by terrorists, then discussed and distributed by web-based outlets,[8] such as blogs, shock sites, and traditional journalistic media. In 2013, a beheading video by a Mexican drug cartel spread virally on Facebook. The non-profit organization Family Online Safety Institute petitioned Facebook to remove the video.[9] Initially, Facebook refused.[10] They later complied,[11] and subsequently clarified their policies, stating that beheading videos would only be allowed if posted in a manner intended for its users to "condemn" the acts.[12]

Writing in The Atlantic, Simon Cottee drew a comparison between jihadist videos and gonzo pornography.[13]

Videos released

[edit]

1996–1999

[edit]

2002

[edit]

2004

[edit]

2005–2013

[edit]

2014

[edit]

2015

[edit]
  • Haruna Yukawa, Japanese citizen, beheaded in January 2015 by IS jihadists.[46] A video released by ISIS on January 24, 2015, consists of audio message and a still image showing Kenji Goto holding a photograph of beheaded Yukawa. Unlike previous beheading videos released by ISIS, it does not show the actual beheading of Haruna Yukawa.
  • Kenji Goto, Japanese citizen, beheaded in January 2015 near Raqqa, Syria, by IS jihadists.[47]
  • Twenty-one Egyptian Coptic Christians, beheaded in February 2015 near Tripoli, Libya, by IS jihadists.[48][49][50]
  • Twenty-eight Ethiopian Christians, beheaded in Libya in April 2015 by IS jihadists.[51]
  • A video (article published July 2015) shows a boy executing a Syrian Arab Army soldier using a knife in Palmyra.[52]
  • Four Kurdish Peshmerga members, beheaded in Iraq in October 2015 by IS jihadists.[53]
  • A video showing the beheading of a Russian spy agent by an IS fighter, who is threatening Russia and President Vladimir Putin with attacks, was released in December 2015.[54][55]

2016

[edit]

2017

[edit]
  • Jürgen Kantner, German citizen, beheaded in February 2017 in the Philippines by Abu Sayyaf jihadists.[58]
  • IS has released a video claiming to show one of its jihadists beheading a Russian officer.[59]
  • Muhammad "Hamadi" Abdullah al-Ismail, Syrian citizen who allegedly deserted the Syrian Arab Army, tortured with a sledgehammer and beheaded near the al-Shaer oil fields, Homs Governorate, Syria (the first footage appeared online in June 2017) by Russian mercenaries linked to the Wagner Group.[60]

2018

[edit]

2019

[edit]
  • Ayafor Florence, Cameroonian citizen who worked as a wardress at the Bamenda Central Prison, beheaded on September 29, 2019 in Pinyin, Northwest Region, Cameroon by Ambazonian militants.[62]

2021

[edit]
  • A TikTok video showing a person being beheaded was uploaded by the user @mayengg03 and went viral. The clip starts with a young girl dancing in front of a camera, before switching to a different video with unrelated people where the beheading occurs. TikTok removed the video.[63]
  • An Egyptian man beheaded a victim and wandered in the street while holding up the severed head in broad daylight.[64]

2022

[edit]
  • Kanhaiya Lal, a Hindu tailor, was murdered during an attempted beheading following the 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy in India. The two Muslim perpetrators recorded themselves committing the crime but fled from the scene after slicing the victim's throat.[65]

2023

[edit]

2024

[edit]
  • An unemployed Pennsylvania resident and self-proclaimed militia leader, 33-year-old Justin Mohn, uploaded a 14-minute YouTube video that displayed the severed head of his 68-year-old father, Michael Mohn, whom he said "is now in hell for eternity as a traitor to this country". Police later confirmed that the father had died and his head had been removed, and charged him with first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse.[67][68][69] The video was removed from YouTube about five hours after it was published and the YouTube channel was terminated.[70] Justin Mohn was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in 2025.[71]

2025

[edit]
  • In late July 2025, a snuff film titled "The Vietnamese Butcher" showing the beheading of a victim was released on a private Telegram group, selling access for ¥89-¥198 for such contents.[72]

Hoax

[edit]

A hoax beheading video filmed by Benjamin Vanderford, Robert Martin, and Laurie Kirchner in 2004 received wide attention from the American press.[73] The video used Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad's logo, but not the group's flag. It was originally filmed for Vanderford's local election campaign.[74] He was seeking Matt Gonzalez's seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.[75] Vanderford's second intention was to point out how uncritically the mainstream media would accept an anonymous video.[76] The Islamic Global Media Center claimed to have made the video, but removed it from their website after the hoax was discovered.[77] The video also appeared on other militant websites and was broadcast on Arabic television.[78][79]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Beheading video

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A beheading video is a graphic audiovisual recording of a human , typically executed by or and produced by jihadist terrorist organizations to disseminate , instill widespread fear, and assert dominance over perceived enemies. These videos emerged as a signature tactic among groups like and the (ISIS), evolving from earlier insurgent practices in conflicts such as the , where they served to publicize executions of captives, including foreign hostages and local collaborators, while invoking religious justifications rooted in interpretations of permitting as . The production and distribution of such videos intensified in the 2010s under ISIS, which refined them into high-production-value media featuring scripted narratives, masked executioners, and calls to global jihad, often shared via social media platforms to maximize reach and recruit sympathizers. Empirical analyses indicate these videos aimed to brutalize audiences psychologically, with studies finding that exposure correlated with heightened perceptions of terrorism threats among viewers, though actual recruitment efficacy remains debated due to self-selection biases in consumption data. Controversies surrounding beheading videos center on their role in amplifying jihadist branding—distinguishing perpetrators from rivals through ritualistic spectacle—while prompting ethical debates over media censorship, public access, and counter-narratives, as Western governments and platforms grappled with visibility versus suppression to mitigate terror effects. Unlike sporadic historical precedents in warfare or criminal acts, their systematic use by jihadists reflects a calculated strategy leveraging digital dissemination for asymmetric influence, with territorial control enabling repeated productions until military defeats curtailed output post-2017.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Elements and Production Features

Core elements of beheading videos produced by jihadist groups typically include a scripted sequence beginning with the identification of the victim as an enemy—often a Western , , or local collaborator—followed by a coerced or ideological statement justifying the execution under Islamic . The execution itself features a masked perpetrator using a to decapitate the bound victim in a prolonged manner, with emphasizing the severing of the head, spray, and the display of the severed head to symbolize triumph and retribution. Audio components consist of verbal denunciations in or English by the , recitations of Quranic verses or hadiths endorsing , and acapella nasheeds (religious chants) to evoke and resolve, avoiding musical instruments per Salafi interpretations. In Al-Qaeda's 2002 video of Daniel Pearl's beheading, these elements appear in rudimentary form: Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter, is shown reciting a scripted statement renouncing his Jewish heritage and U.S. policies, prior to the off-camera decapitation revealed through post-execution display of his head, compiled into a four-minute clip lacking advanced editing. Symbolism reinforces group ideology, such as victims clad in Guantanamo Bay-style orange jumpsuits to invoke American "" or local military uniforms to denote , with black jihadist flags and executioners in tactical gear signifying pseudo-state authority. Production features evolved from Al-Qaeda's low-fidelity, handheld recordings in the early —characterized by shaky camera work, poor lighting, and minimal —to ISIS's sophisticated outputs by , employing high-definition cameras, multiple angles, and professional editing software for synchronized multi-victim executions, as seen in the simultaneous beheading of 22 Syrian soldiers filmed over 4-6 hours with clip-on microphones and title graphics. media wings like utilized dedicated teams for scripting, filming in controlled desert or studio settings, and digital enhancement to heighten visceral impact, costing up to $200,000 per video through repeated takes and selective editing to excise inconsistencies or failed attempts. This polish aimed to blend Hollywood aesthetics with religious spectacle, facilitating viral dissemination via encrypted uploads to platforms like and Telegram.

Historical Development

Pre-Digital Era Contexts

Beheading has served as a method of execution and across civilizations, often performed publicly to maximize psychological impact and reinforce . In ancient and medieval societies, was a common , with displayed on spikes, gates, or poles to deter rebellion and instill fear among populations; this practice, documented in Roman, European, and Ottoman contexts, functioned as an early form of visual by making the consequences of defiance viscerally apparent to witnesses. Into the , public beheadings persisted in for high , as seen in the execution and posthumous decapitation of conspirators in England's of 1605, where bodies were quartered and heads exhibited to symbolize sovereign power over dissenters. Such spectacles drew large crowds, serving dual purposes of communal and state deterrence, though they sometimes incited unrest rather than submission. In the , prior to digital dissemination, beheading retained utility in warfare and state executions for terrorizing enemies. During , Japanese forces routinely decapitated prisoners and civilians with swords, as evidenced by a photograph capturing Australian commando blindfolded and bound moments before his beheading on October 24, 1943, in , —an image later recovered from a deceased Japanese soldier's possessions, highlighting the act's role in demoralizing Allied forces. Similar atrocities, including Japanese soldiers posing with decapitated Chinese victims near the Great Wall, were captured in still , underscoring beheading's persistence as a tool of psychological dominance in asymmetric conflicts. State-sanctioned public beheadings continued in regions applying strict interpretations, such as , where sword executions in urban squares like Riyadh's have occurred since the kingdom's establishment in 1932, often for offenses including , drug trafficking, and , with crowds gathered to witness the swift as a deterrent. By the early , execution rates escalated, reaching records of over 40 annually by , primarily under Islamic legal frameworks emphasizing public visibility to enforce moral and , though photographic or filmed records remained limited to official or clandestine purposes rather than widespread distribution. These pre-digital instances relied on live attendance and static imagery for propagation, prefiguring the amplified reach of later video formats in amplifying horror and ideological messaging.

Digital Emergence and Early Adoption (1990s–2003)

The proliferation of affordable consumer-grade video recording devices in the , alongside nascent networks, facilitated the initial documentation of beheading executions by militant groups. During the Second Chechen War (1999–2009), Islamist-influenced Chechen fighters captured and circulated footage of prisoner executions, including beheadings of Russian soldiers, primarily via physical videotapes that shocked domestic and international audiences. These recordings served immediate tactical purposes, such as demoralizing Russian forces, but lacked the systematic online propagation seen later. A pivotal advancement occurred with the , , beheading of American journalist in , , by al-Qaeda affiliates under Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's direction. The resulting three-minute video, which included Pearl's coerced statements affirming his Jewish heritage followed by his decapitation, was produced with evident intent for and rapidly uploaded to jihadist websites and forums. authorities confirmed the video's authenticity through forensic analysis, attributing it to operatives including , who faced conviction for facilitating the kidnapping and murder. This incident represented early adoption of for global dissemination, as the video evaded initial takedown efforts by U.S. and Pakistani officials, spreading via email chains, file-sharing platforms, and early extremist online communities before reappearing on hosting sites. By 2003, had integrated such videos into its post-9/11 repertoire to project power, coerce ransoms, and radicalize viewers, though production volumes remained low—limited to fewer than a dozen confirmed releases—constrained by technical access and operational secrecy in regions like and . The tactic's appeal stemmed from its visceral , rooted in historical precedents of public executions but amplified by digital virality, prompting debates on coverage .

Expansion in Global Terrorism (2004–2013)

The period from 2004 to 2013 marked a peak and subsequent evolution in the use of beheading videos by jihadist groups, primarily as a propaganda tool amid insurgencies in and , with limited extension to other theaters. In , Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (later , or AQI) pioneered systematic video-recorded decapitations, releasing at least 11 such videos in 2004 to showcase brutality against hostages and coalition personnel. This tactic escalated following the May 11, 2004, beheading of American contractor Nick Berg, whose video was disseminated online to avenge U.S. prison abuses at and intimidate foreign forces. Overall, recorded 64 decapitations across 32 attacks in 2004 alone, with 28 videotaped, primarily by AQI and affiliates like Ansar al-Sunna; this represented a sharp expansion from prior sporadic uses, driven by low production barriers and platforms enabling global reach to recruit sympathizers and demoralize adversaries. Videotaping declined in Iraq after 2004—dropping to 5 in 2005 and 2 in 2006 amid tactical shifts and U.S. counteroperations—but decapitations persisted at high levels (56 in 2006), sustaining the tactic's role in against and civilians. AQI's videos emphasized ritualistic elements, such as masked executioners invoking religious justifications, to project dominance and ideological purity, though internal leadership critiqued the graphic excess; Ayman al-Zawahiri's July 2005 letter to Zarqawi warned that beheading videos alienated potential Muslim allies by evoking "bad publicity" and deviating from strategic focus on broader . Despite such rebukes, the practice endured, influencing AQI's successors like the (ISI) by 2010, which continued sporadic releases to signal resilience during the U.S. surge and draw foreign fighters. Beyond , beheading videos expanded modestly in , with the in conducting 5 videotaped decapitations in 2004 and 24 total beheadings in 2005, often targeting troops and locals to assert control in contested areas. In , Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) emulated this by 2007–2013, releasing videos of soldier beheadings to retaliate against military operations, as seen in a March 2013 execution in South Waziristan. Isolated instances appeared elsewhere, including one in (2004) by affiliates and three in Indian by Lashkar-e-Taiba-linked militants, reflecting inspirational diffusion from Iraq's model but constrained by local audience backlash and operational priorities favoring less alienating violence. The tactic's global footprint remained limited, with only sparse videotaping outside Iraq (e.g., 3 total in / from 2004–2009), as groups like the prioritized territorial gains over foreign mobilization, underscoring beheading videos' niche as a high-impact but risky instrument.

Primary Actors and Motivations

Islamist Extremist Groups

Islamist extremist groups, particularly those adhering to Salafi-jihadist ideologies such as and the (ISIS), have prominently utilized beheading videos since the late 1990s as a core element of their operational repertoire. These groups initiated the practice in conflict zones like and , evolving it into a deliberate strategy to project power, deter adversaries, and recruit sympathizers by showcasing ritualized executions framed as under their interpretation of Islamic law. 's early adoption, including the 2002 beheading of American journalist by and associates, served to publicize grievances against Western interventions and humiliate captives on camera, marking a shift toward visually explicit for global dissemination. The motivations underpinning this tactic stem from a combination of and ideological reinforcement, aiming to instill terror in enemies while signaling commitment to a totalizing vision of . For affiliates, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's , beheadings in videos like that of Nick Berg in May 2004 were intended to retaliate against perceived crusader aggressions, provoke overreactions from coalition forces, and appeal to potential fighters by emphasizing brutality as a legitimate response to occupation. This approach drew on historical precedents in jihadist conflicts but amplified them through for broader reach, with groups citing Quranic verses on retribution (e.g., 5:33) to justify as punishment for or , though such interpretations diverge from mainstream Sunni scholarship. ISIS markedly intensified and professionalized the use of beheading videos from 2014 onward, producing high-production-value releases featuring Western hostages like James Foley in August 2014 to coerce policy changes, such as pressuring the U.S. to halt airstrikes, while segmenting audiences through staged spectacles that glorified fighters as enforcers of a . Unlike Al-Qaeda's more rudimentary efforts, ISIS's systematic campaigns integrated beheadings into multimedia propaganda ecosystems, including magazines like Dabiq, to desensitize supporters to violence, attract foreign recruits via shock value, and demoralize opponents by visualizing territorial control and unyielding enforcement of penalties. Affiliates like in and Al-Shabaab in emulated this model, adapting videos for local insurgencies to amplify fear and loyalty, with over 100 documented executions by ISIS alone between 2014 and 2017 serving dual roles in governance terror and ideological . These tactics reflect a causal logic wherein graphic violence reinforces group cohesion and external intimidation, though empirical analyses indicate limited success in sustained recruitment compared to narrative appeals.

Transnational Criminal Organizations

Transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), particularly Mexican drug cartels such as and the , have employed beheading videos as tools of intimidation and since the mid-2000s to assert dominance over rivals, corrupt officials, and local populations in drug trafficking corridors spanning , , and the . These groups, designated by U.S. authorities as significant transnational threats due to their cross-border operations in narcotics smuggling, , and , produce such content to publicize executions, deter cooperation with , and recruit enforcers by demonstrating ruthless efficiency. Unlike ideological terrorist , cartel videos emphasize raw criminal retribution, often featuring interrogations followed by decapitations with chainsaws or knives to maximize visceral impact and territorial control. Los Zetas, originally composed of defected Mexican special forces soldiers, pioneered the systematic use of beheading videos in the late 2000s, with footage from 2011 showing the group's members decapitating a Guatemalan amid expansion into Central American routes. In June 2012, rival operatives released a video depicting the interrogation and beheading of at least three Zetas members, uploaded to cartel-tracking blogs to taunt competitors and signal unyielding vendettas in the escalating turf wars that claimed over 60,000 lives between 2006 and 2012. These videos proliferated via platforms like and narco-blogs starting around 2005, evolving from tapes to digital uploads that amplified their reach across borders. The and its splinter groups, including the (CJNG), have also disseminated beheading content, such as a 2007 video purporting to show the execution of a rival hitman amid clashes with Zetas for routes. More recent instances, including a 2023 video circulating on showing the apparent decapitation of kidnapped youths in state, underscore ongoing use by CJNG-linked factions to enforce rackets and punish perceived betrayals, with Mexican prosecutors attributing such acts to cartel infighting rather than isolated . Academic analyses of over a dozen cartel execution videos from 2005–2015 reveal beheading as the dominant method in filmed killings, often performed in ritualistic "macabre ceremonies" to dehumanize victims and instill collective fear, distinct from mere disposal of bodies. Cartels' adoption of beheading videos reflects a strategic rooted in market control rather than proselytizing , with dissemination timed to coincide with enforcement operations or rival incursions, as evidenced by spikes in uploads during peak violence periods like the 2010–2012 cartel wars. designations of groups like CJNG as transnational criminal organizations highlight their role in fueling hemispheric instability, where such videos not only terrorize communities but also complicate by glorifying perpetrators as untouchable kingpins. Despite platform crackdowns, the videos persist on fringe sites, perpetuating a cycle of emulation among splinter factions vying for plazas (territories) in Mexico's fractured underworld.

Strategic Role in Propaganda and Warfare

Tactical Objectives and Dissemination Methods

Beheading videos employed by jihadist groups such as and primarily pursue objectives of psychological , aiming to demoralize adversaries and populations by visualizing extreme brutality as a demonstration of unyielding commitment to their cause. These videos compensate for conventional disadvantages by leveraging to provoke , coerce concessions from governments, and disrupt enemy cohesion, as evidenced in 's use of executions to threaten Western coalitions during the 2014-2017 period. Theological framing within the videos justifies the acts as retribution against apostates or infidels, reinforcing group legitimacy and signaling dominance to potential recruits. A secondary objective involves and ideological propagation, where the staged theatricality of beheadings—often featuring scripted narratives and high production values—portrays perpetrators as heroic enforcers of divine order, appealing to alienated individuals seeking identity and purpose. Analysis of 79 English-language videos from 2014-2017 shows executions comprising 4.45% of content, strategically integrated to affirm narratives of resilience and global reach despite territorial losses. This approach extends to broader warfare dynamics, where videos provoke international outrage to frame efforts as , thereby validating jihadist calls to arms. Dissemination relies on decentralized, multi-platform strategies orchestrated by dedicated media arms like ISIS's , which produced cinematic-quality content in multiple languages to target Western audiences. Videos were initially released through official channels on , including campaigns involving approximately 3,000 accounts generating 90,000 daily tweets, often using automation tools like the "Dawn of Glad Tidings" app to evade detection and hijack trends. Alternative platforms such as and VKontakte hosted full releases, like the August 19, 2014, beheading of James Foley, while proxies and screen captures facilitated viral spread after rapid takedowns from mainstream sites like , which removed the Foley video within an hour of upload. Mainstream media amplification through partial broadcasts further extended reach, despite platform policies aimed at suppression.

Psychological and Ideological Effects

Beheading videos, particularly those produced by Islamist extremist groups like , induce acute psychological distress in unintended viewers by leveraging to amplify perceptions of . A study surveying a representative U.S. sample revealed that around 20% of adults had viewed at least part of an beheading video, with primary predictors including preexisting of and lifetime exposure to ; participants reported heightened anxiety and reinforced threat appraisals post-viewing, suggesting a feedback loop where motivates consumption, which in turn exacerbates emotional responses. Similar patterns emerged in broader analyses of graphic terror media, where exposure correlates with elevated risk perceptions and short-term spikes in stress-related symptoms, though long-term PTSD-like effects vary by individual resilience and repeated viewing. For sympathizers or marginally predisposed individuals, these videos can foster desensitization to , potentially priming of brutality as a normative tool of conflict; psychological analyses indicate that such content may normalize extreme acts by framing them within ideological justifications, reducing moral inhibitions over time. This effect is compounded by the videos' high-production quality and ritualistic elements, which evoke a sense of inevitability and power, contributing to viewer demoralization in targeted adversary populations. Ideologically, beheading videos serve as instruments to disseminate Salafi-jihadist doctrines, portraying executions as fulfillment of Quranic prescriptions for retribution against apostates and infidels, thereby legitimizing group and signaling uncompromising commitment to recruits and rivals alike. This narrative reinforces in-group cohesion by glorifying perpetrators as pious warriors, while deterring opposition through demonstrated willingness to employ archaic, visceral punishments that evoke historical imagery. In recruitment contexts, the videos attract individuals drawn to displays of dominance and retribution, funneling into deeper ideological , though empirical links them more strongly to inspiration for lone actors than mass enlistment, with effects amplified among those already exposed to jihadist networks. On a societal level, during ISIS's territorial peak (2014–2017) eroded among Iraqi and Syrian forces and civilians, fostering perceptions of inevitability that prompted defections and compliance; post-exposure surveys in affected regions documented increased and reduced resistance willingness. For Western audiences, the ideological ripple includes polarized responses, with some analyses attributing heightened policy support for interventions to outrage-induced resolve, counterbalancing the intended fear. Overall, while effective in against soft targets, the videos' ideological propagation relies on selective reception, succeeding primarily with ideologically aligned viewers amid broader societal revulsion.

Notable Examples by Period

Al-Qaeda-Influenced Releases (2002–2013)

The practice of releasing beheading videos gained prominence among -influenced actors starting with the execution of American journalist on February 1, 2002, in , . Pearl had been kidnapped on , 2002, by a group led by British-Pakistani , who lured him under false pretenses for an ; the beheading was personally carried out by , 's operational chief and architect of the 9/11 attacks, using a knife in a dimly lit room, overriding objections from other figures who favored a . The six-minute video, titled "The Slaying of the Spy Journalist ," was uploaded to jihadist websites days later, showing Pearl reciting scripted statements affirming Jewish identity and U.S. guilt in before the decapitation, marking the first widespread digital dissemination of such graphic content by the network to amplify and intimidate adversaries. Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's — which pledged allegiance to in October 2004, rebranding as (AQI)—systematically adopted beheading videos as a signature tactic, producing at least 11 in 2004 alone to provoke , deter coalition forces, and recruit globally by showcasing dominance over captives. These releases targeted Western contractors and aid workers, often framed as retribution for perceived humiliations like abuses, with videos featuring masked executors chanting slogans and sawing with knives to prolong suffering for visual impact. Notable examples include the May 11, 2004, video of American contractor Nick Berg, captured April 9 near and beheaded by Zarqawi himself according to U.S. intelligence, with the footage explicitly linking the act to prisoner mistreatment and spreading rapidly via forums despite hosting site takedowns. The tactic extended beyond Iraq, as seen in the June 18, 2004, beheading of American engineer Paul Johnson in by Abdulaziz al-Muqrin's Al-Qaeda-linked cell, who kidnapped him on June 12 near and released partial video footage confirming the after Saudi refusals to negotiate, aiming to expel Western influence from the . In , AQI continued with executions like British engineer Kenneth Bigley, kidnapped September 16, 2004, alongside Americans Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong; Bigley's October 7 video depicted him caged and pleading before beheading, following similar releases for the Americans on September 21 and 20, respectively, all attributed to Zarqawi's direct oversight to maximize psychological terror. From 2005 to Zarqawi's death in a U.S. on June 7, 2006, AQI released additional videos targeting diverse victims, including South Korean interpreter Kim Sun-il on June 22, 2004, and Bulgarian contractors, often blending executions with demands for troop withdrawals, though frequency waned post-Zarqawi as leadership shifted to . Through 2013, affiliates like AQI (evolving into the ) sustained sporadic releases, such as local Iraqi officials and security personnel, using forums and early social media for distribution to sustain intimidation amid gains, with videos emphasizing ritualistic elements to evoke historical precedents in Islamic while prioritizing raw deterrence over polished production until ISIS's later innovations.

ISIS-Dominated Era (2014–2017)

The markedly intensified its production and dissemination of beheading videos during 2014–2017, leveraging them as a signature element of its apparatus to , deter intervention, and appeal to potential recruits. These videos, often featuring high production values such as scripted narratives, professional editing, and English-language subtitles, were primarily produced by the group's , which targeted Western audiences. The executions typically involved a masked militant, identified in multiple cases as Mohammed Emwazi (known as "Jihadi John"), delivering threats against coalition governments before the act. ISIS claimed responsibility for beheading at least five Western hostages in a rapid sequence during late 2014, framing the killings as retribution for airstrikes. A pivotal video released on August 19, 2014, depicted the beheading of American journalist James Foley, captured in in 2012, with the executioner warning the against further intervention. This was followed on September 2, 2014, by the beheading of American journalist , kidnapped in 2013, in a video that explicitly linked the act to U.S. military actions. On September 13, 2014, British aid worker David Haines, abducted in 2014, was beheaded in a similar format, with threats directed at the . The sequence culminated on October 3, 2014, with the beheading of British aid worker , captured earlier that year while delivering supplies, underscoring ISIS's targeting of humanitarian personnel. A November 16, 2014, video claimed the beheading of American aid worker Peter Kassig, though it primarily displayed dismembered remains, marking a shift in visual emphasis while maintaining the beheading motif. Beyond Western victims, affiliates produced videos of mass beheadings to amplify sectarian terror. On February 15, 2015, its Libyan branch released footage of 21 Egyptian Coptic beheaded on a beach, captioned "A Message Signed with Blood to the Nation of the Cross." In April 2015, another video showed the execution of approximately 30 Ethiopian in , divided into groups for beheading and shooting. These productions extended 's reach through provincial media outlets accredited by central bodies like , often disseminated via platforms despite takedown efforts. By 2016–2017, as lost territorial control, beheading videos persisted but shifted toward local enforcements and battlefield claims, such as a May 9, 2017, video purporting to show the beheading of a Russian intelligence officer in . Overall, these videos numbered in the dozens, with executing hundreds via beheading in total during the caliphate's peak, though precise counts vary due to unverified claims. The strategy relied on graphic spectacle to enforce ideological purity, punish perceived apostates, and psychologically dominate adversaries, though it also provoked intensified international coalition responses.

Recent and Ongoing Incidents (2018–Present)

In the period following the territorial losses of the (ISIS) core in and , beheading videos have continued to emerge primarily from ISIS affiliates and aligned jihadist groups in , though with reduced frequency and production quality compared to the 2014–2017 era. These incidents often serve propaganda purposes, targeting perceived spies, apostates, or non-Muslims, and are disseminated via encrypted platforms like Telegram rather than polished media wings. Groups such as (ISWAP) and al-Shabaab have documented such executions, reflecting persistent tactical use amid ongoing insurgencies. A notable example occurred on December 26, 2019, when ISWAP released a video depicting the execution of 11 Christian captives in northeastern Nigeria's , purportedly in retaliation for the deaths of ISIS leaders and Abu Hasheem al-Qurayshi. The footage showed one man being shot and the remaining ten beheaded by masked militants, with the executions framed as enforcement of Islamic law against non-believers refusing conversion. This incident, claimed via ISIS's official channels, highlighted ISWAP's alignment with central ISIS directives on brutality for and . On January 20, 2020, ISWAP disseminated another video showing a militant executing a 22-year-old Christian student from , , accused of and spying. The execution, conducted with a knife in line with jihadist beheading protocols, underscored the group's of minors and targeting of religious minorities to assert territorial control in rural areas. Such videos, while graphic, were shorter and less scripted than prior ISIS productions, adapting to operational constraints post-caliphate. Al-Shabaab, though not formally ISIS-affiliated, has sustained beheading tactics in cross-border operations, including attacks in Kenya's . On June 24–25, 2023, militants beheaded at least five civilians in villages near the Somali border, with displayed as warnings against with Kenyan ; while no public video was confirmed released, the act aligns with the group's history of filming executions for internal and deterrence. Similar decapitations occurred in prior years, such as nine Kenyan quarry workers in , but post-2018 incidents emphasize localized intimidation over viral dissemination. In October 2024, extremists beheaded four abducted individuals in , , amid renewed offensives displacing thousands; reports did not specify video release, but the method echoes the group's emulation of ISIS-style violence since aligning with its ideology in 2015. ISWAP and factions have conducted dozens of such killings annually in the region, contributing to over 300 civilian deaths from targeted executions in 2023 alone, per conflict monitoring data. These ongoing acts demonstrate beheadings' enduring role in jihadist warfare, despite counterterrorism pressures reducing video outputs.

Societal Impacts and Viewer Dynamics

Trauma, Desensitization, and Public Response

Exposure to beheading videos, particularly those produced by groups like , has been linked to acute psychological distress, including elevated of victimization and stress symptoms among viewers. A 2019 study surveying a representative sample of U.S. adults found that viewers experienced significantly higher distress levels and anticipated greater personal risk from compared to non-viewers, with motivations for watching often tied to a need to comprehend the threat rather than mere curiosity. Approximately 20% of respondents reported viewing at least part of an ISIS beheading video, while 5% watched an entire one, indicating substantial unintended exposure despite platform warnings. A 2024 peer-reviewed analysis in PNAS of graphic war and terror imagery, including beheading footage, demonstrated that such media independently predicts poorer outcomes, such as intensified anxiety and reduced daily functioning, even after controlling for pre-existing vulnerabilities. This aligns with expert warnings from trauma specialists, who in 2014 advised against viewing due to risks of secondary post-traumatic stress, akin to observed in . For content moderators and investigators routinely encountering these videos, cumulative exposure has resulted in chronic symptoms like and , as documented in qualitative studies of digital workplace trauma. Evidence for desensitization remains limited and context-specific; while general on repeated media violence exposure suggests potential emotional numbing over time, beheading videos elicit persistent horror and due to their unfiltered brutality and ideological framing, rather than . Viewers in surveys reported amplified rather than diminished responses, challenging assumptions of rapid acclimation. Public responses have combined revulsion with morbid fascination, fueling viral sharing and media debates on visibility. In the UK, an estimated 1.2 million individuals accessed James Foley's 2014 beheading video shortly after release, prompting government advisories against viewing to mitigate societal panic. Outrage manifested in policy demands for stricter platform enforcement, yet fascination persisted, with some framing the videos as a "gruesome serial drama" that drew audiences despite ethical prohibitions. Overall, these dynamics heightened collective anxiety about Islamist extremism, correlating with spikes in public support for measures post-release.

Motivations for Consumption and Radicalization Risks

Individuals consume beheading videos produced by terrorist groups primarily out of and a desire to gather information about threats, with empirical surveys indicating that these motivations drive viewing among approximately 20-25% of representative U.S. adult samples who encountered such content online or via news. Fear of serves as a key psychological driver, correlating with decisions to watch at least portions of videos, alongside prior exposure to in one's lifetime. Demographic predictors include male gender, older age, Christian affiliation, , and frequent , suggesting that viewers often seek to process real-world dangers through direct engagement rather than passive avoidance. Qualitative accounts from viewers highlight unintentional exposure through media recommendations or news links, as well as ease of access on platforms, reinforcing that consumption frequently stems from situational factors rather than premeditated thrill-seeking or ideological affinity. A smaller subset—around 5% in U.S. studies—views entire videos, potentially motivated by emotional responses like toward attacks or a sense of religious or moral duty to confront evil, though these remain secondary to informational goals. In contexts of active seeking, such as among European young adults, up to 36% report pursuing beheading videos as part of broader jihadist media exploration, but this is less common than curiosity-driven incidental viewing and often co-occurs with other content like magazines or speeches. For the vast majority, consumption does not indicate sympathy with perpetrators; instead, it aligns with coping mechanisms amid heightened threat perceptions post-events like 9/11 or ISIS campaigns. Radicalization risks from beheading video exposure appear limited and correlational rather than directly causal, with no large-scale empirical studies establishing viewing as a primary pathway to among general audiences. Cross-sectional research on young adults shows that seeking graphic jihadist materials, including executions, weakly predicts cognitive —such as sympathy for attacks—after controlling for and prior antisocial behavior, but beheading videos exhibit the lowest association compared to textual like magazines. This suggests that while repeated, intentional engagement may reinforce preexisting vulnerabilities in predisposed individuals (e.g., those with low inhibitions), isolated or fear-motivated viewing more often heightens viewer distress and anti-terrorism resolve, potentially countering radical appeal. Broader online ecosystems pose greater risks through algorithmic escalation, but evidence specific to beheadings underscores desensitization or trauma over conversion, with radical outcomes rare absent offline networks or personal grievances. Overall, platforms' dissemination amplifies exposure, yet like strong social ties and critical mitigate progression to action.

Platform Policies and Government Actions

Major platforms, including , , and (now X), maintain policies explicitly prohibiting terrorist content such as beheading videos, which are classified under , to , and graphic abuse. These rules mandate rapid removal of such material, often within hours of detection, to prevent dissemination and recruitment. For instance, 's guidelines ban videos promoting or showing executions, employing automated systems and human reviewers to enforce compliance. In response to ISIS beheading videos released between 2014 and 2017, platforms accelerated efforts. Following the August 2014 upload of James Foley's beheading video, suspended hundreds of accounts sharing it and removed the footage, citing violations of its graphic violence policy. and similarly blocked the Steven Sotloff beheading video shortly after its September 2014 release, using proactive hashing to prevent re-uploads. By 2015, these companies collaborated via the Global Internet Forum to Counter , sharing hashes of prohibited content like ISIS executions to enable cross-platform detection and removal. Government actions complement platform policies through regulatory pressure and international operations. In the United States, congressional hearings in 2017 and 2019 scrutinized platforms' handling of terrorist , urging enhanced proactive measures without altering liability protections for intermediaries. The , via its 2017 Directive on Combating , requires member states to criminalize dissemination of terrorist , including videos, and mandates platforms remove such content upon referral. In 2024, , with U.S. FBI and DOJ participation, dismantled ISIS-linked servers hosting , including execution footage, across multiple countries. These efforts reflect coordinated takedowns rather than blanket bans, balancing enforcement with free expression concerns.

Debates on Censorship Versus Transparency

The debate centers on whether beheading videos disseminated by groups like and should be systematically removed from online platforms to curb their propagandistic impact or preserved for public access to foster informed discourse on 's realities. Proponents of argue that such content serves primarily as a and tool, with platforms like and implementing policies to delete it en masse; for instance, in 2015, advocated for accelerated removal of ISIS beheading videos to disrupt their viral spread and undermine the group's narrative control. Empirical data from platform transparency reports indicate that proactive moderation reduced the online lifespan of terrorist , with the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism facilitating the hashing and removal of over 300,000 unique terrorist items by 2024, including execution videos, thereby limiting audience reach. Critics of unrestricted access, including researchers, cite studies showing that exposure to graphic beheadings correlates with heightened global distress and fear of victimization, as observed in a 2019 analysis of U.S. viewers of ISIS videos where approximately one in five adults reported partial viewing linked to prospective anxiety. Opponents of heavy-handed contend that blanket removals risk "censorship creep," where vague definitions of "" or "terrorist" content extend to legitimate political speech or journalistic reporting, as evidenced by erroneous takedowns of anti-ISIS activist posts and advisories under global terms-of-service . From a transparency perspective, allowing controlled access to such videos provides "visual facts" that contextualize the brutality of jihadist tactics within political and debates, enabling policymakers and the to grasp the unfiltered stakes of efforts without relying on sanitized summaries that may understate threats. Experimental supports this, with a 2024 study finding that exposure to ISIS beheading imagery in 2014 strengthened U.S. resolve for anti-terror measures, including support for intervention, by evoking visceral condemnation rather than desensitization or sympathy. Moreover, transparency facilitates counter-radicalization strategies, such as Google's Redirect Method, which exposes searchers of jihadist content to deradicalizing videos, potentially diverting recruits by confronting them with the full spectrum of ideological alternatives rather than driving discourse underground. This tension has influenced platform policies and regulations, with the European Union's 2021 Terrorist Content Online Regulation mandating rapid removal (within one hour) of flagged beheading videos to prioritize over openness, yet drawing free-speech critiques for enabling overbroad enforcement without judicial oversight. In the U.S., congressional hearings have highlighted risks of private-sector overreach mirroring government , as seen in 2017 testimonies warning that aggressive could stifle debate on terrorism's root causes. Truth-seeking analyses emphasize causal trade-offs: while demonstrably curtails immediate propagation, empirical gaps persist on long-term prevention, with some data suggesting suppressed visibility amplifies mythic allure among vulnerable audiences, underscoring the need for evidence-based thresholds rather than absolutist approaches.

Hoaxes and Misattributions

Documented Fabrications and Detection Challenges

Several hoaxes masquerading as authentic terrorist beheading videos have been documented, often circulated online to incite fear or for personal notoriety. In August 2004, a video purporting to depict the beheading of an American contractor in Iraq was exposed as a fabrication when its creator, Benjamin Vanderford, admitted to staging it at a friend's house using fake blood and props resembling hostage attire; Vanderford claimed he intended it as a prank but posted it anonymously on the internet, leading to widespread initial belief in its authenticity. Similarly, in July 2015, six HSBC bank employees in Birmingham, UK, were dismissed after producing a mock Islamic State-style execution video featuring staged beheadings with colleagues dressed in orange jumpsuits, imitating ISIS propaganda; although not publicly disseminated as real, the internal fabrication highlighted the ease of replicating terrorist aesthetics for non-terrorist purposes. These cases underscore broader patterns where non-jihadist actors imitate beheading videos, sometimes leading to misattribution as genuine terrorist output until debunked by confessions or forensic review. For instance, mock executions by on hostages prior to actual killings were reported, with some footage potentially repurposed or exaggerated in online circulation, blurring lines between rehearsal and final propaganda. However, documented instances of terrorist groups themselves fabricating entirely false beheading videos—rather than staging real ones with editing—are rare, as groups like prioritized verifiable brutality to maintain credibility among supporters; speculation about fakes in high-profile cases, such as the 2014 James Foley video, arose from unusual elements like the executioner's knife appearing ineffective, but subsequent analyses affirmed its authenticity through blood spatter consistency and audio-video synchronization. Detecting fabrications poses significant forensic challenges due to the low-resolution, heavily compressed of many circulated videos, which obscures tampering artifacts like interframe inconsistencies or double compression traces indicative of . Passive detection methods, relying on inherent video signals without watermarks, struggle with jihadist productions' professional —such as masked perpetrators, obscured bodies, and effects—that mimic authentic violence while evading automated tools; for example, inconsistencies in , , or physiological responses (e.g., unnatural flow or flinching) require expert manual , often delayed by access restrictions on graphic content. Emerging technologies exacerbate this, enabling seamless face swaps or synthetic gore that withstand traditional forensics, though as of 2023, no confirmed beheading videos from terrorist sources have surfaced; challenges are compounded by anti-forensic techniques, like noise addition to mask edits, and the psychological reluctance of analysts to view , potentially delaying verification. Credible detection demands multi-modal forensics combining video, audio, and metadata scrutiny, yet rapid viral spread on platforms outpaces thorough , fostering persistent misattributions.

References

  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26453133
  2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433231164442
  3. https://traccc.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BEHEADING-AS-A-SIGNATURE-METHOD-OF-JIHADIST-TERRORISM-FROM-SYRIA-TO-FRANCE-ESJ-4.pdf
  4. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/whats-behind-isis-gruesome-strategy
  5. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03608-y
  6. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2019-09638-001.html
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2018.1444955
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-corpse-politics/visual-politics-of-isis-beheadings/FEC9DDE22DA55233089F039D2FA291CA
  9. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/field/field_document/INTA91_4_03_Friis.pdf
  10. https://traccc.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/The-ISIS-Model-and-its-Influence-Over-Global-Terrorism.pdf
  11. https://academic.oup.com/book/35146/chapter/299345036
  12. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1470357218803396
  13. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/daniel-pearl-omar-saeed-sheikh-justice.php
  14. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/world/isis-syria-video-analysis/
  15. https://www.npr.org/2014/08/29/344327974/the-spectacle-of-the-beheading-a-grisly-act-with-a-long-history
  16. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C21918
  17. https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/leonard-siffleet-sword-1943/
  18. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/05/08/saudi-beheadings-running-at-a-record-pace/4077a612-b231-40b6-a28d-8e6f7ee99331/
  19. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde230041993en.pdf
  20. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/20/chechnya-russian-brutality-ukraine-war/
  21. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/28/961485215/pakistans-top-court-orders-release-for-killer-of-wall-street-journal-reporter
  22. https://www.rcfp.org/pearl-video-returns-web-site-after-fbi-complaint/
  23. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/29/pakistan-authorities-appeal-acquittals-in-pearl-beheading-case
  24. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/122228/1/664197027.pdf
  25. https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2005/zawahiri-zarqawi-letter_9jul2005.htm
  26. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/22/even-al-qaeda-denounced-beheading-videos-why-the-islamic-state-brought-them-back/
  27. https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/03/pakistani_taliban_ex_1.php
  28. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/islamic-state-propaganda-mainstream-media
  29. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZRtaQSk7G0
  30. https://research.monash.edu/files/23945870/23945763.pdf
  31. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35695648
  32. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/6975/2086
  33. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/mexico-drug-cartels-use-gory-videos-to-spread-fear-idUSTRE6734E7/
  34. https://insightcrime.org/news/brief/video-shows-zetas-beheading-guatemala-official/
  35. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-jalisco-cartel-demanding-protection-money-bar-hostesses-gunpoint-mexico/
  36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26330024211059840
  37. https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/drug-cartel-rivals-behead-zetas-camera/story?id=16670584
  38. https://www.theguardian.com/p/b4nx?CMP=gu_com
  39. https://www.crashoutmedia.com/p/cartel-propaganda-videos-a-history
  40. https://apnews.com/article/mexico-decapitation-video-kidnapped-youths-f50e5606107094a5ae43d4e06208ada5
  41. https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/prosecutors-investigating-gruesome-cartel-video
  42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27160796
  43. https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=swarthmoreirjournal
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30802079/
  45. https://socialecology.uci.edu/news/people-who-watch-beheading-videos-are-motivated-fear-terrorism-uci-study-finds
  46. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2318465121
  47. https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/middleeast/isis-beheadings-psychological-impact
  48. https://rsf.org/en/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-killed-daniel-pearl-against-advice-al-qaeda-leaders
  49. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55735869
  50. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/nicholas-berg-2013-u.s.citizen-slain-in-iraq
  51. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/middle_east-jan-june04-iraq_05-12
  52. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-hostage-in-saudi-arabia-beheaded-by-captors
  53. https://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saudi.kidnap/
  54. https://www.npr.org/2004/10/08/4077551/british-hostage-beheaded-in-iraq
  55. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/06/text/20060608.html
  56. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/isis-militants-charged-deaths-americans-syria
  57. https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2021/10/02/mohammed_khalifa_affidavit_filed_0_0.pdf
  58. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-the-rise-spread-and-fall-the-islamic-state
  59. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/09/13/348292090/isis-video-purports-to-show-beheading-of-british-aid-worker
  60. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/27/isil-linked-group-claims-execution-of-11-christians-in-nigeria
  61. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/islamic-state-says-it-beheaded-christian-captives-in-nigeria-idUSKBN1YV148/
  62. https://www.barnabasaid.org/us/news/islamic-state-circulates-video-of-militants-beheading-shooting-eleven-ch/
  63. https://www.csw.org.uk/2020/01/23/press/4533/article.htm
  64. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/25/five-civilians-killed-some-beheaded-in-southeast-kenya
  65. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/al-shabaab-beheads-5-people-in-southeast-kenya/2931089
  66. https://www.opendoorsuk.org/blog/news/latest-news/nigeria-beheadings/
  67. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-09638-001
  68. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7x37b4j6
  69. https://www.promises.com/addiction-blog/do-not-watch-beheading-videos/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9709553/
  71. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crr9q2jz7y0o
  72. https://consensus.app/search/effects-of-watching-gore-videos/i5if8TKwRNaWgv5dfHa1MQ/
  73. https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/new-study-has-investigated-who-watched-isis-beheading-videos-why-and-what-effect-it
  74. https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/13/opinion/beheadings-history
  75. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/08/20/341882787/beheading-video-sets-off-debate-over-how-or-whether-to-portray-it
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563220302995
  77. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg31316/html/CHRG-115shrg31316.htm
  78. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/islamic-states-embrace-of-social-media-puts-tech-companies-in-a-bind/2015/07/15/0e5624c4-169c-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html
  79. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/twitter-taken-james-foley-video
  80. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/04/youtube-halted-spread-steven-sotloff-video
  81. https://congress.gov/116/chrg/CHRG-116hhrg38783/CHRG-116hhrg38783.htm
  82. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/
  83. https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/miami/news/fbi-miami-field-office-and-doj-join-european-partners-in-major-takedown-of-critical-online-infrastructure-to-disrupt-isis-propaganda
  84. https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/major-takedown-of-critical-online-infrastructure-to-disrupt-terrorist-communications-and-propaganda
  85. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/24/google-youtube-anti-isis-push-inhuman-beheading-videos-censorship
  86. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/06/transparency-reporting-on-terrorist-and-violent-extremist-content-online_3f72a170/901cb8cf-en.pdf
  87. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/what-do-about-emerging-threat-censorship-creep-internet
  88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24539201
  89. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/googles-clever-plan-stop-aspiring-isis-recruits/
  90. https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/files/2018/07/BrianChangFromInternetRef.pdf
  91. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/beheading-video-was-a-hoax-1.509899
  92. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/07/hsbc-fires-six-staff-for-making-fake-islamic-state-style-execution-video
  93. https://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-hostages-faced-mock-executions-beheadings-officials/story?id=28661536
  94. https://theworld.org/stories/2016/07/30/foley-beheading-video-followed-prior-threat
  95. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3cf/bfe41345b2c483af34cf1b8285ef9fe0d4ee.pdf
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376412411_A_comprehensive_analysis_of_digital_video_forensics_techniques_and_challenges
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11943306/
  98. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.14638v1
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.