Violent extremists wield words as weapons. New study reveals 6 tactics they use
- Written by Awni Etaywe, Lecturer in Linguistics | Forensic Linguist Analysing Cyber Terrorism, Threatening Communications and Incitement | Media Researcher Investigating How Language Shapes Peace, Compassion and Empathy, Charles Darwin University
Words are powerful tools. Violent extremists know this well, often choosing their phrasing extremely carefully[1] to build loyalty among their followers. When wielded just so, they can do enormous harm.
Because their words are chosen so deliberately, researchers can look for patterns, trends and red flags[2]. What exactly do extremists say that builds followings, incites hatred and violence, and can ultimately lead to deadly attacks?
Our research looking at the rhetoric of the extremists behind some of recent history’s worst terror attacks sheds light on this question. We’ve identified six key tactics terrorists use to mobilise people behind their cause.
By being able to spot the tactics, we can dismantle the language and protect people and communities from radicalisation.
Divide and conquer
In previous work[3], we examined the language of far-right incitement in the Christchurch shooter’s 87-page manifesto.
Our latest work[4] analysed jihadist texts. These included al-Qaeda’s former leader Osama bin Laden’s speeches after September 11, and Islamic State’s former leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s statements in the organisation’s magazine.
We used linguistic analysis to focus on how language was used strategically to both reduce and accentuate cultural differences. We examined how inciters use words to create bonds and obligations to mobilise violence.
We found two main types of incitement messages: those that strengthen connections in the group to build a shared purpose, and those that separate the group from outsiders and paint others as enemies.
This kind of messaging can divide society and make people strongly identify with the group. As a result, following the group’s rules – even extreme actions – can feel like proof someone truly belongs and is loyal.
But in violent extremism, commands alone are often insufficient to inspire violence or mobilise support. So how do extremists use these underlying strategies to get people to act?
6 rhetorical tactics
Once violence has been established as a moral duty by isolating the group, there are six key techniques extremists deploy.
1. Weaponise difference
Extremists don’t just label outsiders as different. They frame them as immoral and dangerous. “Us” versus “them” becomes the backdrop for later calls to action.
Inciters link loyalty and honour to threats from outsiders. Osama bin Laden urged violence against pro-US Arab governments, calling them “traitor and collaborator governments […] created to annihilate Jihad”.
The Christchurch shooter, Brenton Tarrant, attacked[6] nongovernmental organisations supporting immigrants, calling them “traitors”. He called immigrants “anti-white scum” and compared them to a “nest of vipers” that must be destroyed.
Dehumanising outsiders strengthens group bonds and can have deadly consequences.
2. Evoking heroes and icons
Extremists use famous people, places or events to make their audience feel part of a bigger story. Names like “Saladin” or places like “Hagia Sophia” and “Londinium” link followers to icons or past struggles, making them feel like defenders or avengers.
Tarrant said:
this Pakistani Muslim invader now sits as representative for the people of London. Londinium, the very heart of the British Isles. What better sign of the white rebirth than the removal of this invader?
3. Repurposing religious texts
Extremists use not religion itself, but twisted and decontextualised versions of religious texts to justify violence.
Quoting God or religious figures makes the message seem legitimate and frames violence as a moral or spiritual duty. This strengthens followers’ loyalty and belief that violent acts serve “our” shared values.
Tarrant quoted Pope Urban II of the first Crusade, while Al-Baghdadi misquoted Allah.
4. Tailored grievances and inflammatory language
Inciters tailor grievances before audiences voice them. Words like “humiliation”, “injustice” or “cultural loss” help bind followers to a common cause.
Osama bin Laden spoke of Muslims living in “oppression” and “contempt”. While the Christchurch shooter warned of “paedophile politicians” and that immigration would “destroy our communities”.
Naming and labelling unites followers and divides outsiders.
5. Metaphors and messages of kinship
Osama bin Laden hailed his audience through metaphor as “soldiers of Allah”, while describing enemies “under the banner of the cross”. Such contrasts intensify loyalty and hostility at once.
On the other hand, kinship terms pull people in. Words like “brothers”, “sisters”, “we” and “our” make strangers feel like family. Calling followers “our Muslim brothers” turns political duty into a personal, moral duty — like protecting family.
Tarrant did this too. His line “why should you have peace when your other brothers in Europe face certain war?” links violence to family safety and future generations.
By contrast, “they” and “them” mark outsiders as non-kin. That sharp us versus them grammar strips empathy and makes exclusion or harm easier to justify.
6. Coercion into violent actions
In addition to commands, recommendations, or warnings that explicitly instruct someone to do something, there’s also coercion. It makes violence feel like care for the group.
Extremists do this by framing violence as duty. Phrases like “it is permissible” in jihadist texts shift violence from taboo to obligation, as in “it is permissible to take away their property and spill their blood”.
They also frame the outgroup as an existential threat. This justifies preemptive violence as self-defence or necessity, as in Tarrant’s “mass immigration will disenfranchise us, subvert our nations, destroy our communities, destroy our ethnic binds […]”.
What can be done with this research?
Extremist rhetoric does not just exist online. It echoes in protests, forums and political debates.
The “Great Replacement theory[8]” once confined to extremist manifestos now surfaces[9] in mainstream anti-immigration protests.
ASIO has warned the “promotion of communal violence” is rising[10], with politically motivated violence “flashing red” to authorities.
Read more: How Australia's anti-immigration rallies were amplified online by the global far right[11]
Countering extremism means understanding its tactics. Policymakers, educators and community leaders can help by identifying and deconstructing these tactics if they encounter them.
Teaching critical literacy is also key so communities can spot and resist coercion.
We can also create counter-messages that affirm belonging without fuelling polarisation.
Extremist language hijacks shared values, turning them into obligations to hate and harm. Stopping violence before it starts means dismantling this language through education, transparency and proactive communication.
References
- ^ extremely carefully (doi.org)
- ^ red flags (doi.org)
- ^ previous work (dx.doi.org)
- ^ latest work (doi.org)
- ^ JOHN KIRK-ANDERSON / POOL/EPA (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ attacked (doi.org)
- ^ Maher Attar/Getty (www.gettyimages.com.au)
- ^ Great Replacement theory (theconversation.com)
- ^ now surfaces (theconversation.com)
- ^ is rising (theconversation.com)
- ^ How Australia's anti-immigration rallies were amplified online by the global far right (theconversation.com)
Authors: Awni Etaywe, Lecturer in Linguistics | Forensic Linguist Analysing Cyber Terrorism, Threatening Communications and Incitement | Media Researcher Investigating How Language Shapes Peace, Compassion and Empathy, Charles Darwin University
