Advertisement

Using Analytic Hierarchal Processing in 26/11 Mumbai Terrorist Attack for Key Player Selection and Ranking

  • Amit Kumar MishraEmail author
  • Nisheeth Joshi
  • Iti Mathur
Conference paper
  • 14 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 100)

Abstract

This article having a significant analysis of the Mumbai terrorist attack held on November 26, 2011, using a decision based on multi-criteria which are a potential approach for the social network analysis. The data source for this analysis is a dossier report on 26/11 Mumbai attack submitted to the Ministry of External Affairs that was published in the year 2009 and many more articles. This report gives the complete details about this tragic event consisting number of terrorist involved in India as well as from Pakistan, points where they had done operation, their communications in between, number of casualties, etc. When law enforcement agencies want to analyze any terrorist attack concerning key players involved in the attack, investigators should consider more than one criterion or factors that may also inconsistent and contradictory. Therefore, key player selection and ranking of terrorist nodes are a multi-criteria decision-making issue. AHP resolves this multi-criteria decision-making issue. This study reveals the key players and ranked them accordingly, involved in 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP).

Keywords

Social network analysis (SNA) Investigative data mining (IDM) Terrorist network mining (TNM) AHP Centrality measures 

References

  1. 1.
    Fenstermacher L, Rieger KT, Speckhard A (2010) Protecting the homeland from international and domestic terrorism threats. White Paper: Counter Terrorism, p 178Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acharya A, Mandal S, Mehta A (2009) Terrorist attacks in Mumbai: picking up the pieces. International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research S. Rajaratnam School for International Studies Nanyang Technological University, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gunaratna R (2009) Mumbai investigation: the operatives, masterminds and enduring threat. UNISCI Discussion Paper, no 19, p 142Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Onook O, Agrawal M, Rao R (2010) Information control and terrorism: tracking the Mumbai terrorist attack through twitterGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azad S, Gupta A (2011) A quantitative assessment on 26/11 Mumbai attack using SocialNetwork Analysis. J Terrorism Res V2(I2):4–14Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A report on Mumbai attack (2009) Mumbai terrorist attack (26–29 Nov 2008). Govt. Of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marsden P (2015) Network centrality, measures of International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp. 532–539Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Magnier M, Sharma S (2008) India terrorist attacks leave at least 101 dead in Mumbai. Los Angeles Times. p A1. Retrieved 28 Nov 2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masood S (2009) Pakistan announces arrests for Mumbai Attacks. Inf Syst Front 13(1):33–43. (New York Times. Retrieved 12 Feb 2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaurasia N, Tiwari A (2014) On the use of brokerage approach to discover influencing nodes in terrorist networks. In: Social networking: mining, visualization, and security, 1st edn, vol 65, Intelligent Systems Reference Library 65. Springer, Cham, pp 271–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05164-2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    De S, Dehuri S (2014) Machine learning for auspicious social network mining. In: Social networking: mining, visualization, and security, 1st edn, vol 65. Intelligent systems reference library 65. Springer, Cham, pp 45–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05164-2Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freeman L (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35–41.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bonacich P (2007) Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Soc Netw 29:555–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katz L (1953) A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika 18(1):39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mariani MS, Medo1 M, Zhang Y-C (2015) Ranking nodes in growing networks: when PageRank fails. Sci Rep 5(Article number: 16181):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16181
  16. 16.
    Saaty TL, Rogers PC, Pell R (1980) Portfolio selection through hierarchies. J Portfolio Manag 6(3):16–21.  https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.1980.408749CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringBanasthali VidyapithVanasthaliIndia

Personalised recommendations