i fail to see how rehearsing outlines of the cartoon "terrorist" in any way helps to legitimate the category.
everyone is aware of what the "terrorist" is supposed to mean in the vacant little world that is particular to american conservatism.
if you read through the "defining" features listed by ncb and stevo--with a characteristic aside from ustwo---you will see a demonstration of the point i was trying to make earlier.
that you repeat this terminology and rehearse what everyone already knows about it really does not help if your point is that---somehow----the notion of "terrorist" or "them" is functional.
addendum:
then i saw this from stevo:
Quote:
|
I will agree with you on one point. Terrorisim is the new communisim, you see, before islamic terrorists, it was red army terrorists and communist separitist groups in central and south america that were using terrorism as a means of advancing their agendas. so you're right. but it doesn't make the arguement against islamic terrorists wrong.
|
which is just funny. another way of saying the same thing: just as for the john birch set (what once was a whackjob marginal far right position now informs mainstream conservative ideology--go figure) "communism" was an empty signifier that gave the birchers something to hate with no knowledge and great intensity, so now "terrorist"....funny how committed the right is to the world as western film. black hats, white hats. simple world for simple minds.
btw: so that an even more idiotic trajectory does not get set up by this: no-one is denying that the states might face political threats from people. the claim is that the category "terrorist" of "them" is worthless for thinking about them, much less doing anything.