|
the problem is obvious: the category "terrorist" itself, which is little more than a political meme the function of which is to strip any trace of rational motivation behind a given action in order to set up precisely the types of responses you see above, mostly from folk who position on the right--the cromwell move: kill em all and let god sort em out.
"terrorism" says nothing--can say nothing--analytically about causes/motivations.
it does the opposite
so it can do and does nothing to shape any coherent thinking about responses.
if you assume it a legitimate signifer, then all kinds of bizarre edifices of chanelled revenge fantasy can take shape--including ustwo's surreal recapitulation of the huntington thesis---which one would assume had died out by now---but no, not in the jurassic park of outmoded conservative ideologies that constitues the big tent of right politics.
back to the op:
who is "we"?
why are there no questions being raised about the notion of "terrorism"?
on what possible basis does anyone assume that the cateogry is other than ideological, and that in the worst, most reductive sense of the term?
if one could impute irony to the responses here so far, they could be read as a kind of immanent critique of the category itself--look what happens if you take it seriously---all kinds of laughable outcomes.
maybe i'll do that....
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|