Search results
narratives could have been chosen which would have given the events quite a different ‘reading’. Most importantly, the narrative worked to justify and normalise the military response at the heart of the ‘war on terrorism’. There are four notable features of the language I wish to examine here. First, and unsurprisingly, the attacks are discursively constructed as an exceptional tragedy and a grievous harm. In
, one can ask the question of what kind of peace is being achieved in countering extremism, and what kinds of violence are perhaps being perpetrated. Interactions between the field of peace studies and terrorism studies have been few and far between ( Ford, 2019 ; Jackson, 2017 ; Toros and Tellidis, 2013 ). Furthermore, such interactions have tended to focus on the lessons terrorism studies can learn from peacemaking, and questions around negotiations and peace settlements ( Toros and Tellidis, 2013 ), rather than on building a culture of peace. This chapter builds
In Chapter 1 we saw that the UK approach to anti-terrorism is relatively distinct from potential comparator states. This suggests that the consequences – intended and otherwise – of its framework may well be pronounced and distinctive too. Policy and legal apparatuses in the area of security and beyond impact on populations, communities and individuals in particular and
Introduction It would be inaccurate to suggest that any overarching countering violent extremism (CVE) policy has caught the imagination of the people or even Pakistani state officials. This makes any critique of some stable CVE a futile exercise. Such acronyms mean little and often have no local, linguistic or cultural resonance. Rather, certain events and incidents are intuitively categorised or labelled as acts of terrorism ( daishad gardi ) or inspired by extremism ( inteha pasandi ) by the media and communities. Usually, these refer to armed attacks on
, unresolved problems in the region, particularly the Middle East question, raise tensions that threaten the EU’s own stability and its policies in the region. Last but not least, threats such as illegal immigration, terrorism and WMD proliferation, evident in the wider Mediterranean area, constitute direct and immediate challenges, which the EU has no option but to face up to. The EU’s main policy instrument in
against terrorism, has Europe learnt any lessons on human rights protection? Looking towards the sixth and subsequent waves of European enlargement, in particular the prospective membership of Turkey, further and unusual challenges await. In that context, is a truly universal, or even European, approach to human rights possible? Human rights: building blocks to conflict
We begin our exploration of proscription in the UK with a brief genealogy of the development, use and application of banning powers from the medieval to the modern era. As we shall see, radicalism, terrorism and political violence have been central concerns of almost all local and national authorities through the rocky political history of the British Isles and its dominions. 1 From Saxon Britain to the Rump Parliament to the British Empire, suppression of the threat posed by individuals and political movements has made use of a gamut of precipitous
Introduction Terrorism has changed the world security environment and the way that states respond to threat. Alan Dershowitz believes that states can reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist acts by taking significant steps to preserve national security through tougher laws. 1 His reasoning was echoed by Samydorai, who argues that national security laws give the government special powers to stifle dissent, supposedly for dealing with emergency situations. 2 These counterterrorism laws are among the most significant approaches to deal
important cultural driver of terrorism. Conspiracy theories about American power were said to be fuelling Arab-Muslim anger towards America; that this anger had motivated Al-Qaeda’s attacks; and that it continued to provide Al-Qaeda with moral support and a ready stream of recruits. Here is Thomas Friedman in the New York Times : I’m glad that
THIS BOOK HAS TRACED the Arab-Muslim paranoia narrative from its intellectual origins in Cold War liberalism, through post-9/11 foreign policy commentary on terrorism, to the heart of the Bush administration’s War of Ideas doctrine. I have shown that this narrative delegitimised criticism of American power, buttressed existing foreign policy