ABSTRACT
One of the oddities of the ‘war on terror’ is that there remains no clear, universally agreed-upon definition of its key referent, terrorism. Notwithstanding such indeterminacy, the term operates doubly in a descriptive and prescriptive capacity. Terrorism both describes a form of (illegitimate) political violence and a primary justification for (legitimate) political violence. In the context of the ‘war on terror’, connotations of epic and indiscriminate brutality accrue to that political violence branded terrorism, while its purported opposite is held to be limited by the humane values of states united in opposition to terrorism. Violence against troops in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, though not targeting civilians, is routinely described as terrorism. The violence of the US and its allies is rationalised, while anti-occupation violence is pre-emptively pathologised, its motives ascribed to an anti-modern and illiberal reflux.
