discourse on terrorism
Read Online

discourse on terrorism political violence and the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, 1981-1986 by Michael Gold-Biss

  • 942 Want to read
  • ·
  • 88 Currently reading

Published by P. Lang in New York .
Written in English


  • United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism.,
  • Terrorism.

Book details:

Edition Notes

Includes bibliographical references (p. [175]-190) and index.

StatementMichael Gold-Biss.
SeriesMajor concepts in politics and political theory,, v. 6
LC ClassificationsHV6431 .G6 1994
The Physical Object
Paginationix, 194 p. ;
Number of Pages194
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL1437536M
ISBN 100820424218
LC Control Number93050228

Download discourse on terrorism


  “This book serves as a testament to the growing inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary nature of (critical) discourse studies. In this book, the editors Hodges and Nilep have succeeded at bringing together scholars from diverse backgrounds to address an increasingly important theme, the war on terror, with its political, social, and cultural : The book does well to provide essential tools for exploring the current discourse on terrorism and offers further recommended reading lists. It is laden with supporting citations from the literature and historical examples drawn from the French Revolution of through the Algerian War of – and on to post-9/11 scenarios. 'Drawing on a wealth of primary research material and developing a sophisticated theoretical account of the relationship between security, identity, temporality and the political, Jarvis makes a convincing case for the central role of representations of time in the US Government's 'war on terror' discourse.' -Matt McDonald, University of Warwick, UKBrand: Palgrave Macmillan UK. The article illustrates a constructivist understanding of studying terrorism and counter-terrorism by applying metaphor analysis to a British tabloid media discourse on terrorism between and.

Australia's 'war on terror' Discourse fills this gap by providing a full and sustained critical analysis of Australian foreign policy discourse along with the theoretical synthesis for a specific model of critical discourse analysis of the by: 3. epistemic community produces a certain kind of paradigm – or discourse – which dominates the way a society think about, act on, understands and deals with terrorism, etc. They produce the discourse that constructs the way “terrorism” is understood, made sense of and dealt with in a society. Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N. () Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books. Jackson, R. (a) Language, power and politics: critical discourse analysis and the War on Terrorism. 49th Parallel 1. Jackson, R. (b) Security, democracy, and the rhetoric of counter-terrorism.   The recent emergence of an explicitly critical terrorism studies provides a vital methodological entry point into deconstructing the self-referential discourse that defines what constitutes ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in terms of how it is known, located and confronted (Jackson, b).

  Today’s discourse on terrorism is an altogether more streamlined thing. Its scholarship is yesterday’s newspaper or today’s CNN bulletin. This brings us to the book at hand, Terrorism.   In the hegemonic Bush discourse on terrorism and the WoT, the U.S. is presented as being extraordinary in its essence, questioning how anyone could dare attack “the brightest beacon for freedom.” 37 This discourse demonstrates the process of giving an evilized face to the enemy both in moral-religious and secular contexts, and providing the. The representative Chinese newspaper articles on terrorism, in addition to China’s repositioning on the global stage, reveal a geopolitical fault-line with strong moral undertones. The paper sheds light on the historic and often implicit political impact of Confucianism within present day Chinese geopolitical discourse and practice. The discourse on “terrorism” has its own, unique history. Over time, a series of actors, from politicians to “terrorism experts” to the news media, have given meaning to, or constructed, “terrorism” by including various voices and viewpoints while excluding others.