Abstract
“Terror is not simply what states do, it is also what they are for, what they are expected to do,” Barry Hindess noted in his “Terrortory.” He put into question the legitimate use of “terror” by states, arguing that underlying the state’s capacity to exercise terror is a kind of “territorial fundamentalism.” Given this territorial fundamentalism, Hindess questioned as to whether a world without terrorism is one that is better than one in which states have a monopoly on terror. This article builds on Hindess's account of state terrorism through the lens of several jihadi ideologues who make a distinction between what they consider to be praiseworthy terrorism as opposed to terrorism of falsehood.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call