Good question. I imagine some context-specific rationality is in order. No doubt defining terrorism/terrorists is itself tricky and provocative. Pessimistically I would argue that using terms like Al-Qaeda to describe large swaths of people who differ dramatically stinks of Orientalism.
I have no answer but would merely caution others as to the possible backlash against using such terminology without thinking it through and for not dealing with specificity. It seems to me that one method of attacking the current war on terror would be to undermine generalizations with specifics - the entire enemy might begin to unravel. Jayson Funke Graduate School of Geography Clark University 950 Main Street Worcester, MA 01610 -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] what is Hizbullah? [from Juan Cole] On 7/31/06, Jayson Funke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, my point is that I cringe when I see the term Al-Qaeda being > used on the Left, because it indicates, to me, that we have already > swallowed one of the neocon/Straussian myths they worked so hard on to > promote their world-views. I understand your criticism and agree with you, but what do you call the vaguely understood but nonetheless real phenomenon that leftists have been calling Al Qaeda? We need some term here, so that we can distinguish it from Hizbullah, Hamas, and the like. Sectarian terrorists, maybe? -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>
