The Historical Nerds <http://thehistoricalnerds.

com//>
Looking at the world from a different perspective
* About the Nerds <http://thehistoricalnerds.com/sample-page/>
* Other Cool Websites <http://thehistoricalnerds.com/other-cool-websites/>
* Submission Guidelines
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/submission-guidelines/>
* Tales of The Protectors
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tales-of-the-protectors-2/>
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/>
By andremassa8 <http://thehistoricalnerds.com/author/andremassa8/> on
May 16, 2014
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/16/how-security-discourse-shapes-the-thre
at-of-terrorism/>
( Leave a comment
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/16/how-security-discourse-shapes-the-thre
at-of-terrorism/#respond>
)
How Security Discourse Shapes the Threat of Terrorism

i
1 Vote
Wikinews_tag_terrorism
<http://andremassa8.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/wikinews_tag_terrorism.png>
By Andre Lopes Massa
Since 9/11, terrorism has come to be regarded as the greatest
existential threat to Western civilization by policy makers and citizens
alike. Despite the relatively barren history regarding terrorism before
and since 9/11, a politics of fear has gripped the West in taking
extreme measures despite the revelation that it is more likely for the
average person to get struck by lightning or drown in their own bathtub
then get killed in a terrorist attack. Current discourse on terrorism is
focused on characterizing the terrorist body as one who threatens our
American way of life and is motivated by nothing than the desire to see
the destruction of America and the values she represents. This discourse
has permeated itself into every facet of political decision-making and
civil society to the point where we have constructed institutions such
as the Department of Homeland Security and the Travel Security
Administration to combat this threat. This paper seeks to examine how
current discourse on terrorism since 9/11 is characterized and heavily
influenced by the logic of security introduced by Barry Buzan and the
Copenhagen School and continues to introduce current U.S policy against
the threat of terrorism. My argument here is that terrorism, as a

spectacle and an existential threat to the U.S and the rest of the
western world, is not real; it is just a construction necessitated by
the logic of security and the different forms that security discourse
(discourse being defined as the way we think and speak about ideas)
takes, such as Edward Saids concept of Orientalism and the construction
of the terrorist based on lines of sexuality as argued by Jasbir Puar in
her book /Terrorist Assemblages/. It is through the examinations of
these specific forms of discourse and the us versus them mentality
that each of them is structured upon that is reminiscent of the Buzans
logic of security and contributes to the legitimization of extreme
policy making we see today.
The concept of securitization is a relatively new and dynamic concept
introduced in the international relations. The Copenhagen Schools
concept introduced by Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap De Vilde has
been received with mixed attitudes by international relations scholars.
Introduced in 1998 by Buzan, Waever and De Vilde in their book
/Security: A New Framework for Analysis, /the Copenhagen School argues
that security is about survival. It is when an issue presented as
posing an existential threat to a designated referent object. The
special nature of security justifies the use of the use of extraordinary
measures to handle them. (Buzan, Waever, De Vilde, /Security: A New
Framework for Analysis/, pg. 21). In this context, we can see some
similarities between the Copenhagen Schools analysis of security and
realism; insofar as both schools of thought focus on a states desire
for survival. However, the Copenhagen Schools analysis of security is
more focused on the kinds of discourse that characterize security logic
and the justification of extraordinary means, like the Department of
Homeland Security in relation to the threat of terrorism, against a
constructed threat. On this matter, the Copenhagen School argues,
Traditionally, by saying security, a state representative declares an
emergency condition, thus claiming a right to use whatever means are
necessary to block a threatening development. (Buzan, Waever, De Vilde,
/Security: A New Framework for Analysis/, pg. 21). To better understand
this concept in relation to current events, one can think of the context
the term national security is used and the kinds of threats it is
often associated with; terrorism being a prime example. The Copenhagen
School argues that democracies are not immune to corruption by the logic
of security. In fact, according to the Copenhagen School, democracies
may be even more prone to the logic of security because the discourse
that constitutes security logic often legitimizes the removal of
discursive justifications for extreme measures because the construction
of an existential threat legitimizes the use of extraordinary means. The
Copenhagen School argues, Some security discourse is not legitimized in
public by security discourse because they are not out in the public at
all but this is actually a very clear case of the security logic. In a
democracy, at some point it must be argued by the public sphere why a
situation constitutes security and therefore can legitimately be handled
differently. One could not take something out of the budget without
giving reason for the use of such extraordinary procedure. When this
procedure has been legitimized through security rhetoric, it becomes
institutionalized as a package legitimization, and is thus possible to
have black security boxes in the political process. The speech act
requires public influence on these issues, but in democracies one must
legitimize in public why from now on the details will not be presented
publicly. (Buzan, Waever, De Vilde, /Security: A New Framework for
Analysis/, pg. 28). It is important to note the idea of security being a
speech act because it sets the framework for how we can analyze the
relationship between the logic of security and the discourse that
characterizes the threat of terrorism. In his article, /The Role of

Discourse in the Social Construction of Terrorism, /Sotirios Karampampas

argues that one of the facets of the logic of security is the
construction of the other and the discursive indication of an us
versus them mentality against the constructed threat in order to
maintain the identity of the nation state. Karampampas writes, the
discursive dependency of identity of difference, in order to define
itself, and the threat that the latter represent, shape the paradox of
difference, which also applies to the formation of the identity of
other imagery entities, such as the state or the nation. Consequently
owing to the notion that identity is achieved through the inscription
of boundaries that serve to demarcate an inside from an outside, a self
from an other, a domestic from a foreign, a states security is bound
into a dependent relationship with its insecurity. (Karampampas, /The
Role of Discourse in the Social Construction of Terrorism, /pg. 21). It
is precisely the reinscribing of the identity of the nation state and
the construction of the other from the outside that is important in
being able to understand how discourse constructs the threat of
terrorism through the logic of security and the speech act that
characterizes securitization, whether it be on lines of Western
perceptions of the Middle East, as Edward Said and Richard Jackson argue
through the concept of Orientalism, or gender and sexual differences as
argued by Jasbir Puar. These two specific forms of discourse show how
the logic of security and the discourse it produces can manifest itself
into different forms.
Originally intended to refer to a specific form of art by Western
Europeans depicting the Middle East, the term orientalism has since
been transformed by Edward Said to encompass almost every perception
that the Western world has of the Middle East. In his 1979 book
/Orientalism/; Edward Said describes the figure of the Orient as an
integral part of European /material/ civilization and culture.
Orientalism expresses and represents that part culturally and even
ideologically as a mode of discourse with supporting institutions,
vocabulary, scholarship, imagery, doctrines, even colonial
bureaucracies, and colonial styles (Said, /Orientalism/, pg. 2). While
Edward Said traced the history of Middle Eastern depictions in Western
Europe since the 18^th century, this paper will go in a different
direction. My argument is that Orientalism and the depictions it
represents have expanded to include the figure of the terrorist and that
this discourse, which Said notes has become a political fact and even
has supporting institutions (much like the institutions that support
security discourse). Writing in 1979, Said notes, The difference
between representations of the Orient before the eighteenth century and
those after it is that the range of representations expanded enormously
in the later period. (Said, /Orientalism/, pg. 22). Orientalism is key
understanding how the terrorist has come to represent modern depictions
of the Middle East and partially shapes discourse regarding terrorism.
Continuing on from this idea, Richard Jackson of the University of
Canterbury writes in his article, /Constructing enemies: Islamic
terrorism in political and academic discourse/ that terrorism discourse
is terrorism is rooted in the assumptions, theories and knowledge of
terrorism studies. The discourse derives a great many of its core
assumptions, labels and narratives from the long tradition and archive
of orientalist scholarship on the Middle East and Arab culture and
religion. The discourse draws on a long tradition of cultural
stereotypes and deeply hostile media representations and depictions of
Islam and Muslims.16 Typically, in portraying Muslims, the mainstream
media has tended to employ frameworks centered on violence, threat,
extremism, fanaticism and terrorism, although there is also a visual
orientalist tradition in which they are portrayed as exotic and

mysterious. (Jackson, /Constructing enemies: Islamic terrorism in

political and academic discourse/, pg. 11-12). These depictions can
include the stereotype that most Muslims are likely to have a bomb
strapped to their chest or that most bearded Arab men are somehow
associated with the Taliban. These depictions are rooted in the logic
of security. Recall Karampampass description of the logic of security
as involving the construction of the other. The other, in the case of
Orientalist discourse, is the figure of the Arab terrorist who must be
exterminated because they are depicted as an existential threat. The
securitization against the figure of the Islamic terrorist because
of the states desire to preserve their self-identity and achieve a form
of ontological security. Brent Steele in his book, /Ontological
Security in International Relations/, writes, Ontological security is
important because its fulfillment affirms its self identity.
Nation-states seek ontological security because they want to maintain
/consistent self-concepts, /and the Self of states is constituted and
maintained through a narrative which gives life to routinized foreign
policy actions. (Steele, /Ontological Security in International
Relations/, pg. 2-3). Two main points can be drawn from this argument in
relation to Orientalism representing a form of security discourse. A)
The figure of the Middle East terrorist represents a threat to the
self-perception that the U.S has of itself; as a white, Christian nation
and B) narratives of American exceptionalism force the U.S to take
aggressive foreign policy action in the Middle East against the figure
of the Islamic terrorist branded as the other in order to maintain he
projection of the identity that the U.S is responsible for the spread
of democracy (a western concept) to the rest of the world and remains
a beacon on the hill. It is this desire to see preserve ones desire
identity that is rooted in the logic of security as Orientalist
depictions of the figure of the Islamic terrorist causes us to take
preemptive measures based off of these racist depictions in order to
purge society of the forces that may threaten normative depictions of
society and destroy the sense of ontology that we have of ourselves. The
same line of reasoning can be used in examining Jasbir Puars analysis
of terrorist discourse along lines of gender and sexuality.
Much like Edward Said and Richard Jackson, Jasbir Puars argument
focuses on the depictions of the terrorist figure by the West in order
to A) preserve ones ontological conception of their self-identity and
B) to maintain a narrative of American excpetionalism. In the case of
Puar, it is divisions among lines of sexuality that current discourse on
terrorism constructs the threat on. In her 2007 book /Terrorist
Assemblage homonationalism in queer times/, Puar argues, There has been
a curious and persistent absence of dialogue regarding sexuality in
public debates about counterterrorism, despite its crucial presence in
American patriotism, warmongering, and empire building. Without these
discourses of sexuality- heterosexuality, homosexuality, queerness,
metrosexuality, alternative and insurgent sexuality- the twin mechanisms
of normalization and banishment that distinguish the terrorist from the
patriot would cease to properly behave. At this historical juncture, the
invocation of the terrorist as a queer, non-national, perversely
racialized other has become part of the normative script of the U.S war
on terror. One need only reflect upon the eager proliferation of
homophobic-racist images of terrorists since September 11, 2001. (Puar,
/Terrorist Assemblage homonationalism in queer times, /pg. 37). This is
the logic of security at play, in both the physical sense and the
ontological sense. Using the framework of analysis that the Copenhagen
school and Karampampas present, Puars analysis is indicative of the
logic of security because the terrorist is perceived as a queer body who
threatens the American ontological conception of a heteronormative state

of being that America wishes to maintain, thus justifying the

extraordinary measures that we take against the queer body framed as the
figure of the terrorist (Department of Homeland Security, racial
profiling, TSA etc.). It is critical to note, however, the depiction of
the queer terrorist as the Other who must be exterminated in which
heteronormative discourse on terrorism is rooted in the logic of
security. Puar herself notes, Through this binary reinforcing your
either with us or against us normativizing apparatus, the war on terror
has rehabilitated some- clearly not all or most- lesbians, gays and
queers to U.S national citizenship within a spatial-temporal domain I am
invoking as homonationalism for short for homonormative
nationalism. (Puar, /Terrorist Assemblage homonationalism in queer
times, pg. 38). /Recalling Steeles analysis of why states desire
ontological security due to the desire to project narratives of ones
own conception of identity onto others, the discursive construction of
the queer body into the figure of the terrorist is motivated by the
desire to maintain the narrative of American exceptionalism; in the
context of Puars argument a narrative of American gender
exceptionalism. Puar notes, The recent embrace of the case of Afghani
and Iraqi and Muslim women in general by western feminists has generated
many forms of U.S gender exceptionalism. Gender exceptionalism works as
missionary discourse to rescue Muslim women from their oppressive male
counterparts. It also works to suggest that, in contrast to women in the
United States, Muslim women are, at the end of the day, unsavable. More
insidiously, these discourses of exceptionalism allude to the
unsalvageable nature of the Muslim women by even their own feminists,
positioning the American feminist as the subject par excellence. (Puar,
/Terrorist Assemblage homonationalism in queer times, /pg. 5). In the
context of Puars argument, recent foreign policy actions started during
the Bush Administration and continued under the Obama administration are
motivated by the desire of America to project its own identity as the
savior of the oppressed Muslim women from the clutches of the monstrous
terrorist. Hence, discourse of American exceptionalism justifying
aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East regarding spreading
democracy and enforcing human rights is motivated by the desire to
use these western concepts to save Muslim women and project the image of
a benevolent empire. The queer body is constructed as the terrorist to
be the Other that we securitize against and take pre-emptive action
against in order to maintain the ontological perception of the Self
projected on the rest of the western world. To threaten hetronormative
conceptions of American society and life forces one to the periphery of
the queer body represented as the figure of the terrorist and an
oppressor of the Muslim women through the ethnocentric lens of
American exceptionalism. It is this form of discourse that, like Saids
conception of orientalism, is rooted in the logic of security that has
transformed the definition of the word terrorist from one classifying
non-state political actors to a term used to delegitimize the Other
along lines of race, gender, and sexuality.
The original definition of terrorism, in its most basic form as
introduced by the National Institute of Justice[1], defines terrorism
as, premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents,
usually intended to influence an audience.On the face of it, such a
tactic has been a political tactic since the times of the French
Revolution and would continue throughout the 19^th and 20^th century.
Under this definition, the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria
on June 28, 1914 by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip, the act that
ultimately sparked World War I, is regarded as an act of terrorism yet
many seem to gloss over this event in favor of coming to regard the word

terrorism as a representation of the spectacle and awe-inspiring event

that current discourse on terrorism has constructed it to be. Because of
the states innate desire to maintain an ontological perception of the
self, the word terrorism has come to be radically transformed into a
term used to represent our orientalist and homophobic depictions of the
enemy. Political acts such as the aforementioned assassination of the
Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the Reichstag Fire of Berlin on February
27, 1933, the act that was ultimately used by the Nazis as evidence that
the communists were plotting against Germany in order to pass an
emergency decree that gave Adolf Hitler virtually absolute power, are
glossed over by the public in favor of an orientalist, homophobic
depiction of the terrorist. Jasbir Puar notes that the common depiction
of Osama Bin Laden after the September 11, 2001 attacks was portrayed
as monstrous by association of the sexual and bodily perversity
(versions of both homosexuality and hypertrophied heterosexuality, or
failed monogamy, that is, an Orientalist version of polygamy, as well as
disability) through images in popular culture. (Puar, /Terrorist
Assemblage homonationalism in queer times/, pg. 38). The perversion of
Osama Bin Ladens body by the media acts as the referent object that the
Copenhagen school says is necessary to construct a threat by association
and turn it into a security issue that demands extraordinary means to
eradicate and political organization built around the prioritization of
the eradication of that threat. A second element comes into play
regarding the evolution of the definition of terrorism as means of
delegitimizing a non-state actor and, in turn, legitimizing the state.
Sotirios Karampampas argues that the label of terrorism has an initial
result to greatly discredit either a group or even a whole struggle for
self-determination or national liberation, since the deployment of
terrorist tactics, by no more than elements of the former or the later,
can be exploited to condemn them. Thus, the deployment of naming
strategies states endeavor to prevail over their non-state adversaries,
in a dispute over legitimacy and power. In addition, owing to the fact
that terrorists, through their deeds challenge the monopoly of violence
of the state, they are partaking with the later in a war of words, in
which those accused of terrorism will respond by labeling their accusers
as the real terrorists. (Karampampas, /The Role of Discourse in the
Social Construction of Terrorism, /pg. 36-37). Under the interpretation
of the word clandestine (defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as
being an action, done in a private place or way: done secretly), U.S
foreign policy during the Cold War, particularly during the Greek Civil
War in 1946 in which the CIA created a security agency to assist
neo-fascist Hellenic Army and the 1973Chilean coup dtat where the CIA
assisted pro-American military dictator Augusto Pinochet in overthrowing
Socialist incumbent Salvador Allende (Blum, A Brief History of U.S.
Interventions: 1945 to the Present, 1999) can be considered acts of
terrorism. However, the U.S continually whitewashes over its own past
actions in favor of A) diverting attention away from the state onto the
referent object that constitutes the constructed existential threat,
thereby legitimizing the state and B) maintaining discursive narratives
of American exceptionalism in order to maintain the security of our own
ontological perceptions of the Self. Keeping in line with the desire
to maintain ontological security and focus attention on the figure of
the terrorist, the FBI[2] has /conveniently /defined terrorism to
Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate
federal or state law; Appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by
mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Note the focus of acts
of terrorism /being taken against government actors/ for the purpose of
coercion. This arbitrary definition of terrorism is keeping in line with

the logic of security because it portrays government actors as the

victims of terrorism, thereby legitimizing the extraordinary means the
state can take to eradicate the threat and legitimizing discourses of
fear that justify securitization. The transformation of the definition
of terrorism is yet another way that the logic of security operates to
discursively construct the threat of terrorism as an existential threat
that has necessitated a politics of fear in the status quo.
Addressing Congress on September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush
echoed the fear many Americans felt during the aftermath of the
September 11^th attacks on New York City. Whether he was aware of it or
not, President Bushs speech also ushered in the discourse of security
logic when he stated, On September the 11th, enemies of freedom
committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars,
but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except
for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but
not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have
known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. All
of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a
different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. (Bush,
09/20/01)[3]. This is the first step in the securitization process, the
speech act that constitutes the logic of security. By identifying as the
victim, President Bush has created the discursive platform on which he
can construct the existential threat and enforce the us versus them
mentality that is crucial in the identification of the enemy. Al Qaeda
is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making
money; its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs
on people everywhere. (Bush, 09/20/01). Here we have the identification
of Al-Qaeda as the Other. By using the analogy that Al-Qaeda is to
terror what the Mafia is to crime, President Bush has created the
referent object the Copenhagen school argues is necessary in the
construction of an existential threat that demands extraordinary means
to handle. And tonight, I also announce a distinguished American to
lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran,
an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend, Pennsylvanias
Tom Ridge. He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national
strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any
attacks that may come. These measures are essential. The only way to
defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate
it and destroy it where it grows. (Bush, 09/20/01). Here we have the
legitimization of the extraordinary means that are necessary too combat
the constructed existential threat. By echoing a discursive sentiment of
fear, President Bush is creating the conditions by which the public will
accept policies previously thought of as unthinkable by appealing to an
emotion of fear. The rise of fear driven discourse to the status of the
dominant form of discourse in the realm of domestic policy has allowed
for this form of discourse to be institutionalized, another crucial
facet of process of securitization as argued by the Copenhagen School.
The first of these institutions created to reflect the dominant
discourse of fear and security that have dominated the American public
since the September 11^th attacks is the Department of Homeland
Security, established on November 25, 2002 with its /own website/
stating that its, vital mission is to secure the nation from the many
threats we face. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
federal government has spent more than half a trillion dollars on
homeland security while President Obama requested $68.3 billion for
2013, a 1.3% increase from 2012.[4] This is indicative of the logic of
security because the appropriation of such a large amount of the federal
budget to an institution that has been accused of constantly violating
the 4^th amendment is a prime example of the prioritization of the

eradication of the constructed existential threat as a political issue

above all others. Similarly, the recent revelations of the scope of the
NSAs recent actions by Edward Snowden on May 20, 2013 shows that
security discourse has continued to be institutionalized in various
forms years after the September 11^th attacks. It is through the use of
securitization studies introduced by the Copenhagen School that we are
able to better understand how terrorism has truly manifested itself as
an existential threat through the discursive medium of security and
fear-driven discourse.
Throughout this paper we have explored how various forms of discourse
along the lines of Orientalism, sexuality, and even the very definition
of terrorism are representative of the logic of security introduced by
the Copenhagen School and the desire for ontological security introduced
by Brent Steele have constructed the threat of modern terrorism as an
existential threat. My argument does not deny that acts of terrorism
under the definition presented by the National Institute of Justice as a
political tactic do not exist and have never happened but rather that
current discourse on terrorism based on the logic of security has
transformed it into a spectacle that represents an existential threat.
It is this spectacle that is not real because such depictions are simply
based on the construction of the Other who posses a threat to the
wests perceptions of itself and the continuation of narratives of
American exceptionalism. It is through an examination of this discourse
and the revealing of the logic that continues to produce it that we can
then begin to view terrorism through an impartial lens and understand
the true epistemological foundations of what constitutes our
understanding of terrorism today. Only by examining the influence the
logic of security can we ever begin to move away from the politics of
fear that has plagued us since the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

Works Cited
Blum, William . A Brief History of U.S Interventions: 1945 to the
Present . /U.S. Interventions/. Z magazine , 1 June 1999. Web. 8 May
2014.
<http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html&gt;.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap H. de Wilde. /Security: a new
framework for analysis/. Boulder [u.a.: Rienner, 1998. Print.
"Congressional Budget Office." /The Proposed Homeland Security Budget
for 2013/. Congressional Budget Office, 27 Sept. 2012. Web. 8 May 2014.
<http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43520&gt;.
"Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S Code." /FBI/. FBI, 20 Aug. 2013.
Web. 5 May 2014.
<http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition&gt;.
"Homeland Security." /About DHS/. Department of Homeland Security, n.d.
Web. 9 May 2014. <http://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs&gt;.
Jackson, Richard. "Constructing Enemies: Islamic Terrorism in
Political and Academic Discourse." /Government and Opposition: An
International Journal of Comparative Politics/ 43.3 (2007): 394-426.
/Wiley Online Library/. Web. 9 May 2014.
Karampampas, Sotirios . "The Role of Discourse in the Social

Construction of Security and Terrorism: Deconstructing the War on

terror." /Academia.edu/. Academia, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 7 May 2014.
<http://www.academia.edu/2536216/The_Role_of_Discourse_in_the_Social_Constructio
n_of_Security_and_Terrorism_Deconstructing_the_War_on_terror&gt;.
Puar, Jasbir K.. /Terrorist assemblages: homonationalism in queer
times/. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. Print.
Said, Edward W.. /Orientalism/. New York: Vintage Books, 19791978. Print.
Steele, Brent J.. /Ontological security in international relations
self-identity and the IR state/. London: Routledge, 2008. Print.
"Terrorism." /National Institute of Justice/. Office of Justice
Programs, 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 May 2014.
<http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx&gt;.
"Transcript of President Bushs Address." /CNN/. Cable News Network, 21
Sept. 2001. Web. 8 May 2014.
<http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/&gt;.
Webster, Inc. /Merriam-Websters elementary dictionary/. New and
expanded ed. Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 2009. Print.
[1] Taken from Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f
[2] Taken from 18 U.S.C. 2331. This definition is applied by the FBI
to define both actions defined under domestic terrorism and
international terrorism.
[3] Text taken from CNN
[4] Figures taken from The Proposed Homeland Security Budget for 2013 as
of September 2012. All years are fiscal years (running from October 1 to
September 30).
Is Terrorism A Real Threat?
No, it is shaped by and turned into a threat by fear based discourse.
Dont care as long as it doesnt bother me.
Yes, you are crazy and your postmodern analysis doesnt make any sense.
VoteView Results <javascript:PD_vote8052881(1);>
Polldaddy.com <http://polldaddy.com/signup-free/?ad=poll-front>
Share this:
* Twitter3
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/16/how-security-discourse-shapes-thethreat-of-terrorism/?share=twitter&nb=1>
* Facebook1
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/16/how-security-discourse-shapes-thethreat-of-terrorism/?share=facebook&nb=1>
* Tumblr
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/16/how-security-discourse-shapes-thethreat-of-terrorism/?share=tumblr&nb=1>
* Google
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/16/how-security-discourse-shapes-thethreat-of-terrorism/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1>
* Email
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/16/how-security-discourse-shapes-the-

threat-of-terrorism/?share=email&nb=1>
*
Like this:
Like Loading...
/Related/
The U.S Panopticon: The Gaze is Everywhere
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2013/11/14/the-u-s-panopticon-the-gaze-is-everywh
ere/>In
"entertainment"
Its time for Obama to fight for the 99%.
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2012/11/09/why-its-time-for-obama-to-fight-for-th
e-99/>In
"political opinion"
How Mitt Romneys "Bad Week" cost him the Election.
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2012/09/19/how-mitt-romneys-bad-week-cost-him-the
-election/>In
"political opinion"
Categories: entertainment
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/entertainment/>, historical
perspective
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/historical-perspective/>,
political opinion
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/political-opinion/>,
presidential election
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/presidential-election/>, satire
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/satire/>, sports
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/sports/>, philosophy
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/philosophy/>, gun control
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/gun-control/>, politics
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/politics/>, government
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/government/>, Reviews
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/reviews/>, economics
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/economics/>, sociology
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/sociology/>, Race/Ethnicity
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/raceethnicity/>, action
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/action/>, tutorials
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/tutorials/>, comedy
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/comedy-2/>, humor
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/humor/>, author
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/author/>, commerical
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/commerical/>, adobe
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/adobe/>, editing
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/editing/>, stories
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/stories/>, movies
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/movies/>, post modernisim
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/category/post-modernisim/>
Tagged as: 2001 <http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/2001/>, American
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/american/>, Assemblages
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/assemblages/>, Barrack
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/barrack/>, body

<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/body/>, Bush
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/bush/>, chile
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/chile/>, construction
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/construction/>, Copenhagen School
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/copenhagen-school/>, definition
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/definition/>, Department of Homeland
Security
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/department-of-homeland-security/>,
discourse <http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/discourse/>, domestic
policy <http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/domestic-policy/>, Edward
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/edward/>, election
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/election/>, existential threat
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/existential-threat/>, fear
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/fear/>, foreign policy
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/foreign-policy/>, gender
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/gender/>, George
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/george/>, Germany
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/germany/>, greece
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/greece/>, history
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/history/>, Homeland Security
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/homeland-security/>, Jasbir
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/jasbir/>, Jasbir Puar
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/jasbir-puar/>, Middle East
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/middle-east/>, nsa
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/nsa/>, obama
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/obama/>, ontology
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/ontology/>, orientalism
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/orientalism/>, paper
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/paper/>, perspective
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/perspective/>, politics
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/politics/>, postmodernism
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/postmodernism/>, president
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/president/>, Puar
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/puar/>, queer theory
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/queer-theory/>, Said
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/said/>, security
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/security/>, September 11
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/september-11/>, shape
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/shape/>, speech
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/speech/>, terrorism
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/terrorism/>, threat
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/threat/>, weapons
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/tag/weapons/>
Tales of The Protectors Second Rising: Reunited, Part 2
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/14/tales-of-the-protectors-second-risingreunited-part-2/>
Tales of The Protectors Second Rising: The Next Leader
<http://thehistoricalnerds.com/2014/05/19/tales-of-the-protectors-second-risingthe-next-leader/>

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

</2014/05/16/how-security-discourse-shapes-the-threat-of-terrorism/#respon
d>
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

*
*
*
*

<#comment-form-guest>
<#comment-form-load-service:WordPress.com>
<#comment-form-load-service:Twitter>
<#comment-form-load-service:Facebook>

*
Gravatar <https://gravatar.com/site/signup/>
Email (required) (Address never made public)
Name (required)
Website
WordPress.com Logo
** You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out
<javascript:HighlanderComments.doExternalLogout( wordpress
);> / Change <#> )
Twitter picture
** You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out
<javascript:HighlanderComments.doExternalLogout( twitter );> / Change
<#> )
Facebook photo
** You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out
<javascript:HighlanderComments.doExternalLogout( facebook );> / Change
<#> )
Google+ photo
** You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out
<javascript:HighlanderComments.doExternalLogout( googleplus
);> / Change <#> )
Cancel <javascript:HighlanderComments.cancelExternalWindow();>
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Blog at WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog>. | The

Bromley Theme <http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/bromley/>.
Follow <javascript:void(0)>
Follow The Historical Nerds
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 150 other followers
Powered by WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=lof>
Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email Address
loading Cancel <#cancel>
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: