英语论文网

timacy, so their grievances are at best incidental' (ILARDI, 2004).

This moralistic perspective, as described by Dr Richard Jackson, is 'deeply antithetical to scientific inquiry, which calls for a more dispassionate and less moralistic analysis of the evidence' (JACKSON, 2007). Such an approach would not only assist with the finding of a definition, but also finally quell the most over-stated phrase in Terrorism studies that 'one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter', a statement which hugely over-simplifies the difficulties faced by students of Terrorism. In order to move the Terrorism debate forward, Jackson suggests a move away from 'Orthodox Terrorism Studies' (which is branded by (1) its poor methods and theories, (2) its state centricity, (3) its problem solving orientation, and (4) its institutional and intellectual links to state security projects) and towards 'Critical Terrorism Studies' (JACKSON, 2007), which, as the name suggest, a far more skeptical approach to current assumed Terrorism knowledge (Jackson, 2007). Jackson's argument can be seen to support the inclusion of experts in other fields delivering fresh perspectives, compared to that of Silke, Merari and Gordon who are far more snobbish when it comes to transients.

In response to Jackson's criticisms, Horgan and Boyle (2008) indicate that most scholars are well aware of the difficulties faced with Terrorism research, writing 'An implicit presumption from this is that terrorism scholars have laboured for all of these years without being aware that their area of study has an implicit bias, as well as definitional and methodological problems' (HORGAN AND BOYLE, 2008). However, Horgan and Boyle's argument does not deal with the problem at hand; if the issues in Terrorism studies are based around a moralistic bias, a lack of definitions and failures in methodology it is not excusable to simple mention that researchers are aware of these difficulties without attempting to overcome them. This habit of making excuses for Terrorism research failures appears to be quite common, with Weinberg and Eubank writing 'Andrew Silke, Marc Sageman, Alex Schmid and a long list of other investigators have called our attention to significant and long-term flaws in how terrorism has been studied since the phenomenon itself reappeared in the 1960s' (WEINBERG AND EUBANK, 2008). The critics of Critical Terrorism Studies put forward by Jackson appear to be far more concerned with protecting the Orthodox 'methods' of research (which will be discussed in detail next in this essay), despite recognising its flaws, instead of working to overcome them. If they are widely recognized by a wide number of researchers and authors, why are they still so prominent?

The last aspect of the Good Vs. Evil debate is the question of State Terror. Ever since the League of Nations convention ruled out the State as being capable of committing Terror, it has been a limited area of study. Jackson highlights this, saying 'Of particular concern is that, with only a few notable exceptions, terrorism studies has failed to engage with the issues and practices of state terrorism' (JACKSON, 2007). Andrew Silke in his 2004 study shows that only 12 out of 490 journals addressed the question of State Terror (SILKE, 2004b). As the growth in Terrorism studies has been funded by a need from Governmental organisations and security services focused on the state's needs against opposing or