Tags: Essays That Will Get You Into College Barron'SPocahontas Myth Vs Reality EssayField Research PaperAnnotated EssayWriting A Medical Research PaperKinds Of Essay Text
we are happy to resist the meaning of the intended violence.
This distinction parallels Zizek’s contrast between “subjective” and “systemic” violence.
We notice the former, “acts of crime and terror”, and are blind to the latter, which provides our standard of a normal “non-violent zero”: “Systemic violence is something like the ’dark matter’ of physics, that counterpart to an all-too-visible subjective violence”.
The perpetrators of the failed Gunpowder Plot were absolutely explicit about their political programme and the symbolism of the atrocity itself: they spoke to their captors, extensively and explicitly.
Fawkes explained to the Council that they had intended to “purge the kingdom of perfidious heresies”; and chose to destroy Parliament because it was there that true religion “had been universally suppressed”. The terrorists of 9/11 attacked (or tried to attack) the same primary symbols of economic, political and military power (the WTC, Pentagon, possibly Congress), and Bin Laden explained exactly why and what for in his October 2001 videotape: America was the “oppressor”, the murderer of Muslims, and should immediately withdraw from “the land of Muhammed”.
If we respond to terrorism as meaningless violence, we are simply refusing to listen to its ‘message’.
Terrorism Essay In English With Quotations
If we view terrorism solely from the point of view of its victims, we are more likely to perceive it as random and arbitrary, and again fail to comprehend its communication.If we look beyond the explosion and our fear, and decode its message, we might hear something that is not unreasonable.After all, “The threatened violence of the Gunpowder Plot” says Peter Herman, “[…] was an integral but occluded aspect of the Jacobean state”; while “a more complex sense of [9/11] recognises American complicity and ’the brutality of enhanced interrogation’”.Sinfield’s argument is that the play can be read either conventionally - as implicitly endorsing state violence, and condemning the violence of disruption and insurrection; or oppositionally - as equating the two.The play contains both possibilities, and the ‘qualitative’ difference lies in the chosen strategy of reading.For both Buchanan and Appelbaum “the communicative nature of the violence” is more important than the nature of the violence itself.To qualify as terrorism - as the murder of Riccio clearly does - the violence must speak for itself.The plotters even set up their own equivalent of a video testament, having a ship at the ready to cross to Europe and “give news of the deed to the rulers of Christendom”. You’d have to be deaf not to hear messages like these.One of the tactics of this demand is to invoke the dogma of moral equivalence: there is little if any difference between the terrorist and those he attacks.The Plot was an attempted act of unprecedented cruelty and evil - an “offense that no man can express” (Edward Coke) Appelbaum summarises the official response to the Plot as a programme of “depoliticization”: there was no reason for it, according to the state, other than envy and evil; it had nothing to say about power or justice.It testified only, in King James’s own words, quoted from the 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians, to “the mystery of iniquity”.