According to Jeroen Gunning: "core epistemological, methodological and political-normative problems persist, ranging from lack of conceptual clarity and theoretical sterility to political bias and a continuing dearth of primary research data".
"[1] CTS's antecedents lie with academics such as Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, who published critical works relating to the state and terrorism from the late 1970s.
[1] CTS adopts the epistemological position that the nature of knowledge in terrorism studies is a social process which relies on contextual factors, including the influence of the researcher.
CTS scholars argue that by being continuously aware of context, social processes, and the 'known' and 'unknown' knowledge in circulation, you can gain further insights into the study of terrorism.
A simple way to understand CTS's emancipation is to think of it as a process of creating space and discussion that allows the focus to be on experiences, ideas and questions which have been "neglected in most orthodox accounts of security and terrorism".
[8] The emancipation of ideas, dialogue, and experience is a powerful "philosophical anchorage"[8] that allows CTS to separate itself and its motives from that of traditional and orthodox terrorism studies.
Traditional terrorism studies theorists understand the value behind the idea of emancipatory nature of CTS's research, but many feel such a claim is overstated.
[12] By aiming to keep all research politically neutral and policy free, a space opens up for experts with non-state experience to enter a field which was previously unavailable to them.
[19] And again, politically neutral scholars are more able to bring to attention and help fight acts of state terrorism that are often overlooked and even justified in orthodox studies.
Nevertheless, it has been subject to criticism for its desire to distinguish itself from what it deems "traditional" or "orthodox" terrorism studies, and for its claim of maintaining absolute political neutrality.
However, scholars both from critical and traditional terrorism studies remain determined not to allow any distinction between the subfields to cause bifurcation and incompatibility within the field of research itself.
[22] Moving into the twentieth century, the regimes of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, through the use of secret police, used tension to subdue and kill those deemed enemies of the state.
Further, a number of Latin American states backed by the US utilised state-terrorism to silence the population and consolidate their control – Chile and Nicaragua in particular.
Moreover, this becomes accepted as the general consensus at the macro, meso and micro levels of government and institutions, and is reflected in policy and the way the mainstream view terrorism.
According to Burnett and Whyte, the Corporation acts "effectively as an influential prestigious voice in the American military-industrial lobby and in world politics; particularly with regard to its interventions on the war on terror".
[30] Bush immediately framed these terrorists as being motivated by Islamic extremism; an evil, destructive and repressive people who America refused to negotiate with and must defeat (45).
Not only has this war killed, tortured and displaced hundreds of thousands of people, there is no proof that it has been effective in reducing terrorism, and has led to a further proliferation of terrorist attacks.
[1] It is argued that the negative effects of this war will be felt for generations, due to the culture of division, stereotyping and hate between the Middle East and the West.
The formation of a new "suspect community" in the Middle East has undermined human rights and civil liberties, and impaired the functionality of the international system.
[28] American power internationally meant that they authorized the attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Counter-terrorism efforts such as Targeted killing and drone strikes have backfired and are not proven to work, and have even perpetuated the number of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings.
[32] Upward of 60 examples of terrorist incidents in America are proven consequences of United States foreign policy and military intervention.
[32] It is noted that at Faisal Shahzad's trial – following his failed 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt – he cited the drones that were killing the people of his community as the reason for his vengeance.
[citation needed] Unmanned drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan tend to target public places and gatherings, such as weddings and funerals, and are increasing the threat of terrorism.
[32] Rather than concentrating resources and money on problems that have widespread negative effects on American society, like poverty, education, health or the environment, the United States has spent US$1.283 trillion since 9/11 on military interventions internationally.
And the shared hate for the enemy contributes to a unified patriotism within America that deflects attention from the deeply entrenched inequalities within the nation.
When the motives and ideology of terrorists are largely unknown – let alone the number and whereabouts – the greater the possibility is to rely on stereotype and myth-based discourse.
When reality falls short, the narrative of foreign peoples is shaped by "shortcuts provided by stylized imagery compounded of stories, films and our own imaginations".
[40] Politicians use this to back up their dehumanized claims, so the image of the terrorist mimics Osama bin Laden with the beard, turban, black eyes and hollow glum face creating a stereotyped stigma.
[41][42][43] Over past decades, many voices alerted on the negative effects of terrorism over the industry of tourism and mobilities in developed and underdeveloped economies.