ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the theoretical debate between the two main schools of scholarship in the field of terrorism studies: traditional terrorism studies (TTS), or the orthodox school, and critical terrorism studies (CTS) which covers the most efficient, successful, and coherent strategies for combating terrorism. This debate on how governments should deal with insurgents and terrorists revolves around the dichotomy of deterrence versus dialogue, or stick versus carrot. The discussion presented in this chapter engages with two main points: what are the repercussions of the heavy reliance on violence and deterrence on combating terrorism, and how can non-coercive strategies, such as dialogue, reconciliations, and positive incentives, be more effective alternatives in combating terrorism? In addition, and in order to reveal the inherited compositions of counterterrorism discourse and narrative in Egypt, this chapter emphasises the critical discourse analysis (CDA) method that analyses the process of producing knowledge and meaning about terrorism and counterterrorism as discursive subjects, as well as the material interests that create these discourses, and how these discourses articulate power practices and reconstituted counterterrorism strategies. However, although the chapter tends to adopt the CTS argument, it is assured that both sides suffer from several cognitive, epistemological, and methodological deficiencies. Therefore, I highlight the most apparent shortcomings of terrorism studies from a postcolonial perspective, with hopes of pushing the research agenda of the field forward.
