> > The presumption is, of course, that the State's claim to a monopoly on
> violence is legitimate and is
> > not itself a manifestation of nihilism, as Wolfowitz, Rummy et al
> demonstrate all too well.
> >
> > Ian
>
> There's that. But Rothstein's bit about the "ethical limits of these
> all-too-familiar [pro-terrorist] convictions" is not clear. Is he
talking
> about a general terrorist type that sees civilian life as fodder for the
> Greater Good? If so, then that surely indicts the state far more than
the
> cell, though the cell can and does subscribe to this too. But there are
> different cells, different goals. Is Rothstein saying that they are all
> alike, both in the real world and in fiction?
>
> DP
=====================
He may be engaging in ambiguation because he suspects that a nihilist could assert that the ethical limits are contestable and deconstructable and that asserting the former begs the question[s] at issue. We won't even go into the issue of who gets to decide what Greater Good means.
Ian