“…In the post-9/11 order, policy and politics have legitimated ‘an array of illiberal practices’ (such as Guantánamo, extraordinary renditions, etc.) ‘through claims about necessary exceptions to the norm’ (Neal, 2006: 31) and in the name of perpetual extraordinary security (Fisher, 2013); proscription of organisations and groups have strengthened constructions of a dangerous Other (Jackson et al, 2011; Jarvis and Legrand, 2016; Jarvis and Lister, 2014); targeted and victimised entire communities (Jarvis and Lister, 2013a; Lindekilde, 2012), often counter-productively (Pantazis and Pemberton, 2009), or without tangible improvements in security (Amoore and de Goede, 2008); and debilitated (Richmond and Tellidis, 2012) or even outlawed attempts for peacebuilding (Haspeslagh, 2013). ‘Dissident’ research on terrorism, as Stump and Dixit (2013: 4) call it, has also provided alternative methodologies that ‘challenge established “truths” about terrorism and political violence’ (Toros, 2013: 57), unmask the insecurities that counterterrorism produces in daily life (Ryan, 2013) and highlight how visual methods may uncover instances where iconography serves to legitimise the portrayal of the state as the ‘good guy’ that saves the lives of people threatened by ‘evil terrorists’ (Debrix, 2013).…”