Good vs. Bad

Throughout Talal Asad's explanation of terror in today's society and how it is handled, I was drawn to the contrasts he constantly put up and then tore down. Asad states at the end of the article that his intention was not to "[resort] to legalistic judgments on the basis of ready-made categories (combatant/noncombatant, intentional/accidental killing, just war/suicide terrorism)". Given the nature of his work, it is almost inevitable that examining killing and death in suicide bombings and comparing this to modern warfare techniques of nation-states, more comparisons will be made across these categories. In his effort to compare killing innocent civilians on the part of either governments or terrorists, while what he describes is incredibly similar, there is a shift that occurs. In discussing how war and "the degree to which violence is necessary and proportional" is a result of the interpretation of law, an ambiguity arises between war and peace. The line between terrorist and soldier becomes both blurred and crossed. The entity we assumed was doing good is now on the opposite side of the line and we, as the reader, are left standing in the middle wondering which is the "right" side to be on. Or if such a side exists at all. Asad's desire to simply discuss violence in the modern context seems almost ludicrous when people are inevitably drawn to picking sides and labeling them good versus bad.