SCFI - Terror Talk - SCFI 2010 Consult Yo Mama Terror Talk...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
SCFI 2010 Terror Talk Consult Yo Mama ___ of ___ Index 1 Cover all the B’s
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
SCFI 2010 Terror Talk Consult Yo Mama ___ of ___ Note This functions as a critical case turn. There is no alternative, but it could possibly subsidize another one of the kritiks that the camp has put out. Otherwise, use this case turn against affirmatives that claim Terrorist advantages. 2
Background image of page 2
SCFI 2010 Terror Talk Consult Yo Mama ___ of ___ Terror Talk 1NC The affirmative defines a “terrorist” in an attempt to control and ignite fear. Edward S. Herman and David Peterson , fellows at the Centre of Globalisation, October 18, 20 01 (“Who Terrorizes Whom?”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER110A.html) Since the September 11 attacks, two truths have been indisputable and universally reported. One is that the hijacker bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon were atrocities of a monumental and spectacular scale (and media coverage of that day's events alone may have generated more words and graphic images than any other single event in recent history). A second truth is that the bombings were willful acts of terrorism, accepting the basic and widely agreed-upon definition of terrorism as "the use of force or the threat of force against civilian populations to achieve political objectives." And let us also recognize that "sponsorship of terrorism" means organizing, and/or underwriting and providing a "safe harbor" to state or nonstate agents who terrorize. This furthers imperialist control and allows for rights invasions in the name of “fighting terrorism.” Edward S. Herman and David Peterson , fellows at the Centre of Globalisation, October 18, 20 01 (“Who Terrorizes Whom?”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER110A.html) This practice of leaning over backwards to downplay the U.S. terrorist role merges into serious misreadings of ongoing events : for example, the New Agenda claims that one effect of September 11 was that "defense policy was redefined as defending America and Americans rather than as force projection." This takes as gospel official propaganda claims, when in fact September 11 has given the proponents of force projection just the excuse they need to project force, which they are doing under the guise of antiterrorism. As John Pilger notes, " The ultimate goal is not the capture of a fanatic , which would be no more than a media circus,
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

SCFI - Terror Talk - SCFI 2010 Consult Yo Mama Terror Talk...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online