7/23/2019 Terrorism Blake Use It

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/terrorism-blake-use-it 1/5

 Terror Talk KFramework:Before we can debate the content of the resolution, we must rst look how wedebate it. If our words are rooted in harmful discourse, than we must reject theresolution, a-priori. This is ke because the nature of discourse is central tofunctionin! of actions. "ith re!ard to the notion of #terrorism $sic%,& the practice of

terrorism $sic% is predicated upon a discourse. These beliefs determine what kinds of terrorism $sic% occur- words are turned into realit, so the lan!ua!e of terrordescribes the operations of terrorists $sic%'(ichard Jackson, author, writin! the "ar on Terrorism: lan!ua!e, politics, andcounter-terrorism, )anchester *ni+ersit ress 05, p!s. /-01

The War on terrorism [sic]' therefore. is simultaneously a set of actual practices - wars.

covert operations. agencies and institutions — and an accompanying series of assumptions.

beliefs, iustifications and narratives - it is an entire language or discourse.  At the most basic

level. the practice of counter-terrorism [sic] is predicated on and determined by the

language of counter-terrorism [sic]. The language of counter-terrorism [sic] incorporates a

series of assumptions. beliefs and nowledge about the nature of terrorism [sic] and

terrorists [sic]. These beliefs then determine what inds of counter—terrorism [sic]practices are reasonable or unreasonable. appropriate or inappropriate! if terrorists [sic]

are to be inherently evil.  for example. then eradicating them appears appnsite while negotiating

with them appears absurd. The actual practice of counter-terrorism[sic] gives concrete

e"pression to the language of counter-terrorism [sic] — in effect. it turns the initial words

into reality. #anguage and practice. in other words. are ine"tricably lined! they mutually

reinforce each other: together they co-constitute social and political reality. For this

reason.understanding the language of counter-terrorism [sic] is essential for a fully

informed understanding of the $war on terrorism [sic]`. Unfortunately. apart from Some notable

exceptions see !ollins and "lover #$$#: %urphy #f&'(: Silberstein #$$#: )ulai*a and +ouglass ,/. studies on the languageof counter-terrorism are few and far between. 0his boo* see*s to fill this gap through a systematic and critical analysis of the

main features and aspects of the language of the 1war on terrorism2.

2ink:Good v. Evil rhetoric dehumanizes and supernaturalizes terrorists[sic] to demand their extermination(ichard Jackson, 2ecturer in International olitics at The *ni+ersit of )anchester, 05,2an!ua!e ower and olitics: 3ritical 4iscourse 5nalsis and the "ar on Terrorism,http:66www.70thparallel.bham.ac.uk6current6jackson8.htm

erhaps the most important feature of the construction of identit in this discourse is the

ubi9uitous use of a rhetorical trope of !ood and e+il;. Deeply emedded in!merican rhetorical traditions and reli"ious li#e 'as well as bein! a sub-plot

of the ci+ili<ation-barbarism; meta-narrati+e that the administration is so fond of1, this

lan"ua"e essentializes the terrorists [sic] as oth satanic and

morally corrupt. $n %eptemer &&, 'ush stated that ()oday, ournation sa* evil, the very *orst o# human nature+=<$7% in subse9uentte>ts, he #reuently re#ers to terrorists [sic] as (the evil ones+, and(evildoers+.  These are theolo!ical terms, deploed lar!el for a ?outhern conser+ati+e audience, but also appealin! to

popular entertainment understandin!s of !ood !us; and bad !us;. 5s such, it is a demonolo"ical movein *hich the terrorists [sic] are individually and collectively markedas (cruel+, (mad+ and driven y (hate+- perhaps inadvertently, it alsosupernaturalizes them. In this a!ent6act ratio, the character o# the

7/23/2019 Terrorism Blake Use It

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/terrorism-blake-use-it 2/5

terrorists[sic] precedes their actions the terrorists [sic] did *hatthey did ecause it is in their nature to do so/they murderedecause that is *hat evil, demonic terrorists [sic] do .aa$@% t is a powerful

discourse, and an act of dema!o!uer, which de1contextualizes and de1historicizes theactions o# the terrorists [sic], emptyin" them o# any political

content, *hile simultaneously de1humanizin" them. !#ter all, therecan e no deeper explanation #or such acts, and there can e noreasonin" or compromisin" *ith evil- the only ri"ht response isexorcism and puri2cation. 5t the same time, the radical e+il ar!umentbb$A% is alon! used strate! of

silencin! liberal dissent: from 2eo ?trauss and (einhold eibuhr to (onald (ea!an, liberals ha+e been char!ed with lackin! both arealistic sense of human e+il and the moral coura!e to confront it. In an e>tension of re-makin! the attackers as demons, the arealso scripted as inhuman or nonhuman. Bush speaks of the curse of terrorism that is upon the face of the earth;,cc$C% while 3olinowell refers to the scour!e of terrorism;.dd$/% This medical metaphor is restated more e>plicitl b (umsfeld: "e share the belief that terrorism is a cancer on the human condition;.ee$0% Bush in turn, speaks of the dan!er to the bod politic posed b terroristparasites who threaten their countries and our own;.D$E% In this construction, the terrorist is re-made as a dan!erous or!anism thatmakes its host ill= the hide interiorl, drawin! on the lifeblood of their unsuspectin! hosts and spreadin! poison. This particularlan!ua!e is actuall a precursor to the disciplinar idea of the enem within;= the are the new reds under the bed;. f course,such an e+il and inhuman !roup of men;!!$E8%Gthese faceless enemies of human di!nit;hh$E%Gare undeser+in! of oursmpath or protection. "hile it would be wron! to treat an enem soldier inhumanel, or torture a criminal suspect, the same

cannot be said for a parasite, a cancer, a curse. # the enemy is removed #rom the moral

realm o# human community, then y extension, actions to*ardsthem cannot e 3ud"ed on moral terms. )his is extremely lieratin"#or a "overnment 2"htin" a hidden enemy, as it means that those"overnment a"encies that practice the (lack arts+ can e unleashed*ith impunity.!merican discourse de2nes terrorists [sic] as to classi#y them as theother4ampell, rofessor of Internatioanl olitics H * of ewcastle, &6,'4a+id, "ritin! ?ecurit; *nited?tates Forei!n olic and the olitics of Identit1)hat the 7ararian8 invoked connotations that can e ali"ned *ith

cancer su""ests that althou"h each representation *ill have itspeculiar entailments, each is ener"ized y moral concerns similar tothose invoked y the ipolarity o# normal9patholo"ical+ these moralconcerns naturalize the sel# :as normal, health, ci+ili<ed, or somethin!e9uall positive; y estran"in" the other :as patholo"ical, sick,barbaric, or somethin! e9uall ne"ative;. In the position of the estran!ed, we could

place the heretic, the pa!an, the primiti+e, the raciall desi!nated, the culturall inferior, the mad, thewild, the 'sometimes noble1 sa+a!e, the indi!ent, the immoral, the law-less, the 9ueer, or thepossibilities are almost endless. Jach has its own emotional +alence and each has its own colorin!, buteach makes up a network of tropes the combined +aluations of which constitute a position capable of

bein! occupied b an one of a number identities. 5t one time or another, Juropeanand !merican discourse has inscried women, the workin! class, Jastern 

Juropeans, ews, blacks, criminals, coloreds, mulattos, 5fricans, dru! addicts, 5rabs, the insane,5sians, the rient, the Third "orld, terrorists [sic], and other others throu"htropes that have *ritten their identity as in#eriority, o#ten in termso# ein" a mo or horde :sometimes passive and sometimesthreatenin"; that is *ithout culture, devoid o# moral, in#ected *ithdisease, lackin" in industry, incapale o# achievement, prone to eunruly, inspired y emotion, "iven to passion, indeted to tradition,or < *hatever 7*e8 are not. The #we&, thou!h is rarel if e+er articulated

7/23/2019 Terrorism Blake Use It

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/terrorism-blake-use-it 3/5

in its own terms, de+oid of ne!ati+e associations, 5s Jtienne Balibar ar!uedwith respect to the function of racism in securin! national identit:mpact%!Turns the &ase

Terrorist [sic] rhetoric generates more terrorism ( reasons

)apitan and *chulte + 'Tomis and Jrich, Thomas L rof of hilosoph H Illionois *,and Jrich L , ournal of olitical and )ilitar ?ociolo! Mol. E Iss. 8, , pp. 8CN,Ouestia1 P0he 'terrorist' rhetoric typified in 3etanyahu1s boo* actually increases terrorism [sic] in four distinct ways.

irst, it magnifies the effect of terrorist [sic]actions by heightening the fear among the target

population. 4f we demoni5e the terrorists6 if we portray them as arbitrary irrational beings with a 7disposition toward

unbridled violence67 then we are amplifying the fear and alarm generated by terrorist incidents. *econd, those who

succumb to this rhetoric contribute to the cycle of revenge and retaliation by endorsing terrorist

[sic] actions of their own government6 not only against those who commit terrorist actions6 but also against those

populations from whose rans the terrorists [sic] emerge. 0he conse8uence has been an increase in terrorist

violence under the rubric of 1retaliation1 or 1counter-terrorism.1,9 Third, short of genocide, a violent response is

liely to stiffen the resolve of those from whose rans terrorists [sic] have emerged 6 leading them

to regard their foes as people who cannot be reasoned with, as people who because they avail themselves soreadily of the 1terrorist1 rhetoric *now only the language of force. As long as they perceive themselves to be victims of

intolerable inustices and view their oppressors as unwilling to arrive at an acceptable compromise6 then they will reply with

more violence against their oppressors. ourth6 and most insidiously6 those who employ the rhetoric of

'terrorism' [sic] for their own political ends,  for instance6 to solidify American support for 4sraeli policies6 are

encouraging actions that they understand will generate or sustain further violence directed against

civilians. 4nasmuch as their verbal behavior is itself intended to secure political obectives through violence directed

against a civilian populus6 then it ualifies as an instance of terrorism [sic] ust as much as any direct

order to carry out a bombing of civilian targets. 4n both cases6 there is purposeful verbal action

aimed at bringing about a particular result through violence against civilians., ;et us now examine evidence

for these points. 

+! /ehumani0ation paves the way for genocide and human rights violations

1aiese 2 (Michelle, Asst. Prof of Philosophy @ Emanuel college, July 2003,

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/) JPG

<hile deindividuation and the formation of enemy images are very common6 they form a dangerous

process that becomes especially damaging when it reaches the level of dehumani0ation. 3nce

certain groups are stigmati0ed as evil6 morally inferior6 and not fully human6 the persecution of those

groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. 4estraints against aggression and violence begin

to disappear. 3ot surprisingly6 dehumani0ation increases the li*elihood of violence and may cause a conflict

to escalate out of control. =nce a violence  brea* over has occurred6 it may seem even more acceptable for people to do

things that they would have regarded as morally unthin*able before. >arties may come to believe that destruction of the

other side is necessary, and pursue an overwhelming victory that will cause one1s opponent to simply

disappear. 0his sort of into-the-sea framing can cause lasting damage to relationships  between the conflicting parties6 ma*ing

it more difficult to solve their underlying problems and leading to the loss of more innocent lives. 4ndeed6

dehumani0ation often paves the way for human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide. Forexample6 in <<446 the dehumani0ation of the 5ews ultimately led to the destruction of millions of

people.?@ Similar atrocities have occurred in wanda6 !ambodia6 and the former Bugoslavia. 4t is thought that the

psychological process of dehumani0ation might be mitigated or reversed through humani0ation

efforts6 the development of empathy6 the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties6 and the pursuit

of common goals. 

5lternati+e:

7/23/2019 Terrorism Blake Use It

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/terrorism-blake-use-it 4/5

The alternative is to reect such representations of violence. 6y viewing these as criminal

rather than evil, we can prevent totali0ing violence and evaluate a more democratic

perspective.4obert # 7vie, 7ndiana 8niversity &ommunications 9rofessor and /epartment &hair, +::2, ;<vil <nemy =ersus >gonistic 3ther! 4hetorical &onstructions of Terrorism?, <bsco

If the rhetoric of !htin! an e+il enem, especiall when reinforced b *.?. militar mi!ht,economic clout, and presidential resol+e, lowers the threshold of war, trumps ar!uments for

pursuin! peaceful resolutions, and masks 5merica;s complicit in the spiralin! ccle of+iolence6 what alternative to this tragic perspective might prove to be a more serviceable

response to terrorism [sic]= Qow can the debate be reframed to pri+ile!e the presumption

of peace consistent with democratic +alues, to shift the burden of proof back to thead+ocates of war, and to increase the force of ar!uments for diplomac and a!ainst pre-

emptionR What ind of a perspective might motivate a higher degree of appreciation for

the comple"ities of the human condition, more tolerance of differences, and greater

resistance to the legitimi0ation of coerced consent@ What conceptuali0ation of the 3ther

promotes the practice of democracy instead of playing the trump card of an evil enemy to

diminish and indefinitely defer democracy in the name of defending it@ Qow can the

rhetoric of anta!onism be transposed into the more constructi+e discourse of democratic

a!onisticsR In the simplest terms, what is being suggested here is that a basic shift ofperspective, achieved by insisting on the primacy of democracy, entails a wholly different

order of priorities than the prevailing accent on evil. (ather than reducin! democrac to acon+enient e>cuse for warGtradin! on it as a le!itimi<in! smbol, protectin! it as animperiled and +ulnerable institution, restrainin! it as a risk practice in times of crisis, and

promisin! it as the pri<e of +ictorGadvocates of pre-emption should be held s8uarely accountable to

meeting the standard of democracy and all that it entails. ?imilarl, those troubled by the

prospect of war  mutating into a routine instrument of statecraft and creating a Cpost-,,D dystopia of terror and

counter-terror must rearticulate their arguments to feature democratic criteria, repositioning the

most salient corollaries of a robustly democratic ethic at the forefront of political

consciousness and with sufficient presence to displace an otherwise disuieting image of

evil noting terrorist [sic] action as criminal rather than evil.  /emocracy 6 unlike a seamless political

ideolo! of uni+ersal +alues, means, and ends,comprises a multifaceted and situation-specific c luster of simultaneously overlapping and conflicting termssuch as liberty6 e8uality6 self rule6 rights6 pluralism6 elections6 debate6 protest6 and the rule of law. 5s )ichael "al<er a+ers, bi! ideolo!ies do not pro+idesuScientl concrete and intimate knowled!e of societ and the world to prompt health criticism and promote democratic rule inwhich delimited perspecti+es are held accountable to one another and thus kept appropriatel humble and suitabl open to theforce of e+idence and the inuence of deliberation.@ 5t its best, democrac mana!es the human di+ide peacefull, channelin!competin! interests and diDerences amon! !roups of en!a!ed citi<ens into a continuous stru!!le for one another;s 9ualied assent.ersuasion is the paradi!m of democratic communication in mana!in! di+isi+e relations. "ithin this paradi!m, ad+ersaries areaddressed as ri+als who, in )ouDe;s words, #share a common smbolic space but . . . want to or!ani<e $it% in a diDerent wa,& not as

sheer enemies holdin! nothin! in common.# Sheer enemies hold nothing in common6 that is6 except perhaps a shared

 propensity for engaging in rituals of victimi5ation through which they transform one another into convenient

scapegoats6 thereby alleviating social guilt at each other2s expense and ignoring their own culpability.#E *heer

enemies spea of one another as evilA democratic adversaries spea of one another as

wrong, mistaen, and even stupid. Thus, democracy is lost when the agonistic 3ther is

rendered rhetorically into a diabolical enemy, and when democracy vanishes so, too, the

rule of law, liberty, respect for diversity, and accountability to the people wane. >ut anotherway6 addressing oneBs adversary as mistaen rather than evil is reuisite to achieving and

featuring a democratic perspective. 

*ic is defined as Sic , added just after a quoted word or phrase (or a longer piece of text),

indicates that the quoted words appear exactly as in the original source. The usual purpose is toinform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material do not arisefrom transcription, i.e. that they are reproduced exactly from the original writer or printer.  Sic isgenerally placed inside square brackets, [sic, and occasionally in parentheses, (sic). ! sic may

7/23/2019 Terrorism Blake Use It

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/terrorism-blake-use-it 5/5

also be used as a form of ridicule or as a humorous comment, by drawing attention to the originalwriter"s mistakes. This #elinks me from the harmful impacts of the rhetoric

$vervie*Targeted )illing is defined by 9hilip >liston B%: ormer 8C *pecial 4apporteurhttp:GGwww#.ohchr.orgGenglishGbodiesGhrcouncilGdocsG,HsessionGA.I!.,H.#H.Add.pdf accessed #GEG#$,# 0he in #$,$ U3. Special apporteur on extraudicial

executions >hilip Aliston/

 CA targeted illing is the intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force, by

*tates or their agents acting under colour of law6 or by an organi5ed armed group in armed

conflict6 against a specific individual who is not in the physical custody of the perpetrator. D

Jecause 0argeted Killing is an action against someone who is not in your custody it denotes the

fact that criminal trial has not been given to the perpetratorG their rights to habeas corpus have

 been suspended. 0he Affirmative may try to >erm the Kriti*6 but this is impossible due to thenature of 0argeted Killing which the Affirmative needs to affirm/. Lven if you change the literal

discourse behind the word terrorist ?sic@ the Affirmative can never solve6 while using 0argeted

*illing6 the fact that they are treated as evils instead of democratic criminals.