Heidegger - Ven Espionage

1NC ShellPolitical responses to terrorism are destined to fail – a thinking of terrorism is a prior question.Mitchell '05 [Andrew J. Mitchell, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Humanities at Stanford University, "Heidegger and Terrorism," Research in Phenomenology, Volume 35, Number 1, 2005 , pp. 181-218]

This does not mean that being exists unperturbed somewhere behind or beyond these beings. The withdrawal of being is found in these abandoned beings themselves and is determinative for the way they exist. Heideggerian thinking, then, allows us to ask the question of our times and to think terrorism. My contention in the following is that the withdrawal of being shows itself today in terrorism , where beings exist as terrorized. Terrorism , in other words, is not simply the sum total of activities carried out by terrorist groups, but a challenge directed at beings as a whole . Terrorism is consequently a metaphysical issue , and it names the way in which beings show themselves today, i.e., as terrorized. This "ontological" point demands that there be the "ontic" threat of real terrorists. Further, this metaphysical aspect of terrorism also indicates that a purely political response to terrorism is destined to fail. Political reactions to terrorism, which depict terrorism from the outset as a political problem, miss the fact that terrorism itself, qua metaphysical issue, is coincident with a transformation in politics . That is to say, political responses to terrorism fail to think terrorism . In what follows I will elaborate some of the consequences of thinking terrorism as a question of being and sketch a few characteristics of the politicotechnological landscape against which terrorism takes place.

It's the aff's technological enframing that makes terrorism inevitable – we should recognize that true security is impossible and not look at the metaphysical issue of terrorism in a technological view.Mitchell '05 [Andrew J. Mitchell, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Humanities at Stanford University, "Heidegger and Terrorism," Research in Phenomenology, Volume 35, Number 1, 2005 , pp. 181-218]

Insofar as Heideggerian thinking is a thinking of being, then it must be able to think terrorism, for the simple reason that terrorism names the current countenance of being for our times, and without such a correspondence to being, Heideggerian thinking is nothing. The issue is not one of applying a preestablished Heideggerian doctrine to an object or situation that would remain outside of thought. Rather, the issue is one of recognizing that the objects and situations of our world themselves call for thought , and that in thinking the world, we enter into a correspondence with being. But what sort of correspondence can be achieved between the thinking of being and terrorism? Heidegger's articulation of the age of technology already contains in germ four routes of access for the thinking of terrorism. First, Heidegger himself witnessed a transformation in the making of war, such that he was led to think beyond the Clausewitzian model of modem warfare and to open the possibility for a "warfare" of a different sort. This thought beyond war is itself an opening to terrorism. Second, Heidegger prioritizes terror (Erschrecken) as a fundamental mood appropriate to our age of technological

enframing. Terror is a positive mood, not a privative one, and it corresponds to the way that being gives itself today. Third, Heidegger thinks threat and danger in an "ontological" manner that calls into question traditional notions of presence and absence. Terrorism attends this transformation in presence. Finally, and following from all of this, Heidegger rethinks the notion of security in a manner that alerts us to the oxymoronic character of "homeland security" and the impossibility of ever achieving a condition of complete safety from terrorism. In each of these ways, Heideggerian thinking responds to this most uncommon of challenges.

Terrorism is the result of technological domination of the world – it is an attempt to break free from the standing reserve, which the aff creates, through their technological mindset.Mitchell '05 [Andrew J. Mitchell, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Humanities at Stanford University, "Heidegger and Terrorism," Research in Phenomenology, Volume 35, Number 1, 2005 , pp. 181-218]

Nothing stable, this juncture in being itself must be followed and traced. It trembles. Terror takes a situation that looks hopelessly doomed and finds the essential within it, but terror contains its own demise, too. We flee from it. We respond to it with a hardening of our own ways; we reaffirm the identity of being instead of opening ourselves to others. The American response to terror has been one of Americanism, there can be no doubt about that. Terror ends in this, and there is no commemoration, just a forgetting. The commemorative aspect of terror allows us to remember the fallen and understand how they can still be with us today in our American way of being. Terrorism will take place in the withdrawal of being, in the unworld of machination. The modern configuration of war is surpassed by the technological plan of homogenized circulation, and the distinction between war and peace falls away in their mutual commitment to furthering the cycle of production and consumption. The abandonment of being that forms this unworld by draining the world of its being does not occur without a trace, however, and terror in its trembling corresponds to that trace. Terrorism necessarily results from such a devastation-or, "becoming-desert," Vendiistung-of the world; terrorism is always born in the desert. Terrorism is metaphysical because it touches everything, every particular being, all of which may be attacked and annihilated. The circulation of the standing-reserve sets an equivalence of value among things with a resulting worldlessness where existence is another name for exchangeability. The exchanged and replaceable things are already replaced and exchanged, not serially, but essentially. They are not fully present when here. Terrorism names this absence, or rather is the effect of this absence, which is to say it is that absence itself, since here we are not dealing with an absence that could be the effect of any loss of presence. The absence in question is not an absence of presence, but an absence in and through presence. It would be ridiculous to think that such a change in being would lack a corresponding change in beings. This change in' the nature of being shows itself in the fact that all beings today are terrorized. They all stand under a very real threat of destruction via -terrorist acts. There would be no terrorist threat were it not for these terrorists, yet there would be no possibility of a threat were it not for being. Certainly terrorism is not the only "effect" of this absence in presence; Heidegger frequently refers to the atomic bomb in precisely this regard. Terrorism's claim, however, is distinct from that of atomic war. Like the atomic bomb, terrorism operates at the level of threat. Insofar as it calls into question all

beings, terrorism is itself a metaphysical determination of being. Terrorism makes everything a possible object of terrorist attack, and this is the very terror of it. Everything is a possible target, and this now means that all beings exist as possible targets, as possibly destroyed. But this should not be taken to mean that there are discrete beings, fully present, now threatened with destruction. The ineradicable threat of destruction transforms the nature ofthe being itself. The being can no longer exist as indifferent to its destruction; this destruction does not reside outside of the being. Instead, destruction inhabits the being and does so, not as something superadded to the being, but as the essence of the being itself. Beings are henceforth as though destroyed. Terror brings about an alteration in the very mode of being of reality, the real is now the terrorized. Reality is already terrorized; the change has already taken place, -and this regardless of whether an attack comes or not. Beings exist as endangered, as terrorized, and this means as no longer purely self-present. It means that, in terms of pure presence, beings exist asalready destroyed. Destruction is not something that comes at a later date, nor is it something that may or may not already have taken place. Destruction exists now as threat. The effectiveness of terror lies in the threat, not the attack.

Terrorism is not located in one particular country or group – its a consequence of the new global order, which creates constant internal violence. The aff’s supposed solution plays into the mindset that justifies terrorist acts.Baudrillard in 2003 [Jean, October, “The Mind of Terrorism”]All the speeches and commentaries made since September 11 betray a gigantic post-traumatic abreaction both to the event itself and to the fascination that it exerts. The moral condemnation anti the sacred union against terrorism are directly proportional to the prodigious jubilation felt at having seen this global superpower destroyed, because it was this insufferable superpower that gave rise both to the violence now spreading throughout the world and to the terrorist imagination that (without our knowing it) dwells within us all. That the entire world without exception had dreamed of this event, that nobody could help but dream the destruction of so powerful a hegemon-this fact is unacceptable to the moral conscience of the West, and yet it is a fact nonetheless, a fact that resists the emotional violence of all the rhetoric conspiring to erase it.In the end, it was they who did it but we who wished it. If we do not take this fact into account, the vent loses all symbolic dimension; it becomes s a purely arbitrary act, the murderous phantasmagoria of a few fanatics that we need only repress. But we know well that such is not tie case. Without our profound complicity the event would not have reverberated so forcefully, and in their strategic symbolism the terrorists knew they could count on this unconfessable complicity. It goes well beyond the hatred that the desolate and the exploited-those who ended up on the wrong side of the new world order-feel toward the dominant global power. This malicious desire resides n the hearts of even those who've shared in the spoils. The allergy to absolute order, to absolute power, is universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center were, precisely because of their ideaticality, the perfect incarnation of this absolute order.Countless disaster films have borne witness to these fantasies, and the universal appeal of the images shows just how close the fantasies always are to being acted out: the closer the entire system gets to perfection or to omnipotence, the stronger the urge to destroy it grows. When the world has been so thoroughly monopolized, when power has been so formidably consolidated by the technocratic machine and the dogma of globalization, what means of turning the tables remains besides terrorism? In dealing all the cards to itself, the system forced the Other to change the rules of the game. And

the new rules are ferocious, because the game is ferocious. Terrorism is the act that restores an irreducible singularity to the heart of a generalized system of exchange. All those singularities (species, individuals, cultures) that have been sacrificed to the interests of a global system of commerce avenge themselves by turning the tables with terrorism.Terror against terror-this is no longer an ideological notion. We have gone well beyond ideology and politics, The energy that nourishes terror, no ideology, no cause, not even an Islamic one, can explain. The terrorists are not aiming simply to transform the world. Like the heretics of previous times, they aim to radicalize the world through sacrifice, whereas the system aims to convert: it into money through force. Terrorists, like viruses, are everywhere. There is no longer a boundary that can hem terrorism in; it is at the heart of the very culture it's fighting with, and the visible fracture (and the hatred) that pits the exploited and underdeveloped nations of the world against the West masks the dominant system's internal fractures . It is as if every means of domination secreted its own antidote. Against this almost automatic from of resistance to its power, the system can do nothing. Terrorism is the shock wave of this silent resistance. It is a mistake, then, to characterize this as a clash of civilizations or of religions. It goes well beyond Islam aria' America, on which one aright be tempted to concentrate in order to create the illusion of a confrontation resolvable by force. There is a fundamental antagonism at work. but it transcends the phantom of America (which is perhaps the epicenter though not the incarnation of globalization) as well as the phantom of Islam (which likewise is not the incarnation of terrorism). This is the clash of triumphant globalization at war with itself. In this sense, it is accurate to speak of this as a world war-no: the third but the fourth-and the only one that is truly global, since what's at stake is globalization itself. The first put an end to European supremacy and to the era of colonialism; the second put an end to Nazism; and the third to Communism. Each one brought us progressively closer to the single world order of today, which is now nearing its end, everywhere opposed, everywhere grappling with hostile forces. This is a war of fractal complexity, waged worldwide against rebellious singularities that, in the manner of antibodies, mount a resistance in every cell. These confrontations are so imperceptible that it is occasionally necessary to resuscitate the idea of war by staging spectacular scenes such as those in the Persian Gulf and now in Afghanistan. But World War IV happens elsewhere too. It haunts all expressions of world order, all forms of hegemonic domination-if Islam were dominating the world, terrorism would rise up against Islam. The globe itself is resistant to globalization. Terrorism is immoral. The occurrence at the World Trade Center, this symbolic act of defiance, is immoral, but it was in response to globalization, which is itself immoral. We are therefore immoral ourselves, so if we hope to understand anything we will need to get beyond Good and Evil. The crucial point lies in precisely the opposite direction from the Enlightenment philosophy of Good and Evil. We naively believe in the progress of Good, that its ascendance in all domains (science, technology, democracy, human rights) corresponds to the defeat of Evil. No one seems to have understood that Good and Evil increase in power at the same time -and in the same way. The triumph of one does not result in the obliteration of the ether; to the contrary. We tend to regard Evil, metaphysically, as an accidental smudge, but this axiom is illusory. Good does not reduce Evil, or vice versa; they are at once irreducible, the one and the other, and inextricably linked. In the end, Good cannot vanquish Evil except by denying to be Good, since, in monopolizing global power, it entails a backfire of proportional violence.In the traditional universe, there remained a balance of Good and Evil, a dialectical relationship that guaranteed, for better or worse, the tension and equilibrium of the moral universe. This balance was lost as soon as there was a total extrapolation of Good-the hegemony of the positive over every form of negativity. From that moment, the equilibrium was broken, and Evil returned to an invisible autonomy, increasing exponentially. Relatively speaking, this is a bit like what happened to the political

order after Communism disappeared and neoliberal forces triumphed worldwide. It was then that a phantom enemy arose, percolating throughout the planet, rising up through all the cracks in power. Islam. But Islam. is merely the crystallized form of this antagonism. The antagonism is everywhere, and it is in each of us. Hence, terror against terror. But it is asymmetrical terror, and it is this asymmetry that leaves the absolute global power disarmed. It can do nothing but strike at its own rationale for the balance of power, without being able to compete on the playing field of symbolic defiance and of death, having deleted that playing field from its own culture. Until now, this integrating power had succeeded in absorbing and reabsorbing every attack, every negativity, and in doing so created a thoroughly hopeless situation (not only for the wretched o' the earth but also for the privileged and well-to-do in their radical comfort). But the terrorists have started using their own deaths offensively and effectively, based on a strategic intuition, a sense of their adversary's immense fragility, of the system's quasi-perfection, of the explosion that would erupt at the slightest spark. They succeeded in turning their deaths into an ultimate weapon against a system devoted to the ideal of zero losses. Any system of zero losses is a zero-sum game. And all methods of deterrence and destruction can do nothing against an enemy who has already turned his death into a counteroffensive weapon. (" Who cares about the American bombing! Our men are as eager to die as the Americans are eager to live!") Thus the imbalance of more than 3,000 deaths inflicted in one fell swoop against a system of zero losses. Here, everything depends upon death, not only upon the brutal irruption of death live and in real time but upon the irruption of a death much more than real: a symbolic and sacrificial death-which is to say, the absolute, ultimate, unappealable event.

Here's our alterntive text: Reject the aff and their misunderstanding of terrorism and use of a technological mindset to solve. Instead open up this space for meditative and ontological thinking on terrorism.

Our alternative grounds our thinking and dwells-upon the earth. Instead of pursuing the rigid confines of calculative thought, we instead take root to allow the human spirit to flourish and allow thinking about thinking.

Heidegger '66 [Martin. The 20th century’s Slavoj. Discourse on Thinking. 1966. pp. 47-49]

There are, then, two kinds of thinking, each justified and needed in its own way: calculative thinking and meditative thinking. This meditative thinking is what we have in mind when we say that contemporary man is in flight-from-thinking. Yet you may protest: mere meditative thinking finds itself floating unaware above reality. It loses touch. It is worthless for dealing with current business. It profits nothing in carrying out practical affairs. And you may say, finally, that mere meditative thinking, persevering meditation, is “above” the reach of ordinary understanding. In this excuse only this much is true, meditative thinking does not just happen by itself any more than does calculative thinking. At times it requires a greater effort. It demands more practice. It is in need of even more delicate care than any other genuine craft. But it must also be able to bide its time, to await as does the farmer, whether the seed will come up and ripen. Yet anyone can follow the path of meditative thinking in his own manner and within his own limits. Why? Because man is a thinking, that is, a meditating being. Thus meditative thinking need by no means be “high-flown.” It is enough if we dwell on what lies close and meditate on what is closest ; upon that

which concerns us, each one of us, here and now; here, on this patch of home ground; now, in the present hour of history. ‘What does this celebration suggest to us, in case we are ready to meditate? Then we notice that a work of art has flowered in the ground of our homeland. As we hold this simple fact in mind, we cannot help remembering at once that during the last two centuries great poets and thinkers have been brought forth from the Swabian land. Thinking about it further makes clear at once that Central Germany is likewise such a land, and so are East Prussia, Silesia, and Bohemia. We grow thoughtful and ask: does not the flourishing of any genuine work depend upon its roots in a native soil? Johann Peter Hebel once wrote : “We are plants which whether we like to admit it to ourselves or not- must with our roots rise out of the earth in order to bloom in the ether and to bear fruit” (Works, ed. Altwegg III, 314.) The poet means to say: For a truly joyous and salutary human work to flourish, man must be able to mount from the depth of his home ground up into the ether. Ether here means the free air of the high heavens, the open realm of the spirit. We grow more thoughtful and ask: does this claim of Johann Peter Hebel hold today? Does man still dwell calmly between heaven and earth? Does a meditative spirit still reign over the land? Is there still a life-giving homeland in whose ground man may stand rooted, that is, be autochthonic? Many Germans have lost their homeland have had to leave their villages and towns, have been driven from their native soil. Countless others whose homeland was saved, have yet wandered off. They have been caught up in the turmoil of the big cities, and have resettled in the wastelands of industrial districts. They are strangers now to their former homeland. And those who have stayed on in their homeland? Often they are still more homeless than those who have been driven from their homeland. Hourly and daily they are chained to radio and television. Week after week the movies carry them off into uncommon, but often merely common, realms of the imagination, and give the illusion of a world that is no world. Picture magazines are everywhere available. All that with which modern techniques of communication stimulate, assail, and.drive man-all that is already much closer to man today than his fields around his farmstead, closer than the sky over the earth, closer than the change from night to day, closer than the conventions and customs of his village, than the tradition of his native world. We grow more thoughtful and ask: What is happening here-with those driven from their homeland no less than with those who have remained? Answer: the rootedness, the autochthony, of man is threatened today at-its core. Even more: The loss-of-rootedness is caused not merely by circumstance and fortune, nor does it stem only from the negligence and the superficiality of man’s way of life. The loss of autochthony springs from the spirit of the age into which all of us were born. We grow still more thoughtful and ask: If this is so, can man, can man’s work in the future still be expected to thrive in the fertile ground of a homeland and mount into the ether, into the far reaches of the heavens and the spirit? Or will everything now fall into the clutches of planning and calculation, of organization and automation?

Acts of will cannot transform bad forms of thinking. We have to deeply reflect and meditate with our alternatives meditative thought to allow meaning to reveal itself to us. This allows us to rediscover our worldly home and choose how we want to be in the world.

Thiele ’95 [Leslie, Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida, Timely Meditations: Martin Heidegger and Postmodern Politics, pg 213-214]

Heidegger offers a hint about the nature of the thinking that might loosen the grip of technology. He writes that "the coming to presence of technology will be surmounted \venvunden] in a way that restores it into its yet concealed truth. This restoring surmounting is similar to what happens when, in the human realm, one gets over grief or pain" (QT 39). Importantly, one gets over grief not through a willful overcoming. Such self-mastery only displaces grief , with the likelihood of its resurgence at some other

time, in an invidious form. Like moods in general, grief is overcome not by mastery, intellect, or will, but only by another mood (WPA 99). And moods, Heidegger insists, cannot be created, only summoned (ST 105). The mood that allows our overcoming of grief might best be described as one of rediscovered sanctuary. One gets over grief by once again coming to feel one's belonging in a world that , because of to its cruel deprivations, had for a time become alien. Hannah Arendt often called to mind Isak Dinesen's saying that "all sorrows can be borne if you put them into a story or tell a story about them." Dinesen's point is that we get over grief by reflecting on our grief-stricken selves and becoming interpretively reintegrated in the world. Looking back on our grieved selves allows us to surmount grief not by denying our misfortune but by finding meaning in the story of our sorrow. To look back on ourselves in time is to gain distance , and, at the same time, a nearness to the ongoing and often tragic saga of worldly habitation. Homelessness is the mood of the technological age. Rediscovering our worldly home (as threatened) signals the "restoring surmounting" of technology. This rediscovered sense of (threatened) sanctuary is chiefly summoned, Heidegger indicates, by memory or recollective thought. Recollecting our worldly habitat not only fosters resistance to enframing, but also provides guidance in negotiating relations with the products of technology, namely machines and techniques. Heidegger ac-knowledges that we should neither reject nor do without technological artifacts or skills as a whole. He neither advocates nor accepts a retreat to a pretechnological state of being. Nor, despite much misinterpreta-tion by his commentators, does he suggest that we fatalistically resign ourselves to the victory of enframing. Its victory, he emphatically states, is not inevitable (OGS 61). "We cannot, of course, reject today's tech-nological world as devil's work, nor may we destroy it—assuming it does not destroy itself," Heidegger maintains. "Still less may we cling to the view that the world of technology is such that it will absolutely prevent a spring out of it" (ID 40—41). To confuse our destined relation to Being as if it were a fate, particularly one that leads to the inevitable decline of our civilization because of technological rule, is itself a historically determinist, and therefore metaphysical and technological, understanding. According to Heidegger, "All attempts to reckon existing reality morphologically, psychologically, in terms of decline and loss, in terms of fate, catastrophe, and destruction, are merely technological behavior" (QT 48).14 Fatalism is no answer because fatalism reflects the same absence of thought that is evidenced in a naive complacency with technological "progress." Heidegger's admonition to think the nature of technology, though far from a resigned musing, is not the devising of a counteroffensive. We are asked to respond first to the question "What shall we think?" rather than the question "What is to be done?" But the point is not simply that we must think before we act. The needed thinking of what we are doing and how we are being is not solely a strategic preparation for more informed and effective behavior. Thought must first save us from our typical modes of behaving, namely those oriented to possessive mastery. Heidegger warns that "so long as we represent technology as an instrument, we remain held fast in the will to master it" (QT 32). The more we fail to experience the essence of technology as enframing, persevering in the mistaken notion that complex machinery is the danger, the more we will believe that salvation lies in our mastering technology before it masters us. With this in mind, Heidegger explicitly states that he is "not against technology," nor does he suggest any "resistance against, or condemnation of, technology" (MHC 43—44). Indeed, the development of complex machines and techniques—technology as it is commonly understood—has enormous benefits that must not be depreciated. It would be shortsighted to condemn such technology out of hand. Apart from our obvious dependence on technical devices, their development also often "challenges us to ever greater advances" (DT 53). From political, social, cultural, and environmental standpoints, technology demonstrates many virtues.

Indeed, given the unrelenting extension of human power and population, technological developments that buffer the earth from our predaceousness seem both urgent and indispensable. A good bit of the destruction humanity presently visits on the earth and itself makes sophisticated technological remedies necessary. Having machines efficiently serve our needs is neither evil nor regrettable. But this service must be grounded on our discovery of what needs we truly have. More importantly, it must be grounded on our discovery of what transcends human need.'* These, decidedly, are not technological questions, and our capacity to answer them largely rests on our recovery of the capacity to think beyond the criterion of instrumental service. 213-214

2NC Extensions

Judge, extend our first Mitchell 05 card. What we’re saying here is that terrorism isn’t just the acts itself; it’s the thought behind it. The terroristic mindset in itself is something that occurs in their ontology, ethics, and metaphysical being. So political action can’t solve for something like that. History also proves because we have yet to be able to solve a terroristic conflict to this day. Examples: Afghanistan, North Korea, the current Black Widow issue in Russia, etc.

Judge, extend our second Mitchell 05 card. Here, we’re saying that the way the affirmative is set up is the reason behind terroristic beliefs/ethics. The affirmative doesn’t see terrorism as what it is, but as something that rises out of oppression. Sure that’s one cause of it, but it stems deeper than that. It’s rooted all the way to one’s sense of ontological being. The affirmative team is violating this by their technological thought, sensing that they can fix this issue by spying on both the government and the people. They’re clearly misunderstanding the root cause of terrorism. You must look at terrorism as beyond the physical and examine the metaphysical issues that lie in these peoples’ ontology, their ethics and values. The aff is totally ignoring this, claiming they can solve by simply spying on them. It’s this technological thought that further condemns the affirmative.

Judge, extend our third Mitchell 05 card. What’s going on here is that terrorism is a response to actions such as those the affirmative is taking. Terrorism is but a response to the ideas of the standing reserve, which the affirmative through US action is promoting. By thinking they can solve for terrorism in Venezuela, the affirmative is promoting this technological thought that they can solve all the world’s problems. The affirmative is seeing these terrorists as the result of government oppression, but it’s more than that. It’s about them revolting against the standing reserve in which both the Venezuelan government, and the US government sees them. (standing reserve is the belief that everything in the world is for the betterment of humans. For example, damming up a river for a hydroelectric dam. Now, instead of the river being a river and existing for it’s natural purpose and beauty, it’s being used as a tool for humans) In this case, the aff sees these people as “terrorists just waiting to spring” and that they need to spy on them, not seeing them as people.

Extend Baudrillard 2003. Here’s the argument. Their arguments assume terrorists are a definite group of people, existing in some other country, who we can deter and deal with as the world’s superpower. This vision is inaccurate – terrorism isn’t out there, it is within the global order, as an inevitable side effect of advancing globalization, so they can never solve the impacts they claim. Also, the overarching power of a single country and its policies is what gives the motive to destroy it – whether or not they want to admit it, everyone wants to see the American superpower humbled. The plan asserts US influence to try to curb this violence, but ironically makes it more likely it will occur, because the more the US stretches out to control the world the more the world will backlash against it. That’s a turn.

Judge, extend our alternative text, and our Heidegger 66 card and our Thiele 95 card. What we’re saying here is that the affirmative’s method of calculative thought – thinking that they can solve for potential terrorism by implementing an espionage policy to Venezuela – isn’t going to solve the actual issue of ontological and metaphysical terrorism. Terrorism will always exist because of the policy actions that the aff and goernments like the US take because it’s not an issue that can be solved with policy/military action. It’s an issue that must be closely examined by meditative, ontological thinking. Only then can the problem be solved. Our alternative solves because first, by rejecting the aff, we stop this ridiculous policy action that clearly won’t solve for the terrorism they claim will happen; then, we solve because the only way to solve for terrorism is examining the issue on the metaphysical level, examining their culture and their beliefs through meditative thinking is the only way to solve. Only through meditation on meditative thought can we solve.

2NC Overview

Ok, so what’s going on with the K is that we as Americans look at terrorism and think: oh they just hate what’s going on with them and can’t deal with it. But then we don’t think to examine it beyond the physical actions or try to dig deeper. We have to examine it as more than just hatred, because more often than not – especially in this case – there’s more to it than that. We must take a look at it from their point of view. Like look at the US, we’re assholes to these countries. There were no terrorist threats from the middle east until both Russian and the US tried to imperialize it and use it for our own means. We brought in western culture which is directly against their culture. And instead of accepting and examing this culture, we practically force it and strengthen it with “Americanism”. Terrorism is something that happens based on metaphysical and ontological issues that come from anger and misunderstanding. We have yet to recognize that it’s more than just the action, it’s the reasons behind it. Religious, cultural, ethical, these ontological issue that we haven’t confronted yet. No one can solve for terrorism without examining it first in an ontological manner. Our alt is the only thing that can solve.