You raise some crucial points, roachboy....

"The Mind of Terrorism," or "Why Baudrillard Matters"

I realize the problems with using the word "terrorist" in the context in which I use. I am not blinded to that fact. However, given the pitfalls I make a choice to use the term rather than going into the details of the groups we are at war with.

Here is a quote from Baudrillard:

She does not really clarify how "we" wished it, or even who the collective "we" is (I doubt children or unborn children could be people who wished to be killed by terrorists). She talks about the immorality of "globalization" as if at some point in time some group of people sat down and decided on a "globalization" strategy the way terrorist sat down and planned 9/11 and other acts. It seems her rant is in search of some phantom reason for people wanting to kill "us".

............... the United Nations.

In the article, Baudrillard explains this. He states that we wished it as a response to the ultimate consolidation and monopolization of power--that we even fantasized about it. He describes terrorism as the singular turning of tables in such a situation. The collective "we" he applies to Western society.

And the immorality of a system, including globalization, is not dependent on conscious or collective decisions. Immorality often arises as a result of ignorance or irresponsibility.

What is a phantom isn't so much the reason for "them" wanting to kill "us," or, more accurately, to upset the balance of power; it is more the how and the who.

When we say we are at war with terrorism, of whom do we speak? And how, exactly, do we fight "them."

I think the problem I have is with his vagueness and generalizations in reference to the "western" world in relation to terrorists groups who can be clearly identified and have clearly defined goals and objectives.

Also, I do not believe there has been a consolidation and monopolization of global power. I actually believe the opposite in todays world more than any time in history there is greater participation and distribution of power than ever in the history of this planet. One example is the simple fact that a small group of terrorist can change the the course of a national political election, which occurred in Spain a few years ago.

What is "Western society". For example many in the Middle East refer to Hollywood movies and entertainment as a source corrupting their society. Most people in Western society have absolutely nothing to do with the making and distribution of Hollywood movies and forms of entertainment to the Middle East. that responsibility belongs to "Hollywood" and the people in the Middle East who demand that entertainment. Or, another example would be the globalization of let's say McDonald's Restaurants. Just because I eat a Big Mac every once and awhile, doesn't mean that I am responsible for McDonald's opening restaurants in China. That responsibility belongs to McDonald's and the Chinese, doesn't it?

How can systems be immoral? Isn't morality a human characteristic?
That presents an interesting question regarding morality. I thought that morality or lack of morality required deliberate action or deliberate inaction. You seem to suggest that morality can be accidental. Is that what you and Baudrillard are suggesting?

The "who" are the specific groups who have declared a holy war against this country. I understand the problem with using the word terrorist and terrorism in this context, but even as our enemy operates in shadows they are identifiable. In my mind it is simple - when they end their war against us, the war will be over.

ace....let me ask you a simple question.

Do you think the "who" that have declared war a holy war against the US have increased in numbers as a result of the Bush "anti-terrorism" policy and practices since 9/11, including holding Muslims at gitmo indefinitely without charges or access to counsel, allegations of torture and rendition of other Muslims, invasion of a sovereign Muslim country and the resulting loss of the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Muslim women and children, opposition to the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza......

Yes.

I don't know how many times I have said this but I think we are at war, I believe we are in a war that we did not start. I belive we are at war with an enemy that is unwilling to negotiate a peaceful resolution.

The war as a given - people will choose a side.

Some will fight with us, people who ordinarily would not be our friend but believe we have a common cause with them.

Some will fight against us, people who ordinarily would not take arms against us. They may believe their interests are more aligned with our enemy.

I think these conditions are a part of the nature of war. I don't think it changes the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the underlying issues regarding the war.

Using the Civil War as an example - their were many in the Confederacy who took arms against the Union who would not have done so under any other condition accept for the fact that in their belief the Union inappropriately declared war against their way of life. Just the fact that there was a declared war - increased the numbers of people willing to fight and die in the war. there were many reasons why people fought. In many cases individual reasons were very different than the "official" reasons stated by government leaders. There are similarities with the war against terror and our invasion/occupation of Iraq. Please spare me the - how dare I compare Iraq to the Civil War. I know they are different.

I admit Baudrillard isn't specific in his reference to "we." But his aim is not to delineate the oversimplistic binary opposition that plagues such ideas as America and Islam, globalization and terrorism. Instead, he attempts to shatter the facade placed on them by the "New World Order" by pointing out the futility of the attempts to fetishize or commoditize them. Terrorism is a concept, an idea, not something you can pinpoint. It is too far removed from the realm of the practical that you cannot target it in a war, especially when that thing you assume to be "war" is no longer within that realm either.

He points out that terrorism (and terrorists) isn't something you do (or be); rather, it is a cultural response to power. You can no sooner have a supposed war against terror than you can a war against poverty, as both of these things are responses to social and cultural conditions and therefore cannot be pinpointed to a single cause or response. They are so far removed from real conditions that we can no longer trace back to their cause (or, perhaps we never could).

By concentration and monopolization of power, I believe Baudrillard means the gains in power in the hands of government and corporations at the expense of the power lost from the hands of individuals via cultural groups. The anger within Islam is in response to this shift in power. The response with the most impact, sadly, has been a terrorist one.

The immorality of systems is a result of the immorality of people. The systems I refer to are human systems. If these systems cause or allow evils such as child labour, murders, etc, they are inherently immoral. And ignorance is no excuse: the fool who does evil may not know it, but this does not mean what he does is good; it is still evil.

This "enemy operating in the shadows" that you speak of is not unlike the "phantoms" that Baudrillard points out to us. They are everywhere. Just as America was seeing red during the height of Soviet Communism, they are feeling fear in the face of the terrorist response. If you want to fight a war against that, then you're going to need a lot more than munitions. Phantoms are invulnerable to them.

Thanks for the clarifications. Seems like we are simply in disagreement.

Are you declaring a foregone conclusion? I haven't exactly had the opportunity to disagree with you on anything. You asked a series of questions and I offered some clarifications. Did you instead mean to say you disagree with all of it?

Perhaps I made a poor assumption, I thought you agreed with Baudrillard. If you don't I apologize. I was not able to find any general concept in his writing that I found agreeable. Even when he writes terrorism is immoral, he quickly looses any basis for agreement with my views, here is the quote:

Even with the "Terrorism is immoral" sentence, my gut is telling me that he is trying to sugar coat the indiscriminate murder of innocent people. Within the concept of terrorism, I think you can look at various tactics, the worst being the indiscriminate murder of innocent people, for him to then compare "globalization" i.e. national governments working under a common set of rules and regulations to enhance trade and communication, leaves me at a loss for words.

I know Baudrillard is not making this point in his piece but there are some people who think that our military engages in act of indiscriminate murder of innocent people and are no different than "terrorists", I don't agree and really don't know how to engage those who believe that, just like I have difficulty with Baudrillard.

I can't fathom of having a world-view as simplistic as the one espoused by neocon war on terror-ists.

We were just sitting here minding our own business twiddling our thumbs going "doo-de-doo-de-doo" when suddenly and for no reason evil madmen rained death down upon our heads. Why? Because they're evil, that's why, and that's what evil people do. King George told us, he said, "These people hate freedom, and we love freedom, and that's where the clash occurs." They're bad. And we're good. So now since we're good and they're bad, we need to occupy a country that had nothing to do with it because it used to be run by another bad guy.

I don't believe our military engages in indiscriminate murder. I think our administration's decision to flex its muscle in Iraq was indiscriminate and unconsidered and led to vast civilian casualties, and vast casualties of "enemy combatants" who were perfectly peaceful individuals prior to our occupation. So it amounts to much the same thing. But I think the soldier with his boots in the sand is doing the best he can do, given the job he's been asked to accomplish.

I don't have anything to add to this, but I want to say how well you communicated what I see is the view of many of those who still support the president. Kudos.

You miss the point that some of us neocons make.

We (our government, US corporations and US consumers) are actively involved in world affairs. I don't disagree with that. We exert great influence on the world. However, our influence is not being forced, with a few exceptions. And, other nations, foreign corporations and world consumers exert great influence on the US. In our current time the globe has gotten smaller, so to speak. If this is what is considered "globalization", I can accept that, but can not accept it being labeled immoral.

We use our military or the threatened use of our military to protect our friends, to try to maintain order, freedom to travel, freedom to trade, freedom to self-govern. I know many will argue if this is an inappropriate role for our government, but our government has assumed that role. If for example Iraq doesn't invade Kuwait we don't use our military to come to Kuwait's aid in the early 90's. We have a treaty with the nation of Israel, when Israel is under threat, we provide aid in various forms. It is clear to many of us "neocons" that our interests are not always going to be in line with others and our actions may lead to conflict, but to suggest that conflict is our desire is wrong.

As a "neocon" I would be perfectly happy if we could resolve all difference through negotiation. I think one major difference in our views are that I do not think we are in a war of choice, I get the feel that you think we are.

This sentence makes me skeptical of your assertion that you're a neocon. The neocons I know of are deep in the pocket of big business, and are pushing for a state of perpetual war (why else would you declare war on an abstraction like "terror"?) and therefore perpetual profit.

So... you think we HAD to go get our hands bloody in Iraq? Why did we have to do that exactly? There aren't any weapons of mass destruction and never were, and the intelligence only said there were if the person looking at them had already chosen to go there.

OK...that's just flat assed funny. I don't care who ya are. :D

Limited Brands (symbol: LTD) the parent company of Victoria Secret is a company with a market cap of about $9 billion, I am deep in the...never mind...but aah, lost my train of thought, they are in the big business of love, so am I.:) :) :)


I guess I did not state what I meant clearly, all war is based on choice. Some choose to fight when the fight is brought to us or when we are pushed to the point where we believe we have no choice. That is in my DNA I think, I think many others have this trait, I guess some don't. Saddam invaded Kuwait. We defended Kuwait and drove Saddam out. We had an economic interest in stability in the ME, like it or not. Saddam was defeated and subject to conditions imposed by the UN. Saddam violated repeatedly UN mandates among a couple of other things. All he had to do was comply, he would still be in power. I think he was responsible for our invasion of his country.

I guess you are in part correct - I do think he was evil, and I do think he made us do it.

Poor little us. :shakehead:

This is where you and I philosophically part company, ace. In my world, human beings aren't wolves. They're evolved creatures who have complete say over how they're going to be and act in the world. The way I see the world, nobody ever MADE anybody do ANYTHING. Certainly not go to war.

Are you speaking in general terms or in absolutes. I understand people having different triggering points, but it seems that you are saying there is no point where you would feel obligated or forced to fight. Is that true?

Had Saddam attacked the US, we would have been right to respond. This is, of course, hypothetical, as Saddam couldn't have attacked the US even if he wanted to.

Are you suggesting the WTC attacks were indiscriminate murders, that terrorism is amoral?

I am speaking in absolutes, but not quite the absolute you heard.

People absolutely have control over their actions, how they relate with others, and how they respond to the events of life. Groups of people up to and including governments and societies have the same control. People (and groups of people) might pretend they DON'T have that control, and may pretend that they're forced into something by outside events or circumstances. It's much easier to pretend to be forced into things--you don't have to deal with the ramifications of your actions. But that's not the truth. The truth is, you always have a choice.

There may well be a point at which I would choose to fight. Right after 9/11, had the opportunity been present to actually fight the actual attackers, I might well have chosen to do that. At no point would I ever be forced to do anything.

To argue otherwise, frankly, is to argue for the poverty of the human spirit.

rat...you dirty bastid,

you just expressed the reaction i have to this discussion, and which i must confess that i (obviously) have not posted here. i think it moderately humorous that people will talk about personal accountability for their actions, being their own man, making their decisions and come what may - above all live for your principles (which are largely conveyed as being judeo-christian 'thou shou not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not covet, etc) - but somehow these fundamental personal principles never seem to translate to a social level. its as though when you have 10 or more people present, then all that goes to shit, and it's every man for himself, only the strongest survive...it's a dog-eat-dog world out there and by joe! we have to fight it out in this cold pragmatic tough luck horatio alger world. i've never understood the disconnect.

it's like watching a panoramic play about the fear of death and loss of ego working itself out on a worldly stage...holy shit! that's exactly what it is. well, in my humble opinion. but fear of death above principle doesn't square with the image that is publicly broadcast, and so it is not frequently discussed.

The problem with "personal accountability" is that when these "10 or more people" are "present" (as you say) you can assume that one of them has his/her own personal agenda payed for by an outside agency. The word CIA comes to mind, as an example. It's the rotten apple again.

I agree. I don't think that Saddam has ever even been to a 7/11 store - :no: never mind him having the ability to attack one! :)

In the generic sense that terrorism is a tactic, terrorism is amoral, I would argue that the people who commit terrorist acts could be considered immoral. If you agree that the threatened use of violent force to incite fear is an act of terrorism, and I walk into a den a thieves using that tactic to recover property stolen from me, I would not consider that act immoral. Although, I do see how some would. If a group with a political agenda, kills innocent people in an attempt to incite fear to advance their agenda, I would see that use of the tactic as immoral. I know I am guilty of using the term terrorist and terrorism inappropriately, but it often seem to be more efficient.

The attacks on the WTC were planned, however the human targets were random. The people who died in most cases had nothing to do with the issue the "terrorist" were advancing, so in that case I would say the murders were indiscriminate.

On a slightly tangential point: What about an administration that systematically uses fear and the looming threat of attack to further their agenda? Is that terrorism? Whether you'd say it is or not, would you say that it's immoral?

Yes.

Do you consider attacking our allies or our interests the same as a direct attack on our shores?

Do you consider aiding those who would directly attack our shores the same as a direct attack?

Was the US forced into WWII after the attack on Peril Harbor? I agree that in a theoretical view, we had the choice to ignore the attack and the declaration of war against us, but the reality is that we really had no choice in my opinion.

Some principles are in conflict as is there a conflict between our humanistic and animalistic nature. I just choose to acknowledge that. Most people are far from perfect.

I fear the loss of freedom more than I fear the loss of life.

No. Our allies all have serious militaries and can defend themselves. If they ask for help, we should help, but pretending like attacking one of us is attacking all of us is stupid.

Are we helping MI6 to uncover cells in the UK? No? Then I guess the government agrees with me.
No. Because that would mean that we are directly attacking ourselves. Guess how many US weapons (not just US made weapons, actual US military weapons) are being used by the al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgency. Just guess.

I was asking those question in a general sense, to get a better feel for your views on when you would support forceful action. In either case I would take forceful action.

If you could take (again in general terms) forceful preemptive action to prevent a direct attack on our shores would you?

I can't deal in absolutes because the situation to which we're referring wasn't absolute. Many, many, many people questioned the horrible pre-war intelligence. Shit, even I did and I don't have access to the intel. Most of Europe and Asia did. French, German, Italian, Chinese, and Russian intel said we were wrong about Saddam. Now we even know most of our own intel said we were wrong.

In a general hypothetical situation where there is a perceived threat, there had better be actual evidence before you even consider taking any action.

Let me make one thing crystal clear: not only did 2003 Saddam not have the capability to carry out an attack on our shore or on our ally's shores, but he wasn't assisting anyone else who was going to attack our shores or our ally's shores. The only people that Saddam was a threat to was his own people and even in that role he had become severely diminished since the early 90s. There was growing resistance in Iraq to the Saddam administration/dictatorship, and Iraq could have been headed for a healthy revolution, free of western occupation. That, in my opinion but also backed by precedence, would have been the best way for Saddam to have been removed from power. Sure, Iraq would have turned into a Syria or Iran, but Syria and Iran are a lot more stable than Iraq has been. Ever.