Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
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.
|
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.
Quote:
He describes terrorism as the singular turning of tables in such a situation. The collective "we" he applies to Western society.
|
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?
Quote:
And the immorality of a system,
|
How can systems be immoral? Isn't morality a human characteristic?
Quote:
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.
|
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?
Quote:
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."
|
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.