Habermas & NATO (was Re: Hate crimes)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

from Ken M to Jim H:
>> I note a slippage here. 'Violent activity' begins with
>words? No, I don't think so. Words might precede violent
>activity.
>
>Most violence begins with words.  If we start with the idea
>that nothing escapes language, that we can't think outside
>of language, then it all starts with words... mere words.
>
>> Further slippage. Words are no more the cause of violence
>than violence is the cause of words. They are too distinct
>modes of communication.
>
>Strategic and communicative according to Habermas.  For
>Habermas, all communication, in its essence, is an act of
>solidarity, an attempt to come to an understanding... Maeve
>Cooke points out that this isn't the case - strategic
>actions aren't parasitical on communicative any more than
>communicative or strategic... And I would add by saying
>that violence is a form of communication - an attempt to
>establish a space in the Other for ones identity.

Is that the reason why Habermas supported the NATO bombings -- violence as
a form of strategic communication that is legitimate outside of the German
'civil society'?

Yoshie