> The 'psychic' connection here is one I made immediately after watching
the
> second plane hit: this was some sort of payback for the Persian Gulf War
> and the US presence in the ME.
COMMENT:
But isn't Baudrillard's position that there was no Gulf War? This could not
be a payback for the Gulf War it must be a part of some continuing simulacra
just as my new made muffinsfrom the recipe on the cereal box I guess.
>
> That was a gut reaction and now I can rationalize it: In the PG War, the
US
> used overwhelming air power and presented it in a mostly sanitized news
> media show (it only slipped out of control when we saw
> the Highway of Death--which most Americans didn't much care about anyway).
>
COMMENT:
Of course the defence department wants to project a picture of the war that
will advance its interest but it can present a "sanitized" view only if the
war is not a simulacra. By the way, as I recall there were a number of
images coming out of Baghdad etc. on CNN and other media that hardly fit the
sanitizing viewpoint.
> The terrorists used air power and put on a news media show that hadn't
been
> sanitized by the Dept. of Defense or the collabrators at the networks.
>
> Baudrillard's discourse is a brave attempt (brave because in order to get
> your attention he invites miscomprehension) to make sense of something no
> one has
> made much sense of. What Baudrillard is doing is helping us through his
> language to see how the terrorists think. He might even be showing us what
> future terrorists in the making think. And he shows how the reaction for
> revenge is going to be not only awful but insipid and predictable.
>
COMMENT: The terrorists did not put on a show at all. They deliberately
hijacked planes and flew them into the Pentagon and the trade towers in NY.
To describe it as a show is to have already replaced reality with
Baudrillard(ean) fantasy. No doubt they considered what the effect of seeing
this on TV would be or even just of finding out what had happened. There is
no simulacra, signs replacing reality. The video we all saw on TV is
actually a small part of the reality of a certain sequence of events. What
is on TV is in the first instance related to the reality in a rather
straightforward way as a a video of the planes flying into the towers, the
towers collapsing etc. There was a reality related to those videos and that
reality was not a simulacrum or hyperreality etc.
Of course there is no need to sanitize the event for the military or collaborators in the media. For the fight against terrorism emotions must be generated that will give support for the fight against terrorism.
> Which was more exiciting:
> watching WTC go down for the upteenth time or anything you've seen in the
> media about the campaign against terror? It's worse than slow news month
> now, only one feels everything is at stake but there are no clear reasons
> why that should be so.
COMMENT: I seldom watch TV but when I have an idea I might see that again I
usually turn the channel or am plain annoyed. Its worse than slow news month
now? Pictures of devastation etc. in Afghanistan are not exciting? The
anthrax stories are not exciting? Of course Friends apparently is more
exciting to more people than a Bush speech but I am not sure what follows
from that. And what is the significance of "exciting"?
>
> Who is acting and who is reacting, since we all knew the script to the US
> response 3 weeks before it happened? The only surprise was that it's
> Afghanistan and not Afghanistan and Iraq (though the continued actions
> against Iraq are pretty much out of the media show). .
COMMENT: I didnt know the script. I didnt know it was a play. I had a good idea that the US and its allies would respond. I didnt know exactly how, or even where for a while. As you mention it could have been Iraq as well as Afghanistan. I expected that there would be some considerable military action and destruction. I was surprised it did not happen sooner.
> Doesn't he really get into some sort of rough, tentative language what
many
> have deep down felt?
>
> Reading it, I felt myself reliving those inexpressible, contradictory
> emotions, but this time it was in touch with something that could be
called
> meaningful language. What did I feel? For one, that possibly the one thing
I
> thought no one could take away from me would be under threat: the freedom
to
> think freely.
>
> That I suddenly had to care about all those souls I didn't know
dying--even
> if few in Manhattan would not give a shit if Fukui City had been bombed or
> if ten
> times that died in an earthquake somewhere. Like why should I care anymore
> for 5000 in NYC than 50,000 in Kabul (the number who died when the
Northern
> Alliance fought their civil war there).
>
> Suddenly the circumstances are supposed to make me care and , why, hell,
> I'm worse than the terrorist if quite frankly I say, I'm sorry I can't
feel
> anything that simple.
>
> > So it's exactly the contrary of the cowardice they >are accused of, and
> it's exactly the contrary of what >the Americans did in the Gulf War, for
> >example (and what they're doing again in Afghanistan): >invisible target,
> operational liquidation.
COMMENT: I reacted in horror to what happened, but my connection to the events is hardly such as to make me care in the way that I would care if my neighbour had a serious car accident in front of my house and I had to rush him to the hospital.
I never felt that suddenly my freedom to think freely was threatened. It seems that some others might have felt that because to think freely might be interpreted as not caring for those who were killed by the terrorist attacks. Freedom to think freely
is always limited by upbringing etc. and features of one's one make up of which one may not be aware.
I must say that I was disgusted by phrases such as: "We are all Americans now!" and by all the talk of defending civilization, freedom, and democracy notwithstanding the fact that I find the killing of innocents revolting and certainly do not approve of many aspects of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
>
> Yes, think about it. The use of mostly secretive unseen air power to
> maximize the enemy's death while all but eliminating it on the US side (it
> would seem
> outside of the the Scud incident, US and UK troops faced far more danger
> from their own side's weapons).
>
> But didn't we speculate why everyone reacted to 9-11 with 'cowardly' as
well
> as 'evil' but we couldn't explain whether
> dying in an act of terror was 'cowardly' or not?
>
> Didn't we take the most basic meaning out of battle and war? Whatever else
> you could say, wasn't the bottom line of
> combat at least we weren't afraid to put our own lives on the line for
what
> we believed in?
>
> Are we surprised then that all too many Americans didn't draw any negative
> lessons from the Gulf War? Are we surprised then that a terror network
isn't
> afraid of us (they don't think we believe in anything we think is worth
> really fighting for) and welcomes a fight?
COMMENT: There is just too much to deal with. Just a few quick points:
i) As the discussion of "cowardice" pointed out. There are aspects of "cowardice" involved. Just as with shooting someone in the back or when the other person is defenceless is perhaps an aspect of cowardice. Also not taking responsibility for ones actions. I pointed out that those whose power is limited can hardly be expected to alert people to defend themselves or even take responsibility given the overwhelming power of the opponent. On the other hand dying for a cause does take courage and is hardly an act of cowardice. ii) Are you saying that it is cowardly to attack from on high and to avoid casualties? Seems it is common military sense. It does not mean that US and allied troops are not williing to die for whatever reason. This sounds like a British colonialist complaining that the aboriginals etc. stand behind trees and refuse to line up in square formation and shoot it out like men.... iii) I didnt know that there was a basic meaning of battle and war? Is it some kind of script with rules etc of combat and if you break the script rules it is all meaningless??
> point, you could rationalize damned near anything--and we did.
>
> What a resounding answer the terrorists gave to the US spin on post-modern
> war (the US's combination of Powell doctrine of overwhelming force with
> political resolve and the emergent doctrine that pure air power could win
> wars).
>
> And it is a way of thinking that knows the US very well. The US could
> slaughter the retreating Iraqi Army from the air, but it was held back
from
> going into Baghdad
> because then there would have been considerable US casualties and combat
> deaths (Bush even said this in an interview one year later, while at the
> same time he was assuring everyone the war had not been about democracy) .
>
> The US government and military were all too willing to risk civilian
deaths
> with bunker buster bombs to kill Hussein or to impose sanctions that most
> Americans would support because most Americans would never have to
> experience what the effects actually were. But any combat casualties
taking
> Baghdad were unacceptable.
>
> Pres. Bush and Co were relieved and more than a bit surprised that they
had
> pulled off the use of so much fire power and bombing tonnage without
having
> a single setback to the prosecution of the war. And from that a new
doctrine
> emerged.
>
>
> >...There's no solution to this extreme situation, above >all not war,
> which only offers a situation of deja-vu, >with the same deluge of
military
> forces, phantom >information, useless pummeling, devious and
> >pathetic discourse, technological deployment and >intoxication. In short,
> like the Gulf war, a non-event, >an event that doesn't really take place
>
> And who needs to read novels when the real is so unreal? Someone who wants
> to refute Baudrillard (and that is exactly what he wants you to do) had
> better explain just what is going on in Afghanistan.
COMMENT: So the terrorist response is to cause a number of US casualties
mostly innocent people. So that shows that the US and its allies are
vulnerable in spite of all the technological power etc. they have. But it
would seem that resolve and power will at least
achieve some US aims and the terrorist acts ensure that there is not likely
to be much effective public dissent. The US did force Hussein to withdraw
from Kuwait. They did weaken Iraq's ability to expand its influence within
the area. This non-event also indirectly caused immense suffering and
numerous deaths that would not have occured otherwise. The US bombing did
weaken Taliban defences in the North so much that the Alliance seems to be
quickly over-running the area including Herat, and Kabul. I suppose all the
civilian deaths in Aghanistan are just part of the deja-vu, simulacra,
non-events......?
>
> What is the most
> significant thing going on there? That war-torn life goes on much as it
has
> for two decades? That the Taliban is on the run before Northern Alliance
> forces because they gave up a city that seems to have exchanged hands more
> time than you can count on your hands. That US air
> forces are tracking down and killing the Taliban (and minimizing civilian
> casualties because they say they are) ?
>
> That OBL says he has nukes, when his best teams used box cutters, some
> piloting skills, and near-perfect execution? That hundreds of thousands
> will die from a humanitarian crisis that the war is only going to make
COMMENT: What is the point in asking what is the most significant event of these? I would think that the humanitarian crisis is obviously significant as are the
northern alliance advances in the north and west. The two are not unrelated in that those in northern areas may be able to receive humanitarian aid that they could not receive before--although winter will cause complications
Of course we could say the acts were unbelievable, cowardly and insane, but
> we knew there was a reasoning and collective will behind it. And it was a
> reasoning that knew us all too well. It said: you may think we are crazy,
> but at least we are not afraid to die for what we believe in.
>
> Doesn't that carry more weight with some than saying only the enemy should
> die. How can you fight evil when you know, deep down, you don't believe in
a
> goddamned thing?
>
>
> Charles Jannuzi
>
>COMMENT: So they are willing to die for what they believe in? But Americans
etc. wont.
Well they would rather not. But surely if the commanders order a ground war
a ground war there will be and the troops will know they may die and be
willing to take that chance.
Do you think otherwise? Some may believe they may put their lives at risk in
fighting terrorism, fighting for freedom, etc. etc. and be willing to put
their lives on the line for that.
Others may simply yearn for the Walmart orDisneyland back home and simply
take it s part of their job and believe they have to go along with it.
It may be that some military operations may not be carried to the conclusion wished for by the military if body bags begin to flow to the Homeland....but that is another issue.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
PS. Do other people get requests to download character sets whenever a message from Charles arrives? I guess he works from a Japanese computer! Is there some way to disable the requests?