Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:54:30 +0200
From: Jildi Mohamad Sjah <jehms-AT-kabelfoon.nl>
Subject: Re: Baudrillard and Lecourt




Kenneth Rufo wrote:
> 
Of course ist's a media-war. The revenge is only real if it's on TV,
the  object, stopping terrorism, has everything to do with media. Future
highjackers watch TV. The only way to touch such a wide spread network
as el Quaeda is by the media. Otherwise you kill one terrorist en three
will volunteer.
BTW for non-U.S. people it's very strange to see that in the U.S. it's
important to impress opponents with all kinds of threats. In many
countries (I'm sure also in Afghanistan) this is seen as a sign of
weekness. So I guess Bush made quite a fool of himself (even) in the
eyes of the Taliban.


erik

<snip>
> 
> Lastly, let me  highlight a parenthetical remark of yours: 'In wars the
> technologically advanced always win.'  I appreciate the Jared Diamond
> perspective to be sure, but I think America's 'New War' points to its
> limitations - not because it is incorrect, but because it is insufficient.
> Having travelled this past weekend from Georgia to a wedding in Kentucky, I was
> surprised by the 'United We Stand', 'America Will Prevail' t-shirts and signs
> that pervaded the country.  I realize now that there's no reason to be
> surprised; we've been told by the media and the white house that we are in the
> middle of a new war, a war unlike all other wars, a war of politics as well as
> shadow military operations.  And folks seem to believe it.  No one seems to say
> 'heh, we've already prevailed.'  Instead, thanks to the media pundits and John
> Ashcroft, the threat of terrorism looms on the experiential horizon (as much a
> textual event as Mutually Assured Destruction and nuclear winter), and the
> populace responds.  This is a war of the media _before_ it is a war of
> economics, and to that event, I find Baudrillard's work much more 'important'
> and 'supportive' than I do Sartre.  Point being: times change, perspectives
> change, technologies change.  It would be the absence of that understanding
> that comprises, for me, true 'Mediocrity'.  I don't suppose you'd want to
> defend Lecourt in that regard?
> 
> Kenneth Rufo