Group items tagged

Something worth thinking about.

I wish I had time to fully understand all that Baudrillard writes in this piece. I guess he is arguing that the biggest institution of all--globalized anything--is the cause of terrorism. He writes, "In this way it is indeed a World War, not the third one, but the fourth and only truly World War, as it has as stakes globalization itself. The first two World Wars were classic wars. The first ended European supremacy and the colonial era. The second ended Nazism. The third, which did happen, as a dissuasive Cold War, ended communism. From one war to the other, one went further each time toward a unique world order. Today the latter, virtually accomplished, is confronted by antagonistic forces, diffused in the very heart of the global, in all its actual convulsions. . . . . It is a conflict so unfathomable that, from time to time, one must preserve the idea of war through spectacular productions such as the Gulf (production) and today Afghanistan's. But the fourth World War is elsewhere. It is that which haunts every global order, every hegemonic domination; -if Islam dominated the world, terrorism would fight against it. For it is the world itself which resists domination." I think there's a lot more that he says, so I'll have to return to this one. Maybe you can share your read on this in class, Wendell. Thanks!

Yeah, this article is definitely difficult to understand without an extensive background on his social theory (what he's written about what he calls symbolic exchange, the exclusion of the dead, the procession of the model or simulacra). What he's arguing is definitely that globalization is creating the seeds of its own destruction, but terrorism is but one example of this process. To clarify, when he says "the spirit of terrorism" and "Then let us be immoral ourselves and, if we want to understand something, let us go somewhat beyond Good and Evil. As we have, for once, an event that challenges not only morals, but every interpretation, let us try to have the intelligence of Evil.", he's not trying to advocate for murder or anything but rather is suggesting that the strategy taken by terrorists is something theoretically important. The last things he published were "The Intelligence of Evil" and "The Agony of Power" where he more or less argued that it is impossible to assimilate singular individuals, cultures, and ways of life under a universal (which he refers to as the Good in the article ^) and that attempts at assimilation only make "Evil" more powerful and make it more likely for the Good to collapse in on itself. He thinks this process is occurring across all planes of social existence and is inevitable. He wrote about a possible attack on the twin towers decades in advance and the Spirit of Terrorism was sort of like a "I told you this would happen" to the academy. The thing about Baudrillard is that he takes a very pessimistic outlook on the trajectory of modernity/post-modernity and was probably looking forward to the collapse of globalization/capitalism/the world order. While that's obviously a controversial and morally dubious opinion, he's still definitely very interesting to read about. Andrew Robinson wrote a bunch of articles describing his social theory/what he means for activism and the world today. While they are pretty dense and probably requir

Sonder: The realization that each random individual is living a life as complex and as vivid as yours. Amid all the past news and numbers of lives lost, it is good idea to look at the human individual behind the headline and remind ourselves of who they were beyond victim #x of terrorism.

Thanks, Scott!

Why: "Thomas Burnett [whose wife had initiated the idea of monetary compensation for 9/11 victims,] had led the charge on the cockpit on flight 93. ---[These folks may have saved the President and the White House] --- He and his fellow passengers managed to divert the plane from its target - the White House. The cockpit flight recorder captured his now-famous last words before they stormed the hijackers: "We're going in!" Shortly after, the plane crashed, killing all 44 people on board. Burnett was 38 years old." . . . . "The suit named, among others, seven international banks [maybe we should discuss why?], eight Islamic foundations, charities and their subsidiaries, alleged individual terrorist financiers, and the government of Sudan [I did not know some of the hijackers were Sudanese. . . I thought. The plaintiffs initially described themselves collectively as the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism; they later became the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism. The compensation claim filed was for $1tn. It was the largest terrorism-related civil action in history."

LONDON - On this day 14 years ago, Sept. 11, 2001, I was newly arrived in Berlin as bureau chief and doing an interview in a cafe. The normally unflappable bureau manager, Viktor Homola, telephoned and said I should get back to the office, because an airplane had just hit the World Trade Center in New York.

WASHINGTON - Defying Western efforts to confront the Islamic State on the battlefield, the group has evolved in its reach and organizational ability, with increasingly dangerous hubs outside Iraq and Syria and strategies that call for using spectacular acts of violence against civilians.

The downing of the Russian airplane last week and the attacks in Paris, are these game changers? This is a very interesting g article. Thanks, Sawyer.

The attacks on Paris Friday night left more than 120 people dead and the world reeling, wondering what would compel someone to carry out such an atrocity. We know that on Saturday, ISIS, or the Islamic State, claimed responsibility for the attack. This display of terrorism associated with Islam furthers the Islamophobia we see often in our society today. How these attacks will influence the Islamic community is important to note because it is more than likely that the religion will be criminalized unfairly.

This is really relevant to our discussion of the definition of terrorism!

"SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. - Heavily armed attackers terrorized this city on Wednesday, killing at least 14 people and wounding at least 17 at a social services center before leading the police on a manhunt culminating in a shootout that left two suspects dead and a possible third in custody."

This paper provides an original study into how democratization and globalization influence terrorism - examining the motives of terrorists and how democratic in

Its interesting to see how domestic terrorism even impacts the most exclusive schools in the country. I have a few friends who had to evacuate and it sounded pretty scary over the phone.

Intelligence officials are saying that even after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the biggest threats to the US are from other countries. Because we can't go to war with everyone (and the number of people that wars hurt fuel anti-US sentiment) I wonder if a more effective strategy against these threats will be developed.

Such an astute observation and good question. Empires have fallen on the swords, so to speak, from spending too much on their militaries at the expense of infrastructure and "human infrastructure."

This article gives an Arab perspective on the vice presidential debate. There are some interesting choices in words to describe Biden's apparent victory over Ryan Thursday night: "feisty vice president Joe Biden came out swinging" "clashed sharply" "savaged surging" "crackling showdown" "Passionate and adamant". This type of language demonstrates the writers bias toward The democratic party. They also illustrate their bias through their explanation of the mixed post-debate polls. They explain that Ryan's good looks distracted viewers from Biden's stellar points.

I think this site posts very biased articles in general on this election. After the last debate, the report on that seemed incredibly biased towards Republicans, so I think maybe they just go with whoever "won" the debate. It's interesting how the only evidence used in the debate shown in this article is about foreign policy and terrorism, and I agree that it would be interesting to look at something from Iran or the likes.

Good find, Sam! Even if the source shows overt bias, it's good to know what's out there being said about US politics!

From the beginning, critics warned that the law, in addition to depriving Muslim women of their rights, would further inflame tensions already raised to a high pitch by the economic crisis, riots and lingering fears of terrorism, on one side, and accusations of racism on the other.

What was behind the ban in the first place? Were French catholics and Jews similarly forbidden from wearing items of clothing/jewelry that announced their religious convictions? how about in the US? Would we ever institute such a ban? What about against Sikh turbans/swords?

This article is based off of a threat by Al Qaeda and is a warning to all Americans traveling in Europe. As the article mentions, what is unique about this terrorist warning is that it is not specific to any country; the threat is for all of Europe, not enough information can be figured out. This hits home a little more than just hearing about a terrorist plot in Europe, because now it has become a warning to all Americans traveling abroad.

This article is a few weeks old, but the writer brings up interesting points about Islam, the NY mosque debate, and the United States' international relations. His mention of Hiroshima's Peace Park in comparison to the US' plans for Ground Zero is intriguing. Heather's article about the syphilis experiment in Guatemala is just one recent example of why the US is perceived as domineering. I never thought to question our plans for the former site of the World Trade Center, but I completely agree with the writer - why are we building a gaudy shiny tower instead of something more inviting that could facilitate discussions between countries? He states that "It would be nice if our ground zero could become an international home of reconciliation. Instead of continuing the hatred, defuse it."

I agree with Alison. All to often we get caught up in our own opinions which sometimes means that we contend every other opinion is wrong. For example, I think that the mosque should be built near ground zero. I think this because to generalize against a whole religion because of a small part of one of the largest religions in the world seems dumb; however, after thinking about this I do realize that the other side to this argument is valid. Why a mosque? Can't we accomplish something similar in terms of fostering peace by building something else? As heather said, this still could be moving forward in the wrong direction. I do not know. But I am trying to be open about the other side to this very multidimensional issue. It is wrong of us to think it is an ethical issue with two side of right and wrong, there is in fact a lot of grey areas.

Hey all, I'd just like to remind everyone that the "mosque" is not being built at ground zero (in fact it's in a Burlington Coat Factory blocks away: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/just-how-far-is-the-groun_b_660585.html. I think the ethical debate surrounding the issue is just further testament to the fact that many Americans unconsciously subscribe to media hype, regardless of their positions on issues. While I agree with what has been said about the ethics of a hypothetical mosque at ground zero, we should realize that this ethical dilemma is a fallacy and exists only as a headline. Also, I think the we/the press/everyone should be more careful who we label as "crazy irrational terrorists". We should realize that those guys didn't get on the planes on 9/11 because they were born without enough of X hormone, they were there because of a long history of western intervention etc. in their home countries. We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss terrorism as an irrational act by sick people, it only allows us to forget the underlying complicity that we have with the issue.