Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:48:48 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ethics Again




Hugh

Where does Baudriallard support the destruction of the united states?

Sartre believed that neo-colonialism/colonial activity legitmated the 
use of anti-colonial violence... The positions and perspectives he 
supported were unfortunately nationalistic, but more fortunately 
leftist...The movement towards bombing 'Iraq' which I read of, in the 
appallingly un-informative US press last week - which is like the music 
of Madonna purely specular with no thought, and no information... The 
Iraq turn shows the shift towards neo-colonial activity of the 'empire'...

guess if i was an american i wouldn't let my children go to the middle 
east.... to preach about god and goodness...(poor saps)

regards

steve



hbone wrote:

>Steve/All,
>
>Whether understanding the terrorist violence of Bin Laden means approval,
>i.e. Sartre would have agreed with Bin-Laden objectives, or disapproval
>(U.S. disapproves) only Bin Laden knows what those objectives are.
>
>As of now, his demise seems imminent, and Saddam Hussein may well be the
>next target of U.S. forces.
>
>The 60 country network Bin Laden will leave behind will inherit the task of
>destroying the United States, and will no doubt  have the literary support
>of Baudrillard and others.
>
>Whatever Sartre might have said, whatever actions Deleuze, Guattari, Hardt,
>Negri, Badiou and others of the living Pantheon of french philosophers
>exhort their country and yours and mine and the rest of the world to take,
>will likely produce as little effect as all their words of recent decades
>
>regards,
>Hugh.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Hugh,
>>
>>The answer to the implicit critique of Baudrillard's 'cool' is yes.
>>
>>The Sartre of  Colonialism and Neo-colonialism would have understood the
>>terroist violence of  Bin-Laden...
>>
>>regards
>>
>>steve
>>
>>hbone wrote:
>>
>>>To:  All
>>>
>>>Would Baudrillard have been so lofty and cool  had the terrorists
>>>
>succeded
>
>>>in destroying the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, and Notre Dame, with
>>>
>incidental
>
>>>deaths of  5000 Parisians.?
>>>
>>>Pertinent to the future of ethics in the U.S. is our President's recent
>>>decision to circumvent constitutional justice with "kangaroo" military
>>>courts.
>>>
>>>That action stimulated Wm. Safire to write an attack column in today's
>>>NYTimes.
>>>
>>>Safire's article is worthy of nationwide distribution.
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>
>>>Hugh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

HTML VERSION:

Steve/All,

Whether understanding the terrorist violence of Bin Laden means approval,
i.e. Sartre would have agreed with Bin-Laden objectives, or disapproval
(U.S. disapproves) only Bin Laden knows what those objectives are.

As of now, his demise seems imminent, and Saddam Hussein may well be the
next target of U.S. forces.

The 60 country network Bin Laden will leave behind will inherit the task of
destroying the United States, and will no doubt  have the literary support
of Baudrillard and others.

Whatever Sartre might have said, whatever actions Deleuze, Guattari, Hardt,
Negri, Badiou and others of the living Pantheon of french philosophers
exhort their country and yours and mine and the rest of the world to take,
will likely produce as little effect as all their words of recent decades

regards,
Hugh.

Hugh,

The answer to the implicit critique of Baudrillard's 'cool' is yes.

The Sartre of  Colonialism and Neo-colonialism would have understood the
terroist violence of  Bin-Laden...

regards

steve

hbone wrote:

To:  All

Would Baudrillard have been so lofty and cool  had the terrorists

succeded

in destroying the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, and Notre Dame, with

incidental

deaths of  5000 Parisians.?

Pertinent to the future of ethics in the U.S. is our President's recent
decision to circumvent constitutional justice with "kangaroo" military
courts.

That action stimulated Wm. Safire to write an attack column in today's
NYTimes.

Safire's article is worthy of nationwide distribution.

regards,

Hugh