A dialogue between Two Students about Profession Students 1: Hi Asad, how are you today?
September 11 [le 11 septembre] gave us the impression of being a major event, one of the most important historical events we will witness in our lifetime, especially for those of us who never lived through a world war.
Le 11 septembre, as you say, or, since we have agreed to speak two languages, "September As well as to this act of naming: When you say "September 11" you are already citing, are you not? You are inviting me to speak here by recalling, as if in quotation marks, a date or a dating that has taken over our public space and our private lives for five weeks now.
Something fait date, I would say in a French idiom, something marks a date, a date in history; that is always what's most striking, the very impact of what is at least felt, in an apparently immediate way, to be an event that truly marks, that truly makes its mark, a singular and, as they say here, "unprecedented" event.
I say "apparently immediate" because this "feeling" is actually less spontaneous than it appears: Unrefined and dogmatic, or else carefully considered, organized, calculated, strategic—or all of these at once.
For the index pointing toward this date, the bare act, the minimal deictic, the minimalist aim of this dating, also marks something else. Namely, the fact that we perhaps have no concept and no meaning how to write a dialogue between two friends on terrorism to us to name in any other way this "thing" that has just happened, this supposed "event.
We do not in fact know what we are saying or naming in this way: September 11, le 11 septembre, September The telegram of this metonymy—a name, a number—points out the unqualifiable by recognizing that we do not recognize or even cognize that we do not yet know how to qualify, that we do not know what we are talking about.
Where were you on September 11? I was in Shanghai, at the end of a long trip to China. It was nighttime there, and the owner of the cafe I was in with a couple of friends came to tell us that an airplane had "crashed" into the Twin Towers.
I hurried back to my hotel, and from the very first televised images, those of CNN, I note, it was easy to foresee that this was going to become, in the eyes of the world, what you called a "major event.
But to feel the gravity of the event and its "worldwide" implications it was enough simply to mobilize a few already tested political hypotheses.
As far as I could tell, China tried during the first few days to circumscribe the importance of the event, as if it were a more or less local incident. But this organized interpretation, informed by the current state of U.
CNN and other international media outlets have penetrated Chinese space, and China too, after all, has its own "Muslim" problem.
It thus became necessary to join in some way the "antiterrorist" "coalition.
In both cases, certain parties have an interest in presenting their adversaries not only as terrorists—which they in fact are to a certain extent—but only as terrorists, indeed as "international terrorists" who share the same logic or are part of the same network and who must thus be opposed, it is claimed, not through counterterrorism but through a "war," meaning, of course, a "nice clean" war.
The "facts" clearly show that these distinctions are lacking in rigor, impossible to maintain, and easily manipulated for certain ends. A radical deconstruction of the distinction between war and terrorism, as well as between different types of terrorism such as national and internationalmakes it very difficult to conceive of politics in a strategic sense.
Who are the actors on the world stage? How many of them are there? Isn't there here the risk of total anarchy? The word "anarchy" risks making us abandon too quickly the analysis and interpretation of what indeed looks like pure chaos. We must do all that we can to account for this appearance.
We must do everything possible to make this new "disorder" as intelligible as possible. The analysis we sketched out earlier tried to move in that direction: And these powers can also, without arms and without explosions, without any attacks in person, avail themselves of incredibly destructive computer technologies, technologies capable of operations that in fact have no name neither war nor terrorism and that are no longer carried out in the name of a nation-state, and whose "cause," in all senses of this word, is difficult to define there's the theological cause, the ethnic cause, the socioeconomic cause, and so on.
On no side is the logic of sovereignty ever put into question political sovereignty or that of the nation-state—itself of ontotheological origin, though more or less secularized in one place and purely theological and nonsecularized in another: Everyone will no doubt point to existing international law the foundations of which remain, I believe, perfectible, revisable, in need of recasting, both conceptually and institutionally.
But this international law is nowhere respected. And as soon as one party does not respect it the others no longer consider it respectable and begin to betray it in their turn. The United States and Israel are not the only ones who have become accustomed to taking all the liberties they deem necessary with UN resolutions.
To answer your question more specifically, I would say that the United States is perhaps not the sole target, perhaps not even the central or ultimate target, of the operation with which the name "bin Laden" is associated, at least by metonymy.
The point may be to provoke a military and diplomatic situation that destabilizes certain Arab countries torn between a powerful public opinion which is anti-American if not anti-Western, for countless reasons stemming from a complex, centuries old history, but then also, in the aftermath of an era of colonialism or imperialism, from poverty, oppression, and ideologico-religious indoctrination and the necessity of basing their nondemocratic authority on diplomatic, economic, and military ties with the United States.
First on the list here would be Saudi Arabia, which remains the privileged enemy of everything that might be represented by a "bin Laden" a name I use always as a synecdoche or a Saddam Hussein. Yet Saudi Arabia an important family and an important oil-producing powerwhile maintaining its ties with its American "protector," "client," and "boss," fuels all the hotbeds of Arab Islamic fanaticism if not "terrorism" in the world.
This is one of the paradoxical situations, once again autoimmunitary, of what you called "total anarchy":Dialogue between two friends on the issue of terrorism in cintext of national unity. Aug 01, · Best Answer: "Hey.
Long time no see. How you've been?" "Great. You?" "Me, too. Well, see ya." "Yeah. Back atcha." ur not really expecting someone to write u a story, r u?:)Status: Resolved. As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 75, lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.
Write A Dialogue Between Two Friends On Terrorism. Dialogue is the best course to combat terrorism Outlines Introduction Nature of terrorism Dialogue is peaceful Dialogue is cost effective Dialogue is sustainable Force: a Cause of terrorism Terrorism spreads due to lack of dialogue Conclusion Introduction Terrorism, achieving political aims through violence and force, is a global cancer.
Once you have your topic, characters, and setting, you can start writing that dialogue! Use the speech bubbles located in the Textables section. For conversations, speech bubbles are really important. Like the characters and many of the scenes, you can change the appearance of the speech bubbles.
Write the dialogue in order. 9/11 and Global Terrorism A Dialogue with Jacques Derrida. Giovanna Borradori and the owner of the cafe I was in with a couple of friends came to tell us that an airplane had "crashed" into the Twin Towers.
I hurried A radical deconstruction of the distinction between war and terrorism, as well as between different types of terrorism.