On page 47, Baudrillard writes that "terrorism is always that of the real." I was perplexed by this claim; firstly because always is such a definitive term and it seemed odd that Baudrillard would use it so lightly. But more importantly because I had just processed his belief that there is no "ideolgical seriousness" in war. Battles and bombings are simply simulacrums to justify why a war is being fought in the first place. In fact, Baudrillard writes that war is finished before it even begins. And the media simply regurgitates images to feed into this supposed necessity of war. According to Baudrillard, the "bombardments of Hanoi" were again a simulacrum to assist the Vietnamese in negotiations with Nixon. Yet, I can't comprehend why that bombing would be a simulacrum while a terrorist attack is always real. I looked up what Baudrillard said about 9/11 and I found an essay where he refers to the attacks as the "absolute event." There was no tangible enemy; rather, it was globalization battling itself. The terrorist attack simply served as a symbolic reaction to the state of our commodified world. In harsher terms, I took this to mean that the United States had it coming. This belief coming from Baudrillard certainly does not surprise me. But I am still curious as to why he make such a finalizing statement in regards to terrorism in "Simulacra and Simulations." Am I interpreting his definition of terrorism incorrectly? Why may 9/11 be different for him than other terrorist attacks? But my primary question is why is terrorism real and war is a simulacrum?