A thesis of the book that some critics consider provocative requires advance commentary in light of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the fighting in Afghanistan, and especially the war in Iraq. One of my answers to the question of what the fascination of war is is that wars have similarities to various forms of entertainment (e.g., the hero myths of Hollywood movies, sports, etc.). The view that the meaning of fighting is fighting is also held by other authors. That war can be seen as the ultimate form of entertainment is, in my opinion, only the logical conclusion. Today, after September 11, in view of the many dead and the corpses from Iraq shown daily on television, I would probably be afraid of being accused of cynicism if I were to publish such a thesis for the first time. However, since it still seems to me to be factually justified, I have not rewritten the chapter. However, I want to emphasize once again that it is not my intention to luridly deny respect to the victims of warlike conflicts. But it is part of understanding war to realize that there is hardly a better form of "entertainment" than war. Fighting, and especially "winning," is associated with pleasure. This explains the enthusiasm with which people go to war and the fascination that makes us watch. When the two towers of the World Trade Center went up in flames, the world not only held its breath, it also sat spellbound in front of the television screen. Viewer ratings were higher than ever before. Now, after reporters "embedded" with the fighting troops in Iraq reported directly from theaters of war on various channels for the first time in human history, the camouflage of entertainment as infotainment is obvious.