The premise is based on the neoMarxist view that global violence is a reaction to somebody somewhere being unfair to them.
But I doubt Baudrillard would suggest that the aggressive colonialism of the Western world would fall under the catrgory of 'reactionary' violence - I am quiet sure he thinks it original violence.
And these intellectuals drunk on the rewarmed Marxist view can never fully explain why every non-Western act of violence against the West is the result of our crimes against these poor, innocent victims.
After all, what is Baudrillard's explanation when the kind of violence we see in Islamism predates even modern capitalism and globalization?
Moreover, the radicals doing the violence aren't the poor and oppressed - most often they are the affluent sons of a Western education. They have no plight of economic distress that the West exacerbates - so the Marxist materialism rant falls short here. Globlization has improved these radicals' lives.
So what explains it? Pathology and mania. They want Sharia and they want a world where it dominates. It's not because Arabs are poor, because Sharia law would make Arabs more poor than they would be under a democratic capitalist regime. It's no about being oppressed, because Arabs would be insanely oppressed under the harsh Sharia of the Islamists.
It is about dominance of people under ideology. It is about control, conquest. Same as every totalitarianism we have seen before, different flavor.
Marxist explanations have shown to fall short - even the huffing and puffing of a French academic to try and breathe life back into a dying theory. Wrong again.