Saibal Mitra wrote:

>Bruno, what did you expect? You should expect Jacques to be a  typical

The everything list is not a random sample. Unfortunately! 
Because frankly I appreciate the Americans here. 
I find them very sympa.

>You know how Americans on opposite sides of an issue tend to

The champion of biased arguments has been an European!
Note also that Jacques Mallah has never been dishonest. I am
just afraid by its lack of doubt on some fundamental questions.
I keep asking, because I have no prejudice.

>E.g. recounting of votes in Florida, 

This is a triumph of democracy ('course, it's not a triumph of 
organisation). In my opinion they should perhaps recount again.
Especially now.  
It is good USA have a lot of allies but then you must listen to
them, and reassure them. Expression like "crusade", "infinite
justice" etc. are diplomatical errors. Worst: they are
strategical errors. Why?
(with comp they are of course G* error: never pretend the
good is on your side, especially when it is obvious).  

>pro life versus pro choice...

And Death Penalty! God told them "Thou shall not kill", and the
state himself shows the exemple of killing. Shocking. You got a
But I know there is a lot of Americans shocked by that too.

>Unthinkable here in Europe!

Be careful. I'm afraid it is thinkable here in Europe. Perhaps
your country is very open minded, but I am afraid by the last
election in Italy. Even in part of Belgium some election have 
given frightful results. Extremism is not dead in our countries.

>Anyway, there is nothing wrong with Jacques, he is behaving 
>in a way you should expect from the MWI or your theory.

I don't know. I'm troubled by its persistence to negate the
distinction between first and third person point of view. But
you should not put him so quickly in a box. 

Of course you raise the question "are the enemies the americans?".
Of course no. You know that americans are the victims here.
Still you can ask are *some* americans, and more generaly
some occidentals,  responsible?
Of course. Islam has begun a secularisation process, with a
begining of separation of "state and church", but this has been
stopped by the Wahabit (Saoudian) with the help of the occidentals.
So that the fanatical islamic schools have been favorised and 
are still now favorised, by the occident (who have justify this
by the cold war with the (ex) Soviet Union, but also by the need
of petrol).
But why to continue after the fall of Berlin wall? I don't
Other questions: when did USA stop supporting the 
Taliban? (After the Buddha destruction? after the 11 sept. ?)

Apparently unrelated, but I'm afraid it is perhaps *the*
central question:
Why is hemp forbidden in most countries? (One century of lies and 
propaganda). The international Petrol/Health politics is criminal 
since a long time.

You can compare the relation between Occident and Middle East
with the relation between the heroin-addict and its dealer.
I'm afraid the real hard dope on this planet could be petrol.

Half-jokingly when Bush administration decides not to respect
the Kyoto protocol (signed by almost all countries in the world),
I told my friends that this was a declaration of war against the
whole planet!

The concrete enemy, I am afraid, is international banditism.
We should depenalize all the dopes, if only to control black
money. Violence is of no use in this war. Its use will always
increase it and make it turn back. They are real technical
international problem which must be solved the most
pacificaly possible.

If Georges Bush drops bombs on Afghanistan, there is a risk he
 will be obliged to drop Bombs on Pakistan, then on Saoudians, then
 ... on Americans, who are the real protector of what happens
to be the roots of the hate of the occidental tolerance.
Let us hope GB will not fall in this diabolical trap.

USA and the whole occident should profit on being victim for doing 
serious inquest in the whole world.

The fanatics are dangerous. The cynics who help them in the
shadow, are much more dangerous. And they are, in part, among us, 
as it is more and more obvious days after days.
Nothing will be simple in this "war". But please, in this
conflict the enemy is widespread in all countries. If you say it
is the Afghans, the Americans, the Occidentals, the Muslims,
etc. you will always miss the point.


Reply via email to