> From: "Anand Bhatt, Architect." <interface.lists@xxxxxxxx>
>
?¼? wrote:
> not sure of that point, the counselor in some military sphere who "designed"
those concentration camp "with humanities" or facilities didn't think about
the media's importance beforehand. He tried to"solve" a problem he had to
resolve by superior orders (so he had to be imaginative).
>
Anand answered:
>
> Er! Not thinking about the designers of the camp, but rather, the
> pro-American media make an issue out of this -- I think of it as
> synthetic stink that hides some real stink somewhere, or, hell, they are
> just whiting the issues.
>
and I follow:
sure, the american media are perfectly well designed to
detail/transform/exhibit any issue they're asked to show.
All who get out of those well defined guided lines are considered
dangerous-ly idealists.
You have to go to some very local level to find real opposition to
conformity in the US canvas of opinion makers , and public opinions.
I just discovered recently on C-span the Nation's editor, a very accurate
woman. Some years ago she would have been maccarthised. Can you imagine now
such virulent anticommunism then ? Could we compare such malignant public
servants of those 50ies with some actual demoralizing leadership ?
Aren't islam nurtured extremists acts the result or the product of the same
mistake the western world did with marxism-leninism , be it seen in URSS or
Cuba ? a simple lack of interest, understanding and effective communication
? of mere respect and cohabitation, without the imposition of some theoric
"democracy" on any part of the world ?
I hope the USA will not be the cause of future cataclism between their
Christian/jewish/and the like- values and the values of islam , the sole
remaining power of antagonism to globalisation "a l'américaine" ( with some
frenchies opposed to the fast "kitchine")
Bin Ladden did wrong in attacking the USA.
But he described globally the USA as a wrong symbol, based on real
hypocrisies, and he's probably not completely wrong there. Or was, he's
probably death now. Renal failure. who knows, recently he was just a symbol.
And some symbols are better death than alive.
But the islamic fundamentalism is as valid a theory as the crusader's one.
Why not ?
P.S. Tibetan monks are certainly as "fundamentalists" as the talibans.
Where are their womans or their mothers ? Probably again a wrong media-based
concept.
?¼?
>
?¼? wrote:
> not sure of that point, the counselor in some military sphere who "designed"
those concentration camp "with humanities" or facilities didn't think about
the media's importance beforehand. He tried to"solve" a problem he had to
resolve by superior orders (so he had to be imaginative).
>
Anand answered:
>
> Er! Not thinking about the designers of the camp, but rather, the
> pro-American media make an issue out of this -- I think of it as
> synthetic stink that hides some real stink somewhere, or, hell, they are
> just whiting the issues.
>
and I follow:
sure, the american media are perfectly well designed to
detail/transform/exhibit any issue they're asked to show.
All who get out of those well defined guided lines are considered
dangerous-ly idealists.
You have to go to some very local level to find real opposition to
conformity in the US canvas of opinion makers , and public opinions.
I just discovered recently on C-span the Nation's editor, a very accurate
woman. Some years ago she would have been maccarthised. Can you imagine now
such virulent anticommunism then ? Could we compare such malignant public
servants of those 50ies with some actual demoralizing leadership ?
Aren't islam nurtured extremists acts the result or the product of the same
mistake the western world did with marxism-leninism , be it seen in URSS or
Cuba ? a simple lack of interest, understanding and effective communication
? of mere respect and cohabitation, without the imposition of some theoric
"democracy" on any part of the world ?
I hope the USA will not be the cause of future cataclism between their
Christian/jewish/and the like- values and the values of islam , the sole
remaining power of antagonism to globalisation "a l'américaine" ( with some
frenchies opposed to the fast "kitchine")
Bin Ladden did wrong in attacking the USA.
But he described globally the USA as a wrong symbol, based on real
hypocrisies, and he's probably not completely wrong there. Or was, he's
probably death now. Renal failure. who knows, recently he was just a symbol.
And some symbols are better death than alive.
But the islamic fundamentalism is as valid a theory as the crusader's one.
Why not ?
P.S. Tibetan monks are certainly as "fundamentalists" as the talibans.
Where are their womans or their mothers ? Probably again a wrong media-based
concept.
?¼?