Re: Seeing the light

[Giorgio Menon <menon(at)pd.infn.it>]

Georges Metanomski wrote:

> Intelligent discussion in only possible within a structure
> possibly differing in inferences, but agreeing on facts,
> which are the first contextual background.
>
> It's impossible here, as long as you confuse facts with
> ideas (or inferences). I clearly presented Jihad as a
> FACTUAL CONTEXT which I lived and witnessed directly
> and you reject it as an IDEA.
Hi Georges,
i cannot deny that YOU are in war. What i deny is that I am in war. To
me war is still an idea at this stage, not a current fact. I see no
weapons, hear no bullets. Maybe you see and hear them. I cannot say much
more than this.  About Madrid and London blasts i still have no idea of
who's behind them, but if we're talking about WWIII or the war to
terrorism the role of the Reichstag fire suddenly comes to my mind.
Those are facts, not ideas. And these facts make me wonder what limit
can WE all tolerate: if they (or you) say we're in war shall we believe
this is a profound truth? Shall we therefore join the local militia or
Army to fight our enemies and protect our Family, God, Nation ("God,
Nation and Family" was Mussolini's motto) ? Shall we kill anyone who has
a different skin or political belief in the name of  Peace and Freedom?
On the other hand rejecting the idea that i (not you) am in war means
giving room to further investigations to follow the money and to
understand cui prodest instead of blindly accept silly orders to pull
the trigger.

> I say that I lived and witnessed it and you reject it
> as a pure idea. Do you mean that I lie, or that I had
> hallucinations? That there was never any warfare, whether
> pitched or terrorist against Israel?
>
> We have to clear it before saying anything even remotely
> intelligent.
>
> Georges.
Do you mean that i lie or that i'm having hallucinations if i say that i
see no WWIII?
Where do we go from here?

Best regards

Giorgio