Bidão Vil

Uma discussão acalorada num almoço (divino) regado com sake, obrigam-me a algumas clarificações sobre esta história do Papa e todo o circo que a rodeia.

Enquanto não arranjo tempo para escrever sobre isso de forma mais desenvolvida aqui no blog, continuo a propor como aperitivo leituras retiradas de meios de comunicação insuspeitos de simpatias esquerdistas para que se perceba que não sou só eu quem não tem muita pachorra para "o mito do inimigo omnipresente" .

Uma passagem divertida, que realço aqui porque se refere a um argumento que eu próprio, com estes olhinhos que a terra há-de comer, já vi o Pacheco Pereira papaguear num programa qualquer de televisão:

"... Americans are told -- often by the same people who had once predicted imminent attacks -- that the absence of international terrorist strikes in the United States is owed to the protective measures so hastily and expensively put in place after 9/11. But there is a problem with this argument. True, there have been no terrorist incidents in the United States in the last five years. But nor were there any in the five years before the 9/11 attacks, at a time when the United States was doing much less to protect itself. It would take only one or two guys with a gun or an explosive to terrorize vast numbers of people, as the sniper attacks around Washington, D.C., demonstrated in 2002. Accordingly, the government's protective measures would have to be nearly perfect to thwart all such plans. Given the monumental imperfection of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, and the debacle of FBI and National Security Agency programs to upgrade their computers to better coordinate intelligence information, that explanation seems far-fetched. Moreover, Israel still experiences terrorism even with a far more extensive security apparatus."

Bon apetit.