I would like you to read the following text. It is a thought that deserves your attention in these time. I would like that you benefit from another vision than hostile and warlike.

It is necessary to take our distances when a view dominates the media (especially in war time when the information is under control). I only hear hatred, retaliation and wish of revenge from our neighbour to the South and all western nations rally to him. An afrivan proverb is saying: *we do not put out fire by fire.* Let us bring to justice the terrorists but not declare war to an unidentified ennemy. It is too easy to demonize the Other.

It is sometime a sign of wisdom to return to religion and philosophy, especially when it is over two thousand years old. Here is a bouddhist response to the Holy war against evil declared by President Bush. The author is unknown.

A NEW HOLY WAR AGAINST EVIL?
> A Buddhist Response
>
>
>Like most other Americans, I have been struggling to digest the events of
>the last week. It has taken a while to realize how psychically numbed
>many of us are. In the space of a few hours, our world changed. We do
>not yet know what those changes will mean, but the most important
>long-term ones may well be psychological.
>
>
>Americans have always understood the United States to be a special and
>uniquely privileged place. The Puritans viewed New England as the
>Promised Land. According to Melville, ³We Americans are the peculiar,
>chosen people.² In many parts of the globe the twentieth century has been
>particularly horrible, but the continental United States has been so
>insulated from these tragedies that we have come to think of ourselves as
>immune to them ­ although we have often contributed to them.
>
>
>That confidence has been abruptly shattered. We have discovered that the
>borderless world of globalization allows us no refuge from the hatred and
>violence that predominate in many parts of the world.
>
>
>Every death reminds us of our own, and sudden, unexpected death on such a
>large scale makes it harder to repress awareness of our own
>mortality. Our obsessions with such things as money, consumerism, and
>professional sports have been revealed for what they are: unworthy of all
>the attention we devote to them. There is something valuable to learn
>here, but this reality nonetheless makes us quite uncomfortable. We do
>not like to think about death. We usually prefer to be distracted.
>
>
>Talk of vengeance and ³bomb them back to the stone age² makes many of us
>uneasy, but naturally we want to strike back. On Friday President Bush
>declared that the United States has been called to a new worldwide mission
>³to rid the world of evil,² and on Sunday he said that the government is
>determined to ³rid the world of evil-doers.² Our land of freedom now has
>a responsibility to extirpate the world of its evil. We may no longer
>have an ³evil empire² to defeat, but we have found a more sinister evil
>that will require a long-term, all-out war to destroy.
>
>
>If anything is evil, those terrorist attacks were evil. I share that
>sentiment, but I think we need to take a close look at the
>vocabulary. When Bush says he wants to rid the world of evil, alarm bells
>go off in my mind, because that is what Hitler and Stalin also wanted to
do.
>
>
>I¹m not defending either of those evil-doers, just explaining what they
>were trying to do. What was the problem with Jews that required a ³final
>solution²? The earth could be made pure for the Aryan race only by
>exterminating the Jews, the impure vermin who contaminate it. Stalin
>needed to exterminate well-to-do Russian peasants to establish his ideal
>society of collective farmers. Both were trying to perfect this world by
>eliminating its impurities. The world can be made good only by destroying
>its evil elements.
>
>
>Paradoxically, then, one of the main causes of evil in this world has been
>human attempts to eradicate evil.
>
>
>Friday¹s Washington Post quoted Joshua Teitelbaum, a scholar who has
>studied a more contemporary evil-doer: ³Osama bin Laden looks at the
>world in very stark, black-and-white terms. For him, the U.S. represents
>the forces of evil that are bringing corruption and domination into the
>Islamic world².
>
>
>What is the difference between bin Laden¹s view and Bush¹s? They are
>mirror opposites. What bin Laden sees as good ­ an Islamic jihad against
>an impious and materialistic imperialism ­ Bush sees as evil. What Bush
>sees as good ­ America the defender of freedom ­ bin Laden sees as
>evil. They are two different versions of the same
>holy-war-between-good-and-evil.
>
>
>Do not misunderstand me here. I am not equating them morally, nor in any
>way trying to excuse the horrific events of last Tuesday. From a Buddhist
>perspective, however, there is something dangerously delusive about the
>mirror-image views of both sides. We must understand how this
>black-and-white way of thinking deludes not only Islamic terrorists but
>also us, and therefore brings more suffering into the world.
>
>
>This dualism of good-versus-evil is attractive because it is a simple way
>of looking at the world. And most of us are quite familiar with
>it. Although it is not unique to the Abrahamic religions ­ Judaism,
>Christianity, and Islam ­ it is especially important for them. It is one
>of the reasons why the conflicts among them have been so difficult to
>resolve peacefully: adherents tend to identify their own religion as good
>and demonize the other as evil.
>
>
>(Historically, the dualism seems to have originated with the Persian
>religion of Zoroastrianism, which saw this world as the battleground of a
>cosmic war between good and evil, and anticipated an apocalyptic victory
>for the forces of good at the end of time. The Jews probably absorbed
>this idea during their Babylonian captivity, and both Christianity and
>Islam got this dualism from them.)
>
>
>It is difficult to turn the other cheek when we view the world through
>these spectacles, because this rationalizes the opposite principle: an
>eye for an eye. If the world is a battleground of good and evil forces,
>the evil that is in the world must be fought by any means necessary.
>
>
>The secularization of the modern West did not eliminate this tendency. In
>some ways it has intensified it, because we can no longer rely on a
>supernatural resolution. We have to depend upon ourselves to bring about
>the final victory of good over evil ­ as Hitler and Stalin tried to
>do. It is unclear how much help bin Laden and Bush expect from God.
>
>
>Why do I emphasize this dualism? The basic problem with this way of
>understanding conflict is that it tends to preclude thought, because it is
>so simplistic. It keeps us from looking deeper, from trying to discover
>causes. Once something has been identified as evil, there is no more need
>to explain it; it is time to focus on fighting against it. This is where
>Buddhism has something important to contribute.
>
>
>Buddhism emphasizes the three roots of evil, also known as the three
>poisons: greed, ill will and delusion. The Abrahamic religions emphasize
>the struggle between good and evil because for them the basic issue
>depends on our will: which side are we on? In contrast, Buddhism
>emphasizes ignorance and enlightenment because the basic issue depends on
>our self-knowledge: do we really understand what motivates us?
>
>
>According to Buddhism, every effect has its web of causes and
>conditions. This is the law of karma. One way to summarize the essential
>Buddhist teaching is that we suffer, and cause others to suffer, because
>of greed, ill will and delusion. Karma implies that when our actions are
>motivated by these roots of evil, their negative consequences tend to
>rebound back upon us. The Buddhist solution to suffering involves
>transforming our greed into generosity, our ill will into loving-kindness,
>and our delusions into wisdom.
>
>
>What do these Buddhist teachings imply about the situation we now find
>ourselves in? The following is from today¹s statement by the Buddhist
>Peace Fellowship:
>
>³Nations deny causality by ascribing blame to others¹ terrorists, rogue
>nations, and so on. Singling out an enemy, we short-circuit the
>introspection necessary to see our own karmic responsibility for the
>terrible acts that have befallen us. . . . Until we own causes we bear
>responsibility for, in this case in the Middle East, last week¹s violence
>will make no more sense than an earthquake or cyclone, except that in its
>human origin it turns us toward rage and revenge.²
>
>
>We cannot focus only on the second root of evil, the hatred and violence
>that have just been directed against the United States. The three roots
>are intertwined. Ill will cannot be separated from greed and
>delusion. This requires us to ask: why do so many people in the Middle
>East, in particular, hate us so much? What have we done to encourage that
>hatred? Americans think of America as defending freedom and justice, but
>obviously that is not the way they perceive us. Are they just
>misinformed, then, or is it we who are misinformed?
>
>
>"Does anybody think that we can send the USS New Jersey to lob
>Volkswagen-sized shells into Lebanese villages -- Reagan, 1983 -- or loose
>'smart bombs' on civilians seeking shelter in a Baghdad bunker -- Bush,
>1991 -- or fire cruise missiles on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory --
>Clinton, 1999 -- and not receive, someday, our share in kind?" (Micah
Sifry)
>
>
>In particular, how much of our foreign policy in the Middle East has been
>motivated by our love of freedom and democracy, and how much has been
>motivated by our need ­ our greed ­ for its oil? If our main priority has
>been securing oil supplies, does it mean that our petroleum-based economy
>is one of the causes of last week¹s attack?
>
>
>Finally, Buddhist teachings suggest that we look at the role of delusion
>in creating this situation. Delusion has a special meaning in
>Buddhism. The fundamental delusion is our sense of separation from the
>world we are ³in,² including other people. Insofar as we feel separate
>from others, we are more inclined to manipulate them to get what we
>want. This naturally breeds resentment ­ both from others, who do not
>like to be used, and within ourselves, when we do not get what we want. .
>. . Is this also true collectively?
>
>
>Delusion becomes wisdom when we realize that ³no one is an island.² We
>are interdependent because we are all part of each other, different facets
>of the same jewel we call the earth. This world is a not a collection of
>objects but a community of subjects. That interdependence means we cannot
>avoid responsibility for each other. This is true not only for the
>residents of lower Manhattan, now uniting in response to this catastrophe,
>but for all the people in the world, however deluded they may be. Yes,
>including the terrorists who did these heinous acts and those who support
>them.
>
>
>Do not misunderstand me here. Those responsible for the attacks must be
>caught and brought to justice. That is our responsibility to all those
>who have suffered, and that is also our responsibility to the deluded and
>hate-full terrorists, who must be stopped. If, however, we want to stop
>this cycle of hatred and violence, we must realize that our responsibility
>is much broader than that.
>
>
>Realizing our interdependence and mutual responsibility for each other
>implies something more. When we try to live this interdependence, it is
>called love. Love is more than a feeling, it is a mode of being in the
>world. In Buddhism we talk mostly about compassion, generosity, and
>loving-kindness, but they all reflect this mode of being. Such love is
>sometimes mocked as weak and ineffectual, yet it can be very powerful, as
>Gandhi showed. And it embodies a deep wisdom about how the cycle of
>hatred and violence works and about how that cycle can be ended. An eye
>for an eye makes the whole world blind, but there is an
>alternative. Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Buddha said:
>
>
>"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me" -- for
those who
>harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.
>
>"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me" -- for
those who
>do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease.
>
>In this world hatred is never appeased by hatred; hatred is always
>appeased by love. This is an ancient law. (Dhammapada, 3-5)
>
>
>Of course, this transformative insight is not unique to Buddhism. After
>all, it was not the Buddha who gave us the image of turning the other
>cheek. In all the Abrahamic religions the tradition of a holy war between
>good and evil coexists with this ³ancient law² about the power of
>love. That does not mean all the world¹s religions have emphasized this
>law to the same extent. In fact, I wonder if this is one way to measure
>the maturity of a religion, or at least its continuing relevance for us
>today: how much the liberative truth of this law is acknowledged and
>encouraged. I do not know enough about Islam to compare, but in the cases
>of Buddhism and Christianity, for example, it is the times when this truth
>has not been emphasized that these two religions have been most subverted
>by secular rulers and nationalistic fervor.
>
>
>So where does that leave us today? We find ourselves at a turning
>point. A lust for vengeance and violent retaliation is rising, fanned by
>a leader caught up in his own rhetoric of a holy war to purify the world
>of evil. Please consider: does the previous sentence describe bin Laden,
>or President Bush?
>
>
>If we pursue the path of large-scale violence, bin Laden¹s holy war and
>Bush¹s holy war will become two sides of the same war.
>
>
>No one can foresee all the consequences of such a war. They are likely to
>spin out of control and take on a life of their own. However, one
>sobering effect is clearly implied by the ³ancient law²: massive
>retaliation by the United States in the Middle East will spawn a new
>generation of suicidal terrorists, eager to do their part in this holy war.
>
>
>But widespread violence is not the only possibility. If this time of
>crisis encourages us to see through the rhetoric of a war to exterminate
>evil, and if we begin to understand the intertwined roots of this evil,
>including our own responsibility, then perhaps something good may yet come
>out of this catastrophic tragedy.