Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent
65 replies, posted
Nevermind.
Nevermind what?
our government has actively funded and endorsed terrorist organizations in the past
ergo it's going to fight a war on itself..?
[editline]25th May 2013[/editline]
conflict is in the nature of every organism as a mechanism by which they can survive and reproduce.
however, this is a very simplistic outlook. conflict in human society, particularly competition among individuals and groups within the human species, is now solved via different mechanisms. if two people have a problem with each other, they normally take it to court, or use other legal practices to resolve the problem. it typically doesn't involve much death, if any at all.
when two people want to meet conflicting goals, conflict is always going to be the result, but [B]violence is not the only form of conflict[/B], and ideological conflict (such as those in political systems) can sometimes be rather beneficial, because the positive tenets of conflicting ideologies are used in synergy through the use of compromise.
we probably won't avoid conflict unless ideologies become entirely homogenized, or the human race becomes some kind of hive-like super-organism.
[QUOTE=joes33431;40773532]our government has actively funded and endorsed terrorist organizations in the past
ergo it's going to fight a war on itself..?[/QUOTE]
Indeed.
[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/166015_487234811347991_65814646_n.jpg[/IMG]
[quote][editline]25th May 2013[/editline]
conflict is in the nature of every organism as a mechanism by which they can survive and reproduce.
however, this is a very simplistic outlook. conflict in human society, particularly competition among individuals and groups within the human species, is now solved via different mechanisms. if two people have a problem with each other, they normally take it to court, or use other legal practices to resolve the problem. it typically doesn't involve much death, if any at all.
when two people want to meet conflicting goals, conflict is always going to be the result, but [B]violence is not the only form of conflict[/B], and ideological conflict (such as those in political systems) can sometimes be rather beneficial, because the positive tenets of conflicting ideologies are used in synergy through the use of compromise.
we probably won't avoid conflict unless ideologies become entirely homogenized, or the human race becomes some kind of hive-like super-organism.[/quote]
Yeah I like your thinking. Violence is most definitely not the only form of conflict although many think it is. Personally I think it's because there seems to be some kind of stigma against having conflicting ideologies and speaking about them in honesty, especially in the ruling political class. And that's before you even go into the under(and mis-)representation of the views of the average person.
The need for real consensus and co-operation, as opposed to authoritarian prick waving and competition for it's own sake, seems to have got lost somewhere in a sea of apathy and inaction.
We aren't likely to become a hive mind obviously but we can find better solutions to our problems [I]together[/I] and try to utilise our differences and diversity as strengths through less destructive means of conflict and decision making.
[QUOTE=joes33431;40773532]our government has actively funded and endorsed terrorist organizations in the past
ergo it's going to fight a war on itself..?[/QUOTE]
In politics terror is a relative term. Terrorists cause terror for their enemies, not their allies. from a supporter's perspective it's plain old revolution: a violent act committed to advance a cause being suppressed by society.
This applies to our government just as it would to someone sympathetic towards the people we call terrorists. If we support it it's a revolution, if we oppose it then it's terrorism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.