3 ms·

just because your idea of gandhi doesn't match gandhi in real life, you cannot just say "even gandhi wasn't gandhi". Mandela and Gandhi were just humans fightin

just because your idea of gandhi doesn't match gandhi in real life, you cannot just say "even gandhi wasn't gandhi". Mandela and Gandhi were just humans fighting for equal rights for the oppressed. As a programmer, once you think about the rights one enjoys as a white and feels the double standard a non-white experiences trying to have that same right -when you think about it abstractly as rights of humans, anyone who can empathize will feel rage at the double standards that still exists. You have to go back nearly 50 years and think the standards that existed at the time. When I think that way, I think Mandela and Gandhi were incredibly brave. Because Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk is entirely different. How did the ISIS come into existence. It is the end result of USA and other western countries that tried to arm people to revolt violently against an existing government. That government might be monarchy/dictatorship. But that is no reason for USA to arm people against that government. Those who take up arms are those inherently leaning towards a violent side. Internal politics of other countries shouldn't be meddled with. The people of a country should struggle and push through reforms to a better government. But once violent extremists rooting for the cause has been armed, as the first blood spills there is no reason anymore to both sides. I badly want to beat up all war mongers in the world. These stupid plans are all treating symptoms instead of treating the root cause of terrorism.

dogma1138 10y ago
>just because your idea of gandhi doesn't match gandhi in real life, you cannot just say "even gandhi wasn't gandhi". Mandela and Gandhi were just humans fighting for equal rights for the oppressed. As a programmer, once you think about the rights one enjoys as a white and feels the double standard a non-white experiences trying to have that same right -when you think about it abstractly as rights of humans, anyone who can empathize will feel rage at the double standards that still exists. You have to go back nearly 50 years and think the standards that existed at the time. When I think that way, I think Mandela and Gandhi were incredibly brave. Because Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk is entirely different. I think you misunderstood my point, the point was that even Gandhi wasn't a pure pacifist (not that there is anything wrong with that, it is what it is). Overall there were good reasons why Mandela would be on a terrorist watch list regardless how you feel about him, his ideals, or his actions. [moral relativism leads to moral bankruptcy] >How did the ISIS come into existence. It is the end result of USA and other western countries that tried to arm people to revolt violently against an existing government. That is gross oversimplification of the situation, if you want to talk about root causes then a situational power vacuum isn't a root cause. >But that is no reason for USA to arm people against that government. Those who take up arms are those inherently leaning towards a violent side. Internal politics of other countries shouldn't be meddled with. The US did not arm ISIS directly, they did support various other factions in some cases even rival ones. >Internal politics of other countries shouldn't be meddled with. Countries meddle in the inner politics of other countries all the time, that's how politics work there are different forms of meddling from statements to actions but everyone meddles this is how the world works. Apartheid fell because of meddling, the Berlin wall fell because of meddling, not every result is positive and not every result is immediately understood. >The people of a country should struggle and push through reforms to a better government. But once violent extremists rooting for the cause has been armed, as the first blood spills there is no reason anymore to both sides. You have again gross misconception about "people", "nations" and various other concepts that simply do not exist in major parts of the world. Nationalism is still in its infancy in the middle east you would find more people in Germany who can recognize the Afghan flag than in Afghanistan. Government and democratic institutions simply do not exist, democracy is more than election, infact elections have nothing to do with democracy they are just a slightly less violent form of conflict resolution and decision making. Fair courts, transparency, free press, and many other institutions and concepts do not exist, many of these reforms that the people want to push are not "reforms" in any way shape and form as far as modern social democratic value goes. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood did quite a bit of "reforms" in Egypt after the election, it didn't however brought the country any closer to democracy. Erdogan is doing a lot of "reforms" in Turkey these days which threaten to pull turkey effectively back 200 years, one can hear the buzzing hum of Kemal Ataturk spinning in this grave from across the bosphorus. >I badly want to beat up all war mongers in the world. Isn't that ironic. Overall what disturbs me the most is the cognitive dissonance that some people have, the west grew to what it is today from the bloodiest period in history, there aren't really shortcuts in life, you can't expect the world to catch up without bloodshed. Blaming everything on colonialism and foreign policy holds very little water when in fact it's simply the violent birth of nations and peoples, since you can't isolate them because the Truman Show isn't real and you aren't alone on the planet you have to pick sides and try to push them towards better ideals. Violence is part of human nature, warmongering is a red herring. Also people seem to have pretty short memory, WW2 wasn't that long ago, racial segregation wasn't that long ago, N. Ireland was pretty much yesterday and terrorist attacks across continental Europe were fairly frequent until the late 80's early 90's, people seem to forget the Red Brigades, ASALA, 17N, Abu Nidal and the likes, guess they have worse marketing than ISIS.
- rubberstamp 10y ago
  If you think USA is actually trying to bring democracy, then its not me who is naive. Democracy is not the only way. Just because an outsider drew and created a border and calling it a nation doesn't make it a country. Colonialism was just taking away other people's resources and treating those people like shit while at it. If UK would have created institutions for welfare and development of people and treated them on par with their citizens, then as those people see that as a step closer to better living than as some foreigners that were killing their own, there wouldn't have been any freedom movements and UK would have been biggest country on earth. Am not blaiming anyone. Just trying to point out that nothing good comes out of violence. If we take away the power to kill other person, then eventually they will find a way to live alongside eachother. With a gun you can kill someone in just one second. If there were no gun and no advanced training in killing, then killing becomes messy and bloody and there wont be as many killings. >You have again gross misconception about "people", "nations" and various other concepts that simply do not exist in major parts of the world. I do not have any such misconceptions. You can't meddle and force them to live your way at flip of a button. Tribes have their own form of government. Some are good. As long as they are not isolated, they will evolve to better forms of governing. It may take some time, but it eventually they will discover a better form of government and gradually implement it. Take UK for example. They were just normal humans like anyone else. No outsider brought democracy to UK. If it were bought to them forcefully by outsider by overthrowing their king/queen, and throwing away all government structures UK had at that point, and then install someone else as their new head, then UK too would be a bloody mess like libya or syria

dogma1138 10y ago

>just because your idea of gandhi doesn't match gandhi in real life, you cannot just say "even gandhi wasn't gandhi". Mandela and Gandhi were just humans fighting for equal rights for the oppressed. As a programmer, once you think about the rights one enjoys as a white and feels the double standard a non-white experiences trying to have that same right -when you think about it abstractly as rights of humans, anyone who can empathize will feel rage at the double standards that still exists. You have to go back nearly 50 years and think the standards that existed at the time. When I think that way, I think Mandela and Gandhi were incredibly brave. Because Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk is entirely different. I think you misunderstood my point, the point was that even Gandhi wasn't a pure pacifist (not that there is anything wrong with that, it is what it is). Overall there were good reasons why Mandela would be on a terrorist watch list regardless how you feel about him, his ideals, or his actions. [moral relativism leads to moral bankruptcy] >How did the ISIS come into existence. It is the end result of USA and other western countries that tried to arm people to revolt violently against an existing government. That is gross oversimplification of the situation, if you want to talk about root causes then a situational power vacuum isn't a root cause. >But that is no reason for USA to arm people against that government. Those who take up arms are those inherently leaning towards a violent side. Internal politics of other countries shouldn't be meddled with. The US did not arm ISIS directly, they did support various other factions in some cases even rival ones. >Internal politics of other countries shouldn't be meddled with. Countries meddle in the inner politics of other countries all the time, that's how politics work there are different forms of meddling from statements to actions but everyone meddles this is how the world works. Apartheid fell because of meddling, the Berlin wall fell because of meddling, not every result is positive and not every result is immediately understood. >The people of a country should struggle and push through reforms to a better government. But once violent extremists rooting for the cause has been armed, as the first blood spills there is no reason anymore to both sides. You have again gross misconception about "people", "nations" and various other concepts that simply do not exist in major parts of the world. Nationalism is still in its infancy in the middle east you would find more people in Germany who can recognize the Afghan flag than in Afghanistan. Government and democratic institutions simply do not exist, democracy is more than election, infact elections have nothing to do with democracy they are just a slightly less violent form of conflict resolution and decision making. Fair courts, transparency, free press, and many other institutions and concepts do not exist, many of these reforms that the people want to push are not "reforms" in any way shape and form as far as modern social democratic value goes. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood did quite a bit of "reforms" in Egypt after the election, it didn't however brought the country any closer to democracy. Erdogan is doing a lot of "reforms" in Turkey these days which threaten to pull turkey effectively back 200 years, one can hear the buzzing hum of Kemal Ataturk spinning in this grave from across the bosphorus. >I badly want to beat up all war mongers in the world. Isn't that ironic. Overall what disturbs me the most is the cognitive dissonance that some people have, the west grew to what it is today from the bloodiest period in history, there aren't really shortcuts in life, you can't expect the world to catch up without bloodshed. Blaming everything on colonialism and foreign policy holds very little water when in fact it's simply the violent birth of nations and peoples, since you can't isolate them because the Truman Show isn't real and you aren't alone on the planet you have to pick sides and try to push them towards better ideals. Violence is part of human nature, warmongering is a red herring. Also people seem to have pretty short memory, WW2 wasn't that long ago, racial segregation wasn't that long ago, N. Ireland was pretty much yesterday and terrorist attacks across continental Europe were fairly frequent until the late 80's early 90's, people seem to forget the Red Brigades, ASALA, 17N, Abu Nidal and the likes, guess they have worse marketing than ISIS.

rubberstamp 10y ago
If you think USA is actually trying to bring democracy, then its not me who is naive. Democracy is not the only way. Just because an outsider drew and created a border and calling it a nation doesn't make it a country. Colonialism was just taking away other people's resources and treating those people like shit while at it. If UK would have created institutions for welfare and development of people and treated them on par with their citizens, then as those people see that as a step closer to better living than as some foreigners that were killing their own, there wouldn't have been any freedom movements and UK would have been biggest country on earth. Am not blaiming anyone. Just trying to point out that nothing good comes out of violence. If we take away the power to kill other person, then eventually they will find a way to live alongside eachother. With a gun you can kill someone in just one second. If there were no gun and no advanced training in killing, then killing becomes messy and bloody and there wont be as many killings. >You have again gross misconception about "people", "nations" and various other concepts that simply do not exist in major parts of the world. I do not have any such misconceptions. You can't meddle and force them to live your way at flip of a button. Tribes have their own form of government. Some are good. As long as they are not isolated, they will evolve to better forms of governing. It may take some time, but it eventually they will discover a better form of government and gradually implement it. Take UK for example. They were just normal humans like anyone else. No outsider brought democracy to UK. If it were bought to them forcefully by outsider by overthrowing their king/queen, and throwing away all government structures UK had at that point, and then install someone else as their new head, then UK too would be a bloody mess like libya or syria