City of Roses
|Look, what I'm trying to say here is that, by all means, we need to become broader-minded in understanding what the effects of violence and hardship can produce on each subsequent generation, and understand that, along with their populaces being governed by some who choose propagandizing a "die side-by-side" camapign rather than rule with peaceful pursuits and working to improve the social needs of their people, how it is influencing young people to become brainwashed into tomorrow's "terrorists".
That is one main reason why I wholeheartedly condemn war generally speaking, no matter who commits to it; it only turns younger generations into cynics at earlier ages when they always grow up in physical environments where it feels as though there's nothing beyond the shrapnel, where one can't recall seeing any sort of cloud besides clouds formed from gunpowder and bomb smoke, where there's something more thicker than love. War is the ultimate cancer of mankind, afflicting not only we individuals, but reversing and harming the social welfare and health of each community, as well as the cancer that paralyzes any youthful idealism and hope and washes it away into a martyrdom cynicism.
What I was meaning by that earlier "swindlers" and "opportunists" response is that the most ruthless of individuals volunteering in terrorism campaigns are these children of yesterday who have become dangerously cynical from previous hardships that they feel there is no alternative to what they're doing, that it's excessively difficult to reach them because their minds have become largely closed to new ideas after much hardship. It doesn't mean that those who commit themselves to terrorist regimes have become the opposite of human, it's just though it's important that we hold an idealistic hope and optimism to heart that we can teach and influence younger generations about the moral value of peace and non-violence and to resist radical regimes by electing leaders that value the social needs of their citizens rather than those who teach retaliation, we need to be a little pragmatic as well and recognize there are still threats out there, and we must stand firm and condemn such threats.
Sometimes, because I speak out against war all the time, I'm mistaken as a "radical pacifist". There are more than one type of pacifist though, and I consider myself what's called a "pragmatist pacifist"; a pacifist who condemns war and believe no matter what it should ALWAYS be a LAST resort, but also believes that some sorts of coercive force are justified sometimes, such as dismantling factories that produce chemical weapons and other things that are well-documented to be potential threats on populaces, and targeting specific individuals that lead terror groups through secret operations and such. I also don't believe (except in terms of nuclear weapons and proliferation where I believe we have absolutely no excuse for having them in the world) in absolute disarmament, but just arms reductions, where the money from those reductions would go towards improving the social needs of the state and the citizens, while making sure we still have an active military, and that strategic sites like nuclear power plants, ports and large cities are actively secure. So I take anti-war understanding seriously, but also understand defense is important too and both are moral issues.
The final word I have here is, I believe there's good in everyone, and in heart, despite our differences, we have more in common than we do difference, even in the most martyred and cynica of spirits. So deep down I believe we can reach what we refer to as our "enemies" in some way, and that it's important that we do so too, as there's always a way to do so without appeasing, or "sucking up" to them. But we just have to be careful in how we do so as well. I'm not discouraging us from attempting to do so, but we have to be serious and firm when we do so, to show that though we can reason, we cannot allow terror to go on as well.
The ultimate test is in educating the next generations of believing in living side-by-side, and getting representatives that share this philosophy elected into their governments at all levels, where I believe in simplistic terms that's the key at resolving this conflict over the next few generations. It will absolutely be quite difficult, and hopeless and utopian to many as well, but it's the best way I believe, for violence only enfranchises the next crop of cynics who hopelessly find their ways into these radical militia groups.
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"